Keep checking BNN for the breaking news updates, and discuss it on the forums or in the Bulbagarden Discord server.

Want to write an article? Go ahead! Have an opinion to share? An idea for a new column? Contact us!

Difference between revisions of "Talk:March 2010 CoroCoro features new Pokémon, Ranger game"

From Bulbanews, your community Pokémon newspaper.
Jump to: navigation, search
(we may need a little rewording: new section)
(we may need a little rewording: reply)
Line 29: Line 29:
   
 
The 'pure' word is leading some to believe that corocoro hints at another type for Zoroark, so can we reword this to reflect that both of them were equally said to be {{type|Dark}} Pokemon instead of a {{type|Dark}} and a pure {{type|Dark}} Pokemon? I know it's petty, but it keeps getting brought up and rewording seems like the better route to take than constantly correcting people as they come :/ Thanks :) ([[User:Yaminokame|Yaminokame]] 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
 
The 'pure' word is leading some to believe that corocoro hints at another type for Zoroark, so can we reword this to reflect that both of them were equally said to be {{type|Dark}} Pokemon instead of a {{type|Dark}} and a pure {{type|Dark}} Pokemon? I know it's petty, but it keeps getting brought up and rewording seems like the better route to take than constantly correcting people as they come :/ Thanks :) ([[User:Yaminokame|Yaminokame]] 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
  +
:I thought the wording was odd when I first read it too. Fixed. &mdash;'''<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[bp:User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#000">darklord</span>]][[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#0047AB">trom</span>]]</span>''' 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:15, 13 February 2010

Sorry, this is my fault

The Attack Forme Deoxys should know Meteor Mash instead of Comet Punch, can someone make that correction for me please? (Yaminokame 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Done. Thanks yaminokame :) Ҝəυzø8 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Name similarity

Anybody else notice how this thing's name bear a striking resemblence to the English name of a certain gym leader? Morgil27 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just a coincidence. Roark's Japanese name ヒョウタ Hyouta is entirely different. Blueapple128 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

ゾロア

[1]

ゾロア trademarked romaji is Zorua, not Zoroa... Santer 22:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, but I guess there's a reason why Argy changed it. Ҝəυzø8 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Which species is Zorua and Zoroark?

On the Bulbanews page, it says that Zorua is an "Evil Fox Pokémon" and Zoroark is an "Monster Fox Pokémon". But on the Bulbapedia Pokédex pages, it says that Zorua is an "Dark Fox Pokémon" and Zoroark is an "Illusory Fox Pokémon". Which is correct? Bulbanews or Bulbapedia Pokédex? One of the pages need to change but I don't know which one or who to report it to. - unsigned comment from Terraferme (talkcontribs)

This article was made yesterday so details were complicated. They are now examined, so the correct translation is that of Bulbapedia. This article will be updated.. Don't worry. You're in the right place. Thanks for that. :) And sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~). Ҝəυzø8 06:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The four tildes was a rookie mistake. Oops! Terraferme 06:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

we may need a little rewording

Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of people getting hung up on the wording in one particular sentence, so I thought that it may be best to reword the sentence so that people don't get the wrong idea from it:

According to the scan, Zoroark is the Illusory Fox Pokémon and is a Dark-type. It is 1.6m tall and weighs 81.1kg. It evolves from Zorua, a pure Dark-type and is the Dark Fox Pokémon. It is 0.7m tall and weighs 12.5kg.

The 'pure' word is leading some to believe that corocoro hints at another type for Zoroark, so can we reword this to reflect that both of them were equally said to be Dark-type Pokemon instead of a Dark-type and a pure Dark-type Pokemon? I know it's petty, but it keeps getting brought up and rewording seems like the better route to take than constantly correcting people as they come :/ Thanks :) (Yaminokame 03:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

I thought the wording was odd when I first read it too. Fixed. —darklordtrom 09:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)