>>16118989THe focus is where it needs to be. You're claiming that, because Bulbapedia is edited by multiple people, Archaic's mistake should have been caught/fixed; because it wasn't, it's even more embarrassing because it implies everyone involved is ignorant. But this wasn't published on a wiki page, which is editable; this was published as a news bulletin, for which editing access is not available to those who didn't write it.
