Talk:Piplup

message: As the Water starters are always the seventh Pokémon in the new Pokédex lists, I'm guessing Pochama will be #393 in the National Pokédex, between its own Stage 1 and Hikozaru's Stage 2 evolution. So, if anyone agrees, I'd like to add this Pokémon as #393 in the National Pokédex. Double Dash 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree, that would be filed under original research, so we can't add it to the article. Sorry, Highway Return to Oz... 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. Oh, well. That's a real shame, that, I was looking forward to adding something to a Pokédex page. But I agree, it'd be OR. Double Dash 21:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Pokédex

message: Serebii.net claims that Pochama's English name has been confirmed as Piplup at a recent New York Toy Fair.  Can someone find a reference for this as I cannot.
Antisora 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your same predicament is the reason we've been keeping people from changing it.—ウルタプ 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make more sense if they spelled it as 'Piplop' because the 'Pi-' part are letters from the word penguin and the '-plop' part is like jumping and splashing in water.
I think that for the time being the official Romanization should stay, as there are two pieces of merchandise that contradict each other. BDragon 12:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that Piplup has been given as the official translation, why hasn't anyone changed the main heading from Pochama to Piplup?  The only reason I'm saying it here is because I don't know how to do it myself.  ^_^ Brainiac07 9:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, that would be the article title. The Piplup page has non-trivial edit history, so the page can't be moved there by a non-admin.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem quite odd that the article is called Pochama, but the creature is mentioned at all times throughout the article as "Piplup". Very odd, indeed... <strokes chin sagely> - NP Chilla 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently Nintendo Power's web site confirms the name Piplup (->Current Issue ->Creature Features).—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Click "current issue" then "creature feature," in case anyone gets lost.)—ウルタプ 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piplup 

message: If this Pokemon's name has been confirmed as Piplup, can somebody move the article to Piplup from Pochama?  Because of the redirect from Piplup to Pochama, the move can't be made.  Does anybody know how to do this?  Ksy92003 talk·contribs</font> 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to have an admin delete the Piplup redirect, then it can be moved normally.—ウルタプ 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was how we could do that.  But is there an admin out there who would not mind doing that?  Ksy92003 talk·contribs</font> 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a speedy deletion proposal on Piplup (it was removed last time because it wasn't completely confirmed like it is right now).  We just have to wait now.—ウルタプ 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How long after you create the proposal for speedy deletion does it usually take before actually getting deleted (if it does)?  And is there a place I can go (besides Piplup's article to see any information regarding it's deletion proposal?  Ksy92003 talk·contribs</font> 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy deletion you don't post anywhere, I think.  Just post  on the page without removing the contents.—ウルタプ 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to renamed or moved to Piplup seeing how that is its name. DSDark 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Page 

message: Why is this article still called Pochama when its name is Piplup? DSDark 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please direct your attengion, DSDark, to the section directly above.  It contains a discussion regarding this topic.  The reason is because it can't be moved yet because Piplup is already an article, a redirect to Pochama.  So we are waiting for the article Piplup to be deleted so the move can be made.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs</font> 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Piplup 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Its name is Piplup so there for it should be moved DSDark 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Its name is Piplup so there for it should be moved DSDark 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: i Copied and pasted very thing from this page and put it in the Piplup article. Can this article be removed? DSDark 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and I reverted you. Due to copyright reasons, we're not supposed to do that, but we have to delete that redirect before being able to move this page ourselves. Which is why I requested a move.—ウルタプ 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Piplup 

message: Wow, the things you find watching "Recent changes" for vandalism.
Ok--in case anyone who watches this or who wanders over because they think y'all are vandalising the place up is confused---you can't move a page through copy-pasting because you lose the article's history.
And once that was done, the Piplup article space had edits on it, and so actually moving the article had to be done by an admin, because only admin's can move articles to namespaces where there have been previous edits.
Piplup currently redirects here so that there aren't two articles at once and edits being done in two places.  Talk:Piplup redirects here so that there's only one talk page.  In the meantime, the move Pochama → Piplup is listed on the Requested moves page as an Uncontroversial move (because y'all have agreed), so as soon as an admin gets to your request, the article located here (including it's edit history) and the talk page located here (and it's edit history) will be moved to Piplup and Talk:piplup respectively and Pochama and Talk:Pochama will become redirects for their Piplup counterparts.
Currently, it's the other way around but only because of the odd circumstances.  Normally, once you guys achieved consensus, one of you could move the page by clicking the little move button that you see at the top of the page.
Anyway, I hope this makes sense to everyone and that nothing else big happens before your big move.  Have fun!  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Piplup move 

message: I'm not asking for a change on this or anything, but doesn't it make sense that, if Turtwig is the Young Leaf Pokémon, and Chimchar is the Young Monkey Pokémon, that Piplup would be the "Young Penguin Pokémon"?  This is just what I think it should be, but it probably has been confirmed to be otherwise.  Just wanted to give my 2¢ on this.  Ksy92003 talk·contribs</font> 14:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: I think that the ability to edit Piplup's page should be blocked from those who are new to wikipedia.  So far, on the edit history, I have seen that it was vandalised at least six times since the start of May; Two edits were claiming that Piplup had feathers purely to avoid hobos and strippers, one edit was saying that Piplup ate dogs which is why the editor loved Piplup, and three edits were claiming that Piplup was a gangster, I edited away the one that was complete with a photoshopped image of a gangster Piplup.--Shroopliss 16:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism happens pretty frequently on Wikipedia, actually, and such levels of vandalism on a page are pretty much normal, I think. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked about 10 other random articles, and Piplup was actually vandalised more than the other articles in the past week or so.--Shroopliss 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see Bidoof a few days ago? That's the kind of thing that's a problem, pretty much. – mcy1008 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restriction