• Attention Bulbagarden Academy students,

    Our back to school event, Bulbagarden Academy Quiz, is now live! See this thread to participate. A new round starts every two days, so keep checking back in through September 14th for as many chances to win as possible!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

This board (All Bulbapedia contributers read)


Jan 5, 2003
Reaction score

I'm starting to get really annoyed with Bulbapedia staff. Yes, I know I tend to rant about this but today I want to talk about this board and its use. We need to start using this board more often for the discussion of major changes to the Bulbapedia that would alter things such as links or design of pages.

Yes, I know it would "go against the point of the wiki" But, we really need to get more organized and talk about the things we're going to do so we don't have confusion and editing conflicts. I was editing the Safari Zone page and got into an editing conflict with someone. Yes, we can use the talk pages but it would be better if we discussed things that change the bulbapedia here.

That is the point of this board isn't it? I had a heated discussion with someone on the staff about certain changes made. I wanted to wait and discuss it with Evkl and he went ahead anyway. So, this board really should have a use. We should talk about any changes to the pedia, here.

I'm basically really talking about the whole format changes issue like with Pokémon Red and Blue now being used instead of Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue and not content changes. Talking about ideas would help to prevent really bad headaches in certain people.

Last edited by a moderator:
The way I see it, this board should be used for discussing -

1) Large-scale changes that will affect multiple pages(I'd say at least 3 but you get the idea)
2) Discussion/reports of abuse
3) Changes to the Bulbapedia itself

I mean, like you said, for stuff involving individual articles, we have the talk feature. And it seems like a lot of this "organization" is going on behind the scenes in AIM >.>
I'm basically really talking about the whole format changes issue like with Pokémon Red and Blue now being used instead of Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue and not content changes. Talking about ideas would help to prevent really bad headaches in certain people.

Let me guess, cramming the articles for two different games together? Yeah, that annoyed me two. For three months, we've been hearing "List the seperate and proper names for Ruby and Sapphire because it looks more professional!" Again and again and again.

Now it's "Yeah, just jam 'em together. Whatever" with no explanation at all. That really annoyed me, too. And when you consider the many differences between R and S, not to mention the RBG switchup in Generation I, it's bound to look confusing. I mean, should there be an article for "Japanese Pokemon Red and Green" to sort out the differences between the 5 versions (two US, 3 Japanese) and how everything was switched around with graphics, locations, extras and such?
Last edited:
*Groans* First, I never technically gave you a "permission". I said that you were allowed to make this sort of thread, like anybody else. So kindly stop waving the "with permission from Damian" bit around.

Second, however, he IS allowed to make this sort of thread. So if anyone was thinking about giving him grief over this, think again. I'm not too happy with the attitude of some of you already.

Third, agreed on the general content, though. We have a PEdia forum, let's bring up the formating issues (like, "I want us to use Pokemon Red and Blue instead of Pokemon Red and Pokemon Blue") in the PEdia forum.
Last edited:
You will always run into editing conflicts. Especially as the number of people editing increase. Because you can't possibly guarantee that you will be the only person editing it. So, you'll have to learn to live with that. If you want to schedule edits so that this doesn't happen, well, you'll pretty much be working against the spirit of wiki. (Be thankful the MediaWiki software already handles some of the merging for you - otherwise you'll run up against editing conflicts even when the two of you are working on two completely different sections of the article)

Secondly, I was opposed to the separation of the paired game articles from the start. It is only now that I got around to discussing it.

As for Red/Green vs. Red/Blue, I think you'll find the second paragraph of the article satisfactory. You can discuss changes from Red/Green to Blue in the Japanese Blue article and you can discuss what Red/Green are, in comparison to Blue.

There is no need to have a full-fledged article on Red/Green as you would have for Red/Blue or Gold/Silver - just discuss it in context of Red/Blue.
And there's no need to completely miss the point of the article as you just did, Zhen.

The point of the discussion is, NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO MAKE A PEDIA-WIDE CHANGE like "Pokemon Red and Blue" instead of "Pokemon Red and Pokemon Blue", bring it up HERE before making any change.

And the above is not a suggestion.

It's a direct order from the head of staff.
On the other hand, no minor edit needs a thread here. A "minor edit" being defined as one that affects one article.

But yes, Dami's right about pedia-wide changes.

Am I being depicted as some unilateral radical with weapons of mass implementation? I'd hope that I'm not being slandered like that.

It seems to me whenever we do raise issues before doing things in this forum, there are never many conclusive responses. The result is that nothing would get done if someone doesn't take the initiative to go do it. For instance, Ledian_X and his crusade to correct all the game mentions and links. Perhaps it was the conclusion of some earlier private discussion with Evan, I don't know. My moving the articles certainly was.
When I said "not a suggestion", Zhen, I meant "not open to discussion". Ask here first, or don't make major changes.

