Talk:Bulbasaur/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Shiny Bulbasaur

The Italian version of this page has an image of a shiny Bulbasaur. Could this image either go here or shiny Pokémon? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiny Pokémon is more relevant. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

I just did a copy edit of the article, so please don't revert it without reading this. Generally, what I fixed was the pluralization of the article, Bulbasaur are a species, so from the intro until the end of the videogames should refer to Bulbasaur as a species (from anime downwards, it refers to individual Bulbasaur). Other things fixed are linking, I tried to cleanup the intro, it was a tip. Thank you for reading and harmonious editting, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. People say "tyrannosaurs" when they talk about species. Why doesn't the article use "Bulbasaurs?" --Kjoonlee 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the plural and the singular are the same thing, One Snorlax, Two Snorlax. Red Snorlax, Blue Snorlax. Highway ^Batman! 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why are the plural and the singular the same with Bulbasaur? "One tyrannosaur, two tyrannosaurs. Tall tyrannosaurs, small tyrannosaurs." --Kjoonlee 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And why do we need to refer to it as a species, when it's much simpler to just treat it as a common noun? "One dog, two dogs, red dogs, blue dogs." Treating it as a species just seems to be an artificial distinction. --Kjoonlee 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's like "fish" and "sheep", that is how the grammar works. We are treating it like a proper noun and a common noun, because we are referring to Pokémon called Bulbasaur, and the Bulbasaur. Highway ^Batman! 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And who thought of that? Is it supported by actual use? I think not. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see the games, Nintendo, the anime, the manga and Satoshi Tajiri. It is supported by actual use. I suggest that you stop arguing now, you are not going to change the way we pluralize because you don't agree with the actual system. Highway ^Batman! 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a nasty way of saying things. I suggest you be nicