Welcome to Bulbapedia, Pale Prism!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  Mr. Daikon (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)  

Prevo template changes

Hey there,

I'm afraid I had to revert your recent changes to prevo templates since..

  • they broke consistency to other templates (including non prevo templates), both visually and design-wise
  • they sometimes just broke the templates itself, such that the page would display nonsense (I randomly noticed Hitmonchan's Gen I page)
  • they appear to not be discussed (nor approved)

Generally, please don't go around and change templates significantly without at least discussing the changes beforehand. And if it's a major change like here, it should really be ensured to still function as intended, such as by having it thoroughly tested/doublechecked by a staff member. Nescientist (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah… Sorry about that. I kinda got a bit carried away. After making all of the additions to my custom CSS, I might've overlooked the fact that changes to templates are visible by hundreds/thousands of people. In the future, I'll test things like this in my sandbox first. Pale Prism (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit!

Thank you for your detailed edit to the Darkness page! Blueapple128 (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Pale Prism (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Item locations

I like your item location edits. Thanks! Do you think you could help with the Unova item location descriptions, too? I feel too many of them are dependant describing the location in relation to a Trainer's location and tend to be rather imprecise. This has been bothering me for a while, and I'd be happy to receive help on the matter. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I'm mostly only going through a bunch of Sinnoh locations at the moment because I'm actively playing through Diamond and comparing my playthrough to the articles on this wiki. I'd love to help with Unova locations too, but I don't know how much use I'd actually be. Pale Prism (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The internet has some extensive playthroughs of the Unova games that I'm certain could be helpful. But hey, feel free to wrap up the Sinnoh stuff first! --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle Zone

I am still unconvinced that the Battle Zone is in the same boat as the other regions you listed. Unlike the Sevii Islands, the Isle of Armor, and Crown Tundra (which all have their own maps), the Battle Zone is located on the same map as the rest of Sinnoh. In addition, a Hiker in B2W2 states that Stark Mountain is located in Sinnoh. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The map thing seems like a pretty arbitrary reason to think of the Battle Zone as being completely un-distinct from mainland Sinnoh (by the same logic, Johto and Kanto should be parts of the same region because of HGSS, and many of the Sevii Islands should all be completely different regions because of FRLG). As for the Hiker in B2W2, it's literally one NPC in B2W2 against several NPCs in DPPt (and I'm pretty sure that an NPC in either XY or ORAS refers to the Sevii Islands as being part of Kanto). Regardless, the Battle Zone just being part of Sinnoh (but only as some kind of "subregion" or "subdivision") doesn't really affect any of the changes that I've made. It's still a significant-enough area to get its own section on certain pages. Pale Prism (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how it's arbitrary at all. It's the only "sub-region" that doesn't have its own map. The Johto/Kanto argument is a bit flawed considering there's a header on the map that says either "Johto" or "Kanto" depending on the region you're in. I don't think the Sevii Islands argument holds up well either, given that there's no individual names for Sevii Islands 1-3, 4-5, or 6-7.
Once again, I don't believe it should be listed as a region on the template. Being separate from the mainland on the map is not unique to the Battle Zone either (as shown by Cinnabar Island in Kanto, Cianwood City and its surrounding areas in Johto, and a few areas in Hoenn like Mossdeep City/Sootopolis City/Pacifidlog Town/Ever Grande City/the Battle Frontier). PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
That's all true, but I don't see how simply saying that the Battle Zone and mainland Sinnoh share a map is valid reasoning. Surely the way in which they're referred to is more important? Besides, it's also true that the Town Map in DPPt doesn't explicitly specify any particular region (so it can't be used as definitive proof that the Battle Zone and mainland Sinnoh are parts of the same region). Furthermore, yes, being separate from the mainland on the map isn't unique to the Battle Zone, but my main point is that many NPCs in DPPt refer to Sinnoh as being completely distinct from Sinnoh, just as many NPCs in FRLG refer to the Sevii Islands being completely distinct from Kanto. Pale Prism (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is that the Battle Zone doesn't truly distinguish itself from Sinnoh gameplay-wise in the same manner that the Sevii Islands, the Isle of Armor, and the Crown Tundra do, which is why I don't believe it is necessary to list it on the regions template.
In addition, the official map artwork for DP, Platinum, and BDSP all explicitly depict the Battle Zone and the BDSP website clearly indicates that it is a map of the Sinnoh region.
(I can't verify at the moment if what you said about the NPC talking about the Sevii Islands in XY is true or not, but an NPC in USUM refers to the Sevii Islands as his "homeland".) PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the new map for BDSP refers to everything as all being part of Sinnoh. However, I do have to point out that the official map of "Johto" that we got for the release of HGSS did include some locations that we know for a fact are actually in Kanto. (Honestly, it's pretty weird that I decided to make the changes that I did at the same time as new information concerning BDSP being released; that wasn't intentional). Also, I've done some looking around, and I think that the Gen. VI NPC that I was thinking of specifically references Resort Gorgeous, not the Sevii Islands in general. I thought that they referred to it as being in Kanto, but they actually don't, so I was wrong. However, I still think that an NPC in Unova saying that Stark Mountain is in Sinnoh might not be absolute proof. It's very common for people to refer to lesser-known places as being in more well-known ones for the sake of ease (e.g., "I don't technically live in New York City, but I'll say that I do so that people who aren't familiar with New York State know whereabouts I'm talking about"). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Hiker in B2W2 was doing a similar thing, especially considering all of the NPCs in DPPt (who are locals) who make it very clear that Sinnoh and the Battle Zone are different things. Pale Prism (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


