Archives viewable here

Creating pages and templates

Hi Venomoth. When you next create a page or a template, be sure to categorise it so that it can be found later and doesn't end up here. With that said, your recent contribution Template:Pkm was not required. The word Pokémon isn't terribly hard to write using alt-codes (e.g. Alt+130) or the character palette below the screen. It encourages laziness and has been deleted now. —darklordtrom 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Laziness? That's the point of templates: To provide a shortcut. I don't think it should be deleted, although I did create it before I noticed the "Poké" in the Character palette of editing pages. Thanks for the nomination! ...I think. =$ --*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* 06:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenhorou not a branched evolution, so it should not be treated as such. It evolves into the same Pokemon, it just has a (significant) gender difference. 梅子 01:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It still needs to be added, in all cases of Pokémon with form differences, such as Meloetta, Rotom and Shellos we always include those in the evolution. I guess when we get a infobox image of the female we can have the page alternate like on the rest of the of them. --*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* 01:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Except it's a gender difference, not a form difference. Please refrain from adding it back to the article. 梅子 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If we do Kenhorou then we have to do these guys too. It's silly to do one gender and not the others just because it's more noticeable. --ケンジガール 02:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, that is not an invitation to add branched evolutions to Venusaur's page and such. 梅子 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a good list, but most of those are so minor, we clearly see that Kenhorou is very dimorphed, like Burungel, which has an alternating page. I'm not saying we have to for all of them, I just thought it made sense to do it for the most obvious ones. --*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* 04:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Forme switching

All Forme switchers are to be discussed with TTEchidna.--MisterE13 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If I can ever message her his talk page, that is. By the time I get to it she's he's usually got it closed. --*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
TTEchidna is a dude. Also, he's taking some time away from Bulbapedia atm; direct those sorts of discussions to whichever member of the Editorial Board or administration team you think is suitably qualified to handle it. —darklordtrom 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I'm usually really good at guessing people's gender by their writing style - rare mistake. =P --*Ɣℯ№ӎօṫհ* 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Two people a consensus does not make. Especially when you have a third person who disagrees. Werdnae (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly it's three now to two. Will comment more @ Your talk page. Vemoth 00:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi! evkl here. If you're unhappy with all the pedia staff and me based on the outcome of that thread, that's okay. But I don't appreciate you saying I closed off discussion because I expected to lose the debate. You could continue to post the same sorts of arguments you were posting and I could continue to engage and rebut them in a way I thought reasonable. But that's tedious. I also don't think it would end. And frankly, I don't think you were interested in a reasoned discussion on the issue designed to reach a logical conclusion. I think you wanted (and still want) your way. Which, again, you're entitled to desire and think. But please don't accuse me of impropriety--in this case, that would be closing a thread to stifle debate. Or, if you really think I am just trying to silence dissenters, I'd appreciate if you came to me and talked about it instead of mentioning it in passing on a talk page behind my back.


-- evkl (need to talk?) 05:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I did want a reasonable discussion. I came up with at least 14 different reasons why I was correct and not one of the maybe 5 people on the opposed side that bothered to post anything could out-explain or out-reason them. I was wondering if anyone would make me have a "Gee, I never thought of that! Fair enough, you're right." moment, but it never happened. What do I have to gain by having a couple lines of Wikipipe with a 15 pixel image and asterisk put on the Grass-type page? Nothing. But that's what I was saying we should have because it's in step with all other similar cases and I believe it's true to the story of Pokémon. To be frank, I was offering reasons and it seems to me that you and others were just offering opinions. I wasn't really posting that behind your back because I had already linked it and directed it to you and anyone could've clicked it, but that is what you did do, you did just for no real reason close a discussion. And I don't really care. I have my reasons, you and the other 21 have your feelings, I suppose. Vemoth 06:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Word of God Sugimori

Its (Arceus') shape doesn't change, so it doesn't have "formes."

Just thought I'd let you know. 梅子 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)