We didn't make this forum just so that you could ignore it and do everything on your whims and/or through backroom dealings.
Right. And so I ask directly then - why are you chastising only me? Ledian_X also had his own 'pedia-wide agenda to push.

I must say, it seems to me that he is the only one with a complaint against anything major I do. Or propose to do. And not just me, with anyone who proposes something that involves a substantial quantity of editing. With no other complaint than that fact alone.

For instance, he went and reverted (no less 30 of the) the navbar changes being made to the Pokémon articles. I quote, "Let me fix it but if you think I'm gonna relink all 386 pokemon with Meowth again like yesterday..You're nuts." and "It took forever to do this. Do not change without discussing the nac vhange." I quote his scolding of Jshadias, "Jshasdias..please for the love of God do NOT fuck weith the navcigation for the pokedex".

But, when Meowth346 offered to do it completely automatically, "Great. I don't feel like changing them all since we spent so long putting them there to begin with.".

As you can see on any of the 386 Pokémon articles, Ledian_X has not attempted to change them back since.

I draw parallels with this case:
(21:12:29) Cferralx: put them back as they were
(21:12:47) Cferralx: we'd have to fix too many links
This is from his argument with me yesterday night. (I will post the full logs if requested.)

I also believe that if you are going to make decisions over the 'pedia, you should pay more attention to it, if not become more active. Otherwise your decisions will be poorly informed.
Somewhat ironic that this kind of heated discussion would make me nostalgic about the original BMG. I guess it's a tradition of this place for the staff to be open about all their conflicts, both within and without. I'm not entirely sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Does it increase the trust of the forum members of the staff, or reduce it?

In any case....if Zhen got permission from Evan, the 'pedia Editor in Chief, to do what he's done in this case, then there's no problems with him doing anything, is there? However, in the interests of more community involvement, so everyone, not just the staff, are kept in the loop, it would be appreciated if further changes on this kind of scale, once approved, are announced in a thread on this forum.

I think that about covers everything, doesn't it? Tell me if I've missed something.
Yeah, Arcy it does feel like the old days doesn't it? Remember Bulba and his little meetings with staff and hostees? Man those were argumentative. I think I still have some of those chats saved.

Anyway, Zhen..I wasn't attacking you and I do not have a "crusade". All I wanted was some resemblance of order for the Bulbapedia. Communication here is best instead of back-door dealings. Don't "attack" me with examples of what I did because that's not the issue here.

The issue is that we need to talk about things here before anything major occurs. About Meowth...He and I worked with Evan on the navigation before it was all changed. We discussed it and brought it up in a talk board I believe.

I am very active on Bulbapedia and I change things when they are minor or I add things such as the case in the Safari Zone article. The point is that I have nothing against anyone, It would just make more sense to post things that effect the whole pedia here.

To go along with what Arcy said, everyone must be kept in the loop and we must talk about the big changes. We aren't nearly as big as Wikipedia or Memory Alpha so we can have a dialog on this board. It's better to talk about things before going through and doing it yourself. Yes I know it goes against the wiki or whatever but it shows more community unification.

Just because I do not POST much doesn'T mean my decisions are uninformed. I keep an eye on this project, just like I keep an eye on pretty much all other BMG projects.

And as for you being targeted here, you'Re targeted here because you'Re the only one protesting to keep the pedia decision-making a secret behind closed doors, here.

And in any event, my decision has nothing to do with the pedia proper (ie, I didn't say "make THIS change" or "Do not make this change"), and everything to do with staff management (discuss publicly BEFORE making a major change), which is well within my domain no matter how you cut it.
Last edited:
I'd like to point out that, while large changes should be discussed, there's no need to have an iron grip over this project, especially not to the point where I get "It's best to talk about doing the redirects before doing them." for moving a few pages I'd created just minutes before.
Most likely. Asking here before every change would be too much of a hurdle, but one should DEFINITELY ask here before doing stuff like merging articles, etc.
Actually, Damian, I beg to differ about your powers regarding staff and 'pedia, as this despute could happen with anyone, BMG staffers or no.

However, the point stands that major changes SHOULD be discussed before they're enacted, although if the decision is made by a council of members, perhaps just notification would soften the blow better than a mass change with no warning.

On another note, everyone needs to understand that "I" will need to work and concede to and cooperate with "others" on this project.

It's not a one-way street for anyone, not even me.
Agreed, and THIS is why we have the forum, and more to the point, THIS is why we should USE the forum.

As for other issues, perhaps it would be useful to make a list of what's considered a major or minor change? Just a suggestion. Will IM you later to discuss a few other issues.
Last edited:
To clarify what I said previously: I meant that the decision applied to everyone, not just 'Pedia people who are also Bulbagarden staffers. You HAVE to use this forum if you're making major changes to the system.
Please note: The thread is from 19 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Top Bottom