Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/Archive 1

Page Streamline

So I finally managed to get around to attempting to synthesize this rather bloated page into a slightly less bloated one ha... The essential problem is that I'd rather not have the continuity issues ("In the anime", etc) discussed on the page dedicated to the games, but I was reticent to remove them because that's more of a decision to be made by the masses. On that front, I'd like to know how people feel about that particular issue.

Also, it will be noticed that I removed the table describing the newest Pokemon in great detail as this is a matter more aptly suited to personal Pokemon pages. I, however, did not destroy the data completely and it is currently sitting on my hard drive. If need be, I'll put it back up here. (Or I suppose someone could copy it from an old revert... whatever ha.) Unless I'm mistaken, each of the new Pokemon has a page, and I'm on the way to add the contents of the table into said encyclopedic entry.

I can't actually think of anything else that may be an issue of the top of my head, but please, 'don't sit around and revert the article just because it looks differently.' In other words, act like you're not mentally handicapped. (I mention this last point because as I type this, someone has already reverted due to "vandalism"... funny. I guess this person has never)
Charles M. Reed 06:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I didn't revert it due to absolute vandalism. I reverted your edit because it was amateurish and created new mistakes that didn't exist in the previous version like capitalization of sub-titles and mispronunciations. So if you want to change an article for whatever arguable reason of yours at least try to maintain the quality of the previous edit instead of lowering it, which totally negates the purpose of an edit. Also, that's why I said "vandalism of several segments", rather than "total vandalism". Funny how your "healthy mind" works. Lividore 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It is more appropriate to put a note on the discussion page before you make a major edit (which didn't exist at the time of my reversion).

---

If you'll look at my next to last article edit note, you'll see that I asked for any concerned parties to take a look at the Discussion page. When you did that, and I shall assume you did that since you were aware that I was sitting on this very screen for some twenty odd minutes before actually completing it, did you suppose that I was bluffing? It would seem that you immediately chose to revert it due to "vandalism that in "several segments", ignoring my initial plea because you presumably decided that if the discussion page wasn't immediately updated then I had no right to make mass edits. I don't mind that - the discrepancy between my the article and the discussion of the changes was prolonged. I apologize for the confusion, but it isn't as if I waited several days. I was merely delayed by minutes.

However, you've said something interesting about the edit that being that the changes aren't on par with the original. Interesting that you would say that, since the information is essentially the same though reorganized and, in some cases, reworded. You complain about amateurish capitalization and mispronunciations, though you didn't attempt to change them - you just reverted. Apparently you presume that the previous titles were correct in themselves, which could be the case if wikipedia has different rules regarding titles. From my mindset, a section title is to be treated as if it were a chapter in a book. Ideally the standard for handling those is like such. As you can see, when you dicuss titles in this format, my choice was the correct one. I'm obviously missing out on something Wikipedia specific here though. Help me out if I am. You also mention mispronunciations, which I'm confused about due to not actually seeing them. If you can change those for me, and even point them out here to help me, I'd be grateful. I feel certain that my spelling is above average, but I could stand to be taken down a peg.

I'm also not sure why you felt a need to attack me about something as trivial as a wikipedia page. Perhaps you feel offended because of the "mentally handicapped" crack? I can assure you that facetiousness doesn't translate well in print; I don't know, or have anything personal against you, and that little snipe was intended to be a joke. I'm sorry that it wasn't more clear. That doesn't mean I wasn't annoyed with you for the complete revert though - I'd spend a substantial amount of time to actually craft and it lasted a whopping... five minutes? Anyway, back to making the page itself better and getting our personal egos out of the way. Of course, if you feel the need to revert it again, go ahead. It really doesn't matter. If it's still here when I wake up, further cleaning up will be undergone.
Charles M. Reed 08:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to vfd Summary

"A few of the "keep" voters added comments that indicate that they do not yet understand the meaning or purpose of Wikipedia:verifiable"

This is an interesting comment, but I think it is those for vfd that do not understand. Pokémon.com is an American site, and we know information about games months before they put it on their website. Serebii.net's front page for a game also is not to be trusted as it does not get updated. (We know more Pokémon than Gonbe, who we now know is called Munchlax in English.) Coro Coro magazine, on the other hand, is a Japanese Primary source, and the best place to find news and information on Pokémon. If someone with a little mor knowledge on it could make an article about it, I would be very grateful. Sonic Mew 11:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lucario v. Rucario

I know that there is some considerable debate concerning whether or not the proper romanization of the pokemon in question's name should be addressed with the L or the R, but I implore you all to at least come to a consensus on what will be utilized in the long-term future before the actual N/A unveiling, and reflect that change on this page. It doesn't make sense to have it Lucario in one name, and then have it as Rucario in respect to the movie title. I, of course, will not bother to touch it, since it could easily be manipulated by one who begs to differ.

- I suggest Wucario, mostly because neither L nor R matched the Japanese sound, but W is the closest. Lugia was Wugia for a while for the same reason. - Nick15

Meteoric Swarm

Pokémon moves can't be longer than twelve characters (e.g. EXTREMESPEED and THUNDERPUNCH). Therefore I question the accuracy of METEORIC SWARM. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A few things you have to keep in mind: 1) This is the Japanese name. You can say a lot more with fewer typographical characters in Japanese. 2) This is going to be on DS. DS cards hold more info than GBA carts, so there’s no reason new attacks can’t have longer names. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding List of Features

First of all, it is purely speculation that 16 trainers will meet in a "union room". Second, it is obvious that there will be new moves. Stop putting these back in. And as for the features of the DS that will be used, we have no idea about ANY, so don't write "whether or not the clock ... yadda yadda".Coltonblue 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Coltonblue

New topics go at the bottom of the page. It may be “obvious” to you, but that doesn’t mean it will be to everyone. Not everyone who reads the article will be intimately familiar with Pokémon. The 16 figure and Union Room were mentioned when the Wireless support was, and the mic and touchscreen were mentioned when that quote was released. The clock is relevant( because it’s been important to prior installments), but not among the obvious “feature set” and was not mentioned. I’ll look for the citation links. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Semicolon

As I explained in this edit, the sentence “CoroCoro recently gave Pokémon fans their first glimpse of Diamond and Pearl’s graphical style when it published a few screenshots, showcasing the game’s battle system, which uses more complex and detailed sprites; and the overworld, which mixes 2D and 3D elements, sporting a bright array of colors, all while maintaining the chibi style seen in previous editions.” does need a semicolon in the middle. Why? Because( aside from it being a massive run-on sentence) a semicolon is acceptable, and even preferred, for seperating list items when the list items contain descriptive clauses using commas, i.e.: [a, b, and c] but [a, which x; b, which y; and c]. At the moment, this is not an issue, since a helpful anon has broken it up into two sentences, a much better solution. But if it should ever be reverted for any reason, a semicolon is the appropriate break. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... it doesn't really matter any more, because the sentence has been split, however my sentence was perfectly correct without the semicolon. Though the sentence is, I admit, wordy, it isn't a run-on.Coltonblue 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Coltonblue

Cacophony?!?!?

Who, may I ask put that in the Abilities section? What Pokemon learns this ability?

According to the article history, Lividore made that particular edit. (See the June 15th edit, rv)Charles M. Reed 19:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Could you possibly refer to this edit? Well, I did make it, but, as I hope you can see, it certainly doesn't have the word "cacophony" in it. The edit was in fact made by an anon who added the whole "New Abilities" section in "15:23, 16 June 2006". But I wonder, putting the blame on me so quickly, perhaps you are still mad at me for previously reverting your edit. If so, then I assure you, I had no interest in hurting your feelings. My concerns for editing it back were totally pedantic, and I did so for the reasons I mentioned above. I might have acted rashly (almost as rashly as you did), but frankly, I just didn't find your changes to be greatly meritorious. I also made a mistake using the word "vandalism". I might have found your edit to be slightly detrimental, but you obviously made it out of good intentions. I apologize. Please bear no grudge, and happy editing. --Lividore 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I erroneously referred to that revert as your doing by giving it a cursory glance - therefore the mistake has less to do with malice about a previous edit. I mentioned in the section I wrote in response to you several days ago, you would see that I was over that little encounter shortly after it occured. This was a mistake, not a stirring of a pot. I have little interest in getting into childish battles over the internet, and I'm sure the same goes for you. Either way, my mistake and I apologize.Charles M. Reed 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry if I sounded mad, but I was curious, and shocked! :p

Please forgive me for sounding angry, I didn't do any edits at all, I was just wondering what Pokemon learns the ability!

It was on serebii.net's Abilities page, with no Pokémon that have that Ability listed. -- PinkDeoxys 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an ac tual ability but no Pokémon get it. -64.139.226.226 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

go here!

pokemon don't know where it would fit in article.

New Abilities section

Where are the sources on that? First of all, Soundproof is already an ability in RSE, so it shouldn't be listed. The fact that they did list it makes me wonder about their sources for Moist Body (Which may be an ability in RSE too, but I haven't finished that yet >_> ). Someone please fix that or cite sources. I'm removing Soundproof from it until then. DarthLuigi36 23:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless

I think the article about Diamond and Pearl in other media is pointless. It should be a seperate article. This article is about the Game!