Talk:Pikmin 2

More info needed

Considering how much additional information for this game is covered in this article, Pikmin series and Pikmin (character), I don't think there's a whole lot more to add to it, so I'm removing the stub tag. If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back. --ADeveria 13:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The article itself needs information. -- A Link to the Past 13:15, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Probably, yes. But since what is there right now already does a decent job at describing the game, I wouldn't say it's a stub anymore. --ADeveria 13:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Pikmin 2 can't be expanded? -- A Link to the Past 15:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, it probably can. Just because it's not a stub, doesn't mean it's complete. I believe it's now entered the realm where the tag {{expansion}} is more appropriate, if anything. --ADeveria 15:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

go to[1] for more information on pikmin I'm a user on that wiki so I can help you if you kneed it. --24.76.3.106 17:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "theory" section should be removed, it adds no real information about the game, it just speculates a persons point of view, if there is in fact a place for such discussion (about pikmin theories) then there should be a link to that where the discussion is being made. -dokuro-

Racism

I heard someone say that this is a racist game. You are a like a white 'plant'ation owner and are using the native, colored, people to do your work. They say that pikmin are just blacks, slaves, and Olimar is the slave driver.

This is highly unlikely, because nintendo probably wouldn't release a game about enslaving cute little creatures. Also, it appears that the pikmin CHOOSE to follow Olimar and Louie arround. I agree.

You mean something like Pokemon? They'd never release that!

Pikmin isnt racist because when Olimar first discovers them for the first time, he freaks out and runs, then the Pikmin follows him the Pikmin are trying to be helpful and they kinda need Olimar to help them survive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.25.249 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this was racist, it's more "animal cruelty" than "racism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.2.20.120 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pikmin types

Anyone besides me noticed that the descriptions of Pikmin types seems more like a guide on how to get them and what they do, as may be found in a magazine walkthrough, rather than encyclopedic information? I have edited the white pikmin details to add some more information but if anyone else agrees with me im more than happy to rewrite the other pikmin details.

this is my first discussion thingy...sorry if i seem completely ridiculous here in something i have done, but i find the instructions very confusing... Vimescarrot 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about more than just the Pikmin types. This article is bloated almost to the point of a poor gamefaqs.com guide. There's good information here, but there's also stuff that's just excessive. Wiki game pages should not contain walkthroughs, at least not so prominently. Phil Bond 15:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Past?

It always struck me as though the planet is a future earth. If that were true, then the waterwraith would have to be a human. So is it earth after an atomic war?

The Waterwraith may have once been human, possibly "knocked out of the space time continuum" by an atomic war, but it also might be: a creature from another dimension, an alien creature or a supernatural entity

The waterwraith is more like a interdimentional creature that takes a half form of water when you see it if you havn't noticed when you hit the waterwraith it takes a solid form. --24.76.3.106 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the waterwraith is an evolved human being. Human Beings may have evolved to a point were their body is almost completely water. The reason they can still move around, is because they might have been able to harness psychic abilities when they evolved. This is just a theory though. Also pikmin does appear to take place in the future, because of the precense of normal (and sometimes decrepit) human items, but with no humans.

Maybe we're living on Mars when the Pikmin Trilogy started.--Sonic,Pikachu,and Snorunt 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ship's Name?

I haven't played Pikmin 2 for a while, so I can't remember if Olimar's rocket had a name (I don't mean the Dolphin, I mean the one in Pikmin 2). If it does, could someone put it in here? RememberMe? 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the ship actually got a name in the game, though most fanfiction writers call it the Pod.

I believe it was called the Pod. Max³⁸ —Preceding comment was added at 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note on The Key

It should probably be noted about "The Key" (the one for Challenge Mode); it's a key from Yoshi's Island/Super Mario World 2/Super Mario Advance 3.

Good Article status

Everybody, i think we can totally get this article to Good Article status if we reformat and cite the existing work

i'll be working a lot on this article for a while, so help me out with this article and post me a message if needed --3000zebs-(talk to me) 02:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

could anyone add the information that Pikmin 2's playability is much smoother and pikmins grow quicker when beeing in the earth? i'd do myself but my english is bad, i'm only able to understand it well. thx

What Do I Do?

Okay, so I got all the treasures. I saw the ending cinematic, but they're still on earth even tough all the treasures have been collected. So, what do I do now?

Sorry, this page is only for discussion on editing the game's article. I'd suggest finding some gaming forum to discuss the game. --ADeveria 12:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But everyone else was discussing the game.