While editing trivia sections, please note that there's no need to remove the space between the asterisks and the following text. Thanks. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason not to? I thought it was all just personal preference. Pale Prism (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's mainly personal preference. I just think it looks better if there's a space in between. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Right, well, I'm in the opposing camp :P. I wouldn't go out of my way to edit an article just for that, though. It's the same reason why I typically add spaces and semicolons to the CSS in articles that I edit. Ultimately, it makes no difference to the actual appearance of the article, and I genuinely wouldn't care too much if someone did what I did but in reverse (whilst making a meaningful edit at the same time, of course). Pale Prism (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving templates

If you just put the move template right onto the template like here, it'll get transcluded whenever the template is called (and I guess we don't want move templates on every page). If it's within noinclude tags, it might be okay, but another option is to go to the template's talk page, and/or ask a staff member directly (especially if it's urgent for some reason).

Also, had you provided a reason for your suggestion, I could have addressed it. Right now, I'm assuming you just want to move it to plural!? In that case, please see my edit from the page history (and maybe also this page) which suggests it's not the correct plural as per in-game. Nescientist (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah… sorry about that. I really should've noticed. I'm so used to making pretty minor edits to categories and my own userpages, it just sort of skipped my mind.
The main reason for the move was indeed the whole plural thing. If Bulbapedia's policy is to just go with whatever the games say, that's fine. However, in the link you gave, the correct plural for multiple instances of one type of mulch is listed, but not the collective plural for multiple different types of mulch. As I see it, you can have a lot of Growth Mulch and a lot of Rich Mulch, and that gives you multiple Mulches. Pale Prism (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


2 Pokémon are too few for saying they are specialists, they could just have 2 Dark-type for coincidence, without the intention of making them specialists at all, and the fact that the others TF Admins aren't specialists seems to support this, since is weird just 2 of them are specialists and the others not.

Shadow Triad, first of all is more a trainer class then a character. Second, just one of them have a full Dark-type team, and that seems more a coincidence (born by the fact all of them have 2 Bisharp) then be intentional, and is pretty dumb for just one of them being a specialist.

Battle them multiple times don't mean so much... because the team remain unchanged. I could understand if they had different species in multiple battles, but nope. They use the same Pokémon in every battle, and are way too few ro be considered specialists at all. And I have this same opinion for Lillie too--Zarxiel94 (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly just going off of what Force Fire has said. According to them, two pokémon is enough for a character to be considered a specialist.
Yes, it's strange for only two members of a specific trainer class to be specialists, but why can't they be? I also think that it's fine to treat each Shadow as an individual, and it could be the case that the dark-type specialisation for one of them is a coincidence, but it could also be that Game Freak decided that he specifically really loves dark-types. Overall, as we can't know exactly what the devs intended, it makes sense (to me) to use a consistent, descriptive standard for all characters. — ⚫︎ Pale Prism ⬟ [ TalkContribs ] 00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
For me 2 are too few... consider a character to be a specialist just because have 2 or 3 seems way too arbitrary. Let's make an exemple. Shelly in the originals Hoenn game just have: Sharpedo and Mightyena, by that logic she should be considered a Dark specialist, despite the TA being more related to Water, for then discover that wasn't intended in the remakes because she got Muk. Ariana in Kanto remake use 3 Poison type, but in Johto remake we know that was a coincidence, because she got Murkrow. Ariana is the perfect exemple of how a 3 Pokémon of 3 types can be just a coincidence. How I already suggested in the Lillie talk page (actually we should continue there since is a more "public page") A specialist should be considered so if:
  • The character is refered as such officially.
  • The character have all Pokémon of the same type and have at least 4 Pokémon.
Rose for exemple have 5 Pokémon, and all of them are Steel, and I highly doubt that is a coincidence. So using this criteria the characters that should not be considered as specialists are: Lillie (5 confirmed Pokémon and only 3 are Fairy), Colress (without counting the Battle Tree since a lot of trainer have weird Pokémon, have 4 Steel in a team of 6 (unless he is actually refered to be specialist somewhere and I'm unaware, but his team seems more a "science-themed team" instead of a Steel specialist team), Melli (too few and if we count the Noble, he have a Pokémon that don't match with the type), Gaeric? (he depend... by 2 things: if we count the species or each Pokémon, and if we count nobles. Because if we count each species, he just have 3, but if we count both noble and each Pokémon, then he have 4 Ice)
Sina is a weird case... Dexio is obviously made to be a Psychic specialist since he have a team of 5 Psychic. While Sina is his counterpart, but she only use Ice. So... here I guess we can count her as specialist because for her relationship with Dexio I guess...
For all the others I think we are fine.--Zarxiel94 (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough (I personally feel that the Aqua Admins should be considered Dark-type specialists, but that's neither here nor there). I don't have too much stock in how a type-specialist is defined; I just want there to be a consistent standard. In my opinion, it should be a descriptive standard, not a prescriptive one. — ⚫︎ Pale Prism ⬟ [ TalkContribs ] 01:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Yhea, the main problem of specialists is there is no official definition about them. If a character have a good number of Pokémon of the same type, is easy to define him as a specialist, but Steven and Raihan have a lot of Pokémon that don't match their specialism, but they are officially called specialists, so... no criteria at all... for this I hate when a specialist have a Pokémon that make no sense for his type. I mean... for how Steven and Raihan are treated, Alder too should be specialist... because there is no official criteria. For this I think the best thing to do is consider a specialist only if officially stated as such (like Steven) or if the character have at least 4 Pokémon (so more of a 50% of a full team) and all of the same type. Or some specialists would look like to be more an headcanon then an official thing.--Zarxiel94 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Bede Trivium

I'm confused. 1.) Elesa is described as the only female Electric-type Gym Leader, not specialist. 2.) Maylene was referred to as the only female Fighting-type specialist in 2013 (before Korrina was revealed) but this was nine years ago, and was technically untrue. She wasn't even the only notable female Fighting-type specialist, per Greta. 3.) Ramos has never been the only male Grass-type specialist, or even Gym Leader, per Cilan, who was described as the only male Grass-type Gym Leader in 2013 (before Ramos was revealed).

So, technically, as far as I can tell, Bede is the only type specialist who we have described as the only notable type specialist of their gender. I would be fine with Bede being described as the only male Fairy-type Gym Leader (although one of three still seems unnotable), but the current wording of the trivium feels subjective, unclear, and unencyclopedic. Landfish7 02:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Any reason you've made similar changes to the trivium on Elesa's page without responding to my concerns? Landfish7 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. Your points are all valid (I don't quite know why I specified Ramos over Cilan—brainfart, I guess). According to Force Fire. Elesa is 1 in 6 as an Electric-type specialist. Specifically, it's her status as a female type-specialist that's important, not her status as a female Gym Leader. — ⚫︎ Pale Prism ⬟ [ TalkContribs ] 00:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)