I suggest that someone post what happens after you collect the treasures. --BlooWilt 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Well to answer your question...YOU BEAT THE GAME now get on with your life -

Go to GameFaqs.com.[[User:SxeFluff|--SxeFluff 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)]] 21:34, 7 October 2007

Movie? Yeah right!

In the reaction section, it says IGN gave this game a 10.0 and that Nintendo plans to make movies on both games. This is so ridiculously wrong and should be changed right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.172.69 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I fixed it

URL

The URL does not work. I suspect that the writer intended the domain to end in ".co.jp". I will change it now. In its present state, the URL is listed as http://www.nintendo.jp/p/c234/.

Sequel

Have any plans for a sequel been announce? --User:Entei-Anubis

I believe it was somewhere on IGN that Miyamoto hinted at a pikmin 3. Not a for sure hint, but a "It's in progress" hint.Max³⁸

Found it. It's in progress, this is just the quoteMax³⁸

Renewal of Pikmin Liscense

Yeah, Nintendo just renewed the copyright on Pikmin. While this doesn't completely mean that there WILL be a sequel, it heavily points to that. Does anyone feel that this should be mentioned anywhere? General Banzai 22:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR. If you've got proof, you might note it in the article, but you can't indicate to a possible sequel, in my understanding, unless, of course, a reputable source speculates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby-oh (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For renewal, it's listed on the Pikmin Return's fansite: http://www.pikminreturns.com/content/view/36/1/

And it's also listed in sites such as: http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/nintendo-tradem.html
http://gonintendo.com/?p=24290
http://www.cubed3.com/news/8525/1/

So it should be added for certain.

(03/29/08) Olimar & Pikmin appears in Brawl, so the the renewed copyright may simply have been for that reason. Having Pikmin in Brawl doesn't exactly kill the chance of another sequel, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.189.196 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1889... not 1989...

Nintendo was a card company in 1889, not 1989. Someone keeps reverting my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.113.180 (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the day limit should go?

I know how long the day limit is, but I'm not sure where to add it... Can someone direct me in the right spot, please? Max³⁸

Nevermind, I stuck it in there. Max³⁸

Pikmin 3

Shigeru Miymoto himself has confirmed the existence of a new entry in the series please add section for pikmin 3 or whatever you want to call it.

Source : Developer Round Table http://www.qj.net/E3-2008-We-re-making-Pikmin-says-Miyamoto/pg/49/aid/122261 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.171.233 (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pink Pikmin!

In the manual (Non-PAL) on Page 35 near the icons of other colors of Pikmin there is a Pink dot, and the map on 34 shows a straight line of theses Pinks... Mention? 24.236.45.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

EU Release Date

April 10, 2009. Where's it sourced from? Cipher ^(Talk) 14:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WHERE!?!?

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT THE PIKMIN THAT ARE PARASITES LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR HOSTS!?!?4DJONG (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception of Wii version please?

There is also a wii version that should be accounted for. It just came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.171.124 (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As it has not been released in North America yet there has not been much reception on the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A few things in this article that bother me...

1) "In Pikmin, Pikmin that were following Olimar would complete a task without being instructed to in any way. An example would be if Pikmin that were following Olimar left him to help some other Pikmin carry a pellet, even though the necessary amount of Pikmin are carrying the pellet already and Olimar needs the Pikmin for another task. This was fixed in Pikmin 2." In Pikmin 2, Pikmin do not automatically go and complete tasks. While this may count as fixed, I believe the article should make this clearer. 2) "The controls are also improved." I thought that peoples opinions weren't supposed to go into wiki pages? Just bringing this up. 3) "The game then centers on finding Louie, exploring the planet, and collecting treasures." Finding Louie is only a short section at the start of the game. You won't spend the entire game looking for him; I think the article should clarify that. 220.244.228.153 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cave-Time

Check the Cave section for inaccurate data; it says day does not pass because of a strong magnetic field, but that's ridiculous. The reason time doesn't pass is because the Sun (for the Sun-Timer) cannot be seen underground. The "Magnetic Field" thing is not sourced, so I think it was vandalism or simply someone adding their own random guesses. I believe I know of an OFFICIAL source to cite for the "Cannot-see-the-sun" reason for no time passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.227.21 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Pikmin 2 Screenshot OF.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pikmin 2 Screenshot OF.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pikmin 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226195812/http://www.nindb.net/feature/totakas-song.html to http://www.nindb.net/feature/totakas-song.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/features/50787/XPlays_Best_of_2004_Nominees.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/features/50882/XPlays_Best_of_2004_Winners_Announced.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Underground Cave

So we have a misconception as to what "underground cave" means. According to one editor, a cave can both be above ground and in a hill. That's just not the case. A cave, by definition, and defined here at Wikipedia, says it is a hollow place in the ground. A hill, while having topography higher than other places, is still the ground. No matter how you cut it, if you put a cave at the peak of a mountain, or at the bottom of a canyon, a cave is still within the ground. Arguing otherwise would need significant proof to the contrary. What does an above ground cave look like? By the way, I'm what you would call an experienced caver, something a laymen would call a spelunker. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Merriam-Webster defines cave as “a natural chamber or series of chambers in the earth or in the side of a hill or cliff.” A hill is an elevation of ground and, like a mountain, isn’t underground but rather above ground.

“Underground cave” has 657,000 results on Google; it’s a very common term.

Also, please note that a consensus should be reached on a talk page rather than repeatedly reverting to your revision. Repeatedly overriding other editors’ contributions is known as edit warring. It’s always best to start a discussion after your revision is reverted, rather than revert to your preferred revision, even if you believe you’re right. Remember: Wikipedia is not about winning. Wikipedia is about being open-minded and friendly and trying to reach agreements. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page, I applaud you, that's the first thing you should have done instead of edit warring. We're also not Merriam-Webster, though nothing you quoted from them contradicts me, we are Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs to remain consistent within itself. A cave is clearly defined on Wikipedia as being within the ground. A hill is still the ground no matter the elevation. Elevation is not a determinant for if something is above or below ground. It is merely the elevation of the ground. Also, arguing that something is a common term, doesn't make it right or justified to redistribute bad information. You still need reputable sources to back up your claim. Since Wikipedia has already extensively covered what a cave is, we can use all the sources on that page if we truly consider this a "controversial" topic, which it is not. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted back to the original three times, which is not edit warring. Taking it to the talk page after your edit is reverted just once is always the best option. Anyway, a hill is above ground, not underground.

I would like to know other editors’ opinions about this as well. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 03:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If I was edit warring, who was I edit warring with? That leaves you. I cannot edit war with myself, therefore you were edit warring as well. And you'd do best to recognize that instead of trying to pretend you have the moral "high ground" (see what I did there?). Anyway, you could call a hill the high ground, but it is not above the ground. If you have nothing but a 100 mile range of hills, where is the regular ground? Following your logic leads to nonsensical conclusions. Either way, I implore you to review the cave article at your earliest convenience. Wikipedia has already defined what a cave is there. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s over, Anakin! I have the high ground!

Neither of us violated the thee-revert rule. It’s still better to keep the article as it was before you started editing it and take the matter to the talk page instead of continuing to revert, but it doesn’t matter now as we’re already discussing it on the talk page.

Anyway, Wikipedia isn’t a dictionary. If you look on Wiktionary, however, the first definition of “cave” is “A large, naturally-occurring cavity formed underground or in the face of a cliff or a hillside.” It doesn’t say “A large, naturally-occuring cavity formed underground and in the face of a cliff or a hillside.” It’s either underground or in a hill. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 21:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The three edit rule is not something to resort to every single time without crossing over. It's just a general guideline. If you constantly do that, you are still edit warring and that type of activity is discouraged. Edit warring can happen before you hit 3RR. And yes, we're both guilty and I never said anything to the contrary. My policy is bold editing and if anyone has an issue they should talk about it in the talk page.

anyways... you seem to have this idea that the ground is a level feature, some sort of baseline, with below it being underground and higher ground, being above ground. I will tell you there is no baseline. The earth is a sphere with an arc-shaped ground that undulates and contorts depending on the geology. If you were on top of a mountain, and someone were to ask you: "where is the ground in relation to you" you would point down at the mountain, because relative to you, it is the ground. And now you see the problem with relativity and baselines. By whom's baseline is the ground defined, and by whom's above? It's a stupid question because the ground is not a relative aspect dependent upon who is observing it. That would lead to endless ambiguity. The ground is the surface of the earth no matter its shape or its relationship to you spatially. It's really quite simple: There is the air and anything else that is floating or resting on the ground, is considered "above ground". Then there is the ground, which is defined as the surface of the earth. And then there is underground, which is below the surface. Cave are always below the surface of the earth, therefore and underground cave is redundant.

Also, I'm not using wikipedia as a dictionary, I'm forcing Wikipedia to be consistent with itself. It makes no sense to have one article define something in opposition to another - more importantly, the sources cited on wikipedia pages are used to meet consensus on any given article, and since the cave article has reached a consensus a long time ago, Pikmin needs to conform to the definitions cited there. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: The three-revert rule is a policy, not a guideline, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia should not be used as a source for itself.

Also, you changed the indentation of my comment, but I used the Outdent template, which resets the indentation when it becomes too deep.

Anyway, I’ve listed this matter on Wikipedia:Third opinion for a third opinion from another editor, which I think would be useful. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to point out that you shouldn't revert up to 3RR just because you can. I was pointing out "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." You should seek the talk page first, because that is where things will get resolved. Also, I apologize for messing up the indentation. I should have caught that but was distracted by my family at the time. Also, addressing the wikipedia as a source comment: if you think I'm suggesting using wikipedia as a source, you haven't been paying attention. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I suppose that "underground" with respect to a cave is redundant, yet nevertheless it is technically accurate, and can help to clarify the location of these caves. For instance, if the caves could be in the side of a hill or cliff, "underground" could be used to specify that the access to these caves is in a downward direction (i.e., not in the side of a hill). In the case of this subject matter, is such a clarification useful to the reader? Bradv 04:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your statement "'underground' could be used to specify... [direction] (i.e., not in the side of a hill)", this video suggests this is your average cave that is not in the side of a hill. Considering that the original revert by Tantamounts/Interqwark was because "Caves are not always underground. They may be in hills" and this cave is not in a hill, makes the original revert a spurious and insincere argument. The description stands as redundant. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting that an "underground cave" helps clarify the location is hyperbole. We already know caves are underground, adding an additional 'underground' in front of 'cave' does nothing to clarify its location. Even if a cave is on a hill or in a cliff face, if you are standing on said hill or cliff face the cave is still underground. It's all a matter of relativity to the observer which is not useful and we should steer clear of wish-washy words.

The real problem here, is that Interqwark is misusing the term "above ground". Above ground means not within the ground, or even "above" it. In every instance he is actually referring to higher ground. Above ground means anything floating, adjacent, or resting upon the ground. In all instances a cave cannot be these things. "Above ground" is often used when inside a cave or subterranean feature, in reference to being on the surface. Words mean things you guys, and slaughtering them for little gain won't do much for this article. If you need to put "cliff-side cave", or "cave in a hill", by all means do so, because those would be types of caves and would lend something to the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I second that “underground cave” is fine. Leitmotiv, it’s great that you know the absolute meaning of words, but this conversation is proof that not everyone understands It the same way, and our readers shouldn’t suffer just because they haven’t memorized the dictionary. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

People are suffering now eh? People are also not suffering by calling it just "cave". The hyperbole is thick with this one (continuing Star Wars related joke). Leitmotiv (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

After reading the responses to my question above, I would concur with Basilosauridae. The very fact that this conversation is happening is proof that things aren't quite as clear as you think they are. "Underground cave" is fine. Redundancy is acceptable for the purpose of clarity. Bradv 23:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And what clarity is that? To distinguish it from an above ground cave? Like you said earlier Bradv, it might help to distinguish from a cliffside cave, but there is no proof in this article that we need this distinction (the game description suggests nothing). Therefore "cave" is also fine. And since we know "undergound" is redundant, it would behoove us not to revert just to show that we can, when "cave" is more succinct and to the point. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that either term is fine, and that this is not worth edit warring over. There's no policy that says that our articles need to be as succinct as possible. It would be a far better use of the community's time to find sources for this article, as right now the Gameplay and Plot sections are nearly entirely unsourced. Bradv 23:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really not worth this entire discussion to be frank. "Cave" conveys just as much info, but in lesser words. Reverting now, would show you are against common sense or are taking sides. We know underground is redundant, and we know the game description has not shown a need for distinction, and certainly no one here has argued for a distinction being required for this game in particular. Though I would love to see them try. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to open up an RfC, but the current consensus is that it is fine. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point the conversation has pivoted from being about a distinction between above and below, to being one of requiring it be articulated more - which this article has not demonstrated a need, and none of you have shown exactly how it would need it, especially Bradv who was first to suggest the possibility but has not followed through with his own suggestion. It looks to me you're all being contrary, just to be contrary. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Restoring consensus version

I have restored the last stable version before this edit war began. Leitmotiv and others, feel free to keep discussing this here. Sources discussing the plot and gameplay would be helpful. Bradv 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Never underestimate herd mentality, or lack thereof. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Articles should remain the way they are until a consensus is reached. The controversial change shouldn’t be made before the discussion starts. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 00:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Be bold everyone, even in the face of stupidity. This wasn't controversial at all. It was a tempest in a teapot that gained nothing for the article. I leave this conversation as a testament to those who finally got their cave in the sky they always dreamed of. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It was controversial because an editor disagreed with you. Conflicts should be resolved with discussion. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 00:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree this was a conflict, and I agree that it should be solved with a discussion like I directed you to do early on. A controversy it does not make, however. I boldly edited the redundancy out as should have been done according to wikipedia policy. It was you that reverted unreasonably, since my edit was also perfectly fine and to which you cannot deny. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD has three parts — be bold, revert, discuss. It's not "be bold, revert, revert, revert, argue". Bradv 02:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not bringing to light anything new here. I do believe Interqwark and I realize we were edit warring. I'm merely pointing out that Interqwark is mistaken that you discuss first, reach a consensus, then edit. If that were the case, nothing would get done. Thousands of articles have no participation. As for argue... while you are referring to the negative connotation of the word, that is literally all you can do to try and reach a consensus. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Leitmotiv In response to the comment in your edit, If you simply look above you will see my participation in this discussion. Regardless, that still doesn't negate the need to reach consensus, as has been told to you many times throughout this dispute. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You fail to see that the past discussion has nothing to do with the new edit warring by you of blinding reverting, where you are suggesting we need consensus. When new evidence is supplied, we can be bold. Especially if that was evidence someone remarked was needed before. You are the only one here not in any current discussion. You're just blind reverting without discussing it, per your own advice. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Provide that evidence here for evaluation. That is how a discussion and consensus work. If I missed it here on this talk page, then point it out. Discussions here have no time limit, so your point about "current" discussion is invalid. The conversation died out because it was left to you to open an RfC if you felt that your edit was valid, as everyone else disagreed with you about asserting your edit. This page has a record of editors objecting to this very same edit, so not sure how you could argue that this is not the same conversation about the same thing. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not lead you by the hand sorry. Go in and review the history of this page and see where I supplied the evidence. That will show you are actively engaged in the discussion. Until then, you are not following your own advice of taking it to the talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Video depicting the cave in Dream Den

I'm starting a new section here to discuss the term "underground cave" as it relates to the Dream Den mention in the article. I added it to the discussion above, but that seems to be overlooked recently. The previous discussion also did not have anyone reviewing the actual game videos to see if there was a need for distinction. I have done that. Hence the new bold edits. The video is here at 3:15.

It should be noted that the original revert by Tantamounts/Interqwark was to differentiate this cave from a "cave in a hill" (which no one has demonstrated exists in the game either). It was also mentioned by Bradv, that the use of "underground cave" is needed for clarity, but neither Bradv nor Tantamounts demonstrated why there would be a specific need for clarity. Is there an actual scenario where a player could get confused with a cave in the sky? Or a cave in a hill in the game? But it should also be noted that Bradv, who was brought into the conversation as a third opinion, also said either usage was fine (cave or underground cave), but as stated earlier, he, nor anyone else, demonstrated why there was a need to distinguish this cave for clarity purposes.

So, following one of Bradv's last remarks, he said it would be helpful for plot and gameplay sources, so I finally added it in this new discussion. The cave in the video is just a hole in the ground. It's a cave. Like all caves, it is underground and could hardly be confused with anywhere else. I see absolutely no need for clarification on this matter. I don't see how the player could possibly be confused, nor a reader of this article.

To me an underground cave is the same as saying "underground underground hollow". My question to you all: What is the need to distinguish this cave for "clarity" purposes? Because I see none in the video I provided. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

bradv Tantamounts pinging mentioned users so they can address your comments to them if they are interested in participating. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 15:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Basilosauridae Yes, please reach consensus considering the new evidence and don't hide behind your policy block. Get involved. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

In the link you provided, at time 3:07, the characters are clearly seen entering an underground cave, so I don't agree that this video supports your claim. If you feel that your edit is still valid, please open a RfC to attract comments from additional users. I personally believe that RfC's tend to end in the fairest and most reasonable consensus, so I don't see why opening one would be objectionable (not that you have actively objected, just that it hasn't been done to this point).^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant address my question, not to raise old points. This is a new conversation by the way. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

the characters are seen entering the ground, and the level takes place underground. Your argument, to my knowledge, is based on your understanding of the definition of a cave. What is more pertinent here is the game Pikmin 2, in which an opening leads to an underground cave level. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not the question I asked. The question that Bradv put forth and that I followed up on, is this: What is the need to distinguish this cave for "clarity" purposes? Are there other caves in hills in the game, as contrasted with Tantamount's original revert that deems this distinction necessary? If not, I would argue the clarification accomplishes nothing and is redundant. If that is the case, then Bradv's original comment that a simple "cave" will suffice and is acceptable. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

it is worth clarifying because it leads to an underground level. The cave level is underground. There is no real reason not to clarify, other than that you are trying to rid Wikipedia of the term “underground cave” (per your own comments on your talk page). ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You're dodging the question for a third time. Tantamounts said it was needed to distinguish it from caves in hills. That was the soul reason for reverting. Bradv said it would help for clarification purposes if we had evidence. I ask you again, is there some other type of cave in the game that would require clarification in this instance? So far you have been unable to answer that question - probably because the answer is no. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I’ve sufficiently explained my opinion here. I’m not going to speak for anyone else’s comments. Open an RfC if you’d like to escalate the conversation. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't answer the question though. You dodged the question four times now. I call that a case of running out of an argument. As Bradv said, "cave" is equally sufficient, and your staunch opposition is clearly an over-reaction. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have sufficiently stated why I’m opposed to your edit, just not in a way that is pleasing to you. However, you are entitled to feel however you like. You have been told multiple times to open an RfC ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 02:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, summarize for me what we need clarification to distinguish this cave from others, when Bradv said "cave" would also suffice. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

if I had your attitude I’d accuse you of not doing your due diligence, as I’m just repeating myself. As I’ve said already, we both agree that the cave is underground and that it leads to an underground cave level. In this case, I think clarification is useful because it describes the type of video game level. I agree with an argument from June that "underground cave" is a common phrase, and your objection to it seems to be based on your opinion that it is a redundant phrase. Unless I am missing something crucial, your argument seems to be one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also I am not Bradv and am not speaking to their comments. What they think is their opinion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh nice job of dodging the question for the umpteenth time. What about this game requires a distinction from some other type of nonexistent cave in the game? Like how would describing it as underground help it distinguish from some other type of underground/hillside cave level? See, that's the thing you can't provide, and that I've been asking for. You can believe WP:IDONTLIKEIT if it helps you sleep at night, but really it comes down to a matter of I'm an expert on the subject, so I'm passionate about it. You know, as I mentioned in the previous conversation, words mean something. No one asked you to interpret Bradv's comments for him, but I did ask for you to comment on them. But I see you are going to continue dodging why this particular cave needs distinguishing. I would say, you either don't understand truly what's going on here, or you're just doubling down like people who are often in the wrong. Repeat it enough and you just might fool yourself.

I could get on your side of the argument, and say, you know what, we do need to distinguish this cave from others in the game. There's that pit level, that cave on mars, the cave with the thing, but you know what, there isn't any other type of cave in this game are there? It's just a cave. You're inability to provide contrast for distinguishing caves shows that there is no need. As a result you end up looking like a person fighting damn hard to prove that caves are doubly underground. Or maybe it's a double negative.

Let's try a new approach. How many cave levels are in the game? Leitmotiv (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK or open an RfC. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess there are no other caves. :o) Leitmotiv (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you don’t believe in the strength of your argument enough for an RfC.^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh no I do, and I'm flexible in even seeing the need for clarifying a type of cave, if the article calls for it. And since you lurk on my talk page, you'll already have noticed my interest in doing that! It's good to know I have fans! Leitmotiv (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus from participants regarding the need for clarification on cave type in re: to the video

• Basilosauridae - (Basilosauridae deleted content that was inappropriately written here on her behalf)
• Bradv - TBD
• Tantamounts - TBD
• Others - TBD

Leitmotiv (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to speak for me or summarize my thoughts. This is not an RfC. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 05:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Then answer the question. What other caves exist in the game that require distinguishing? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Waterwraith" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Waterwraith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15 § Waterwraith until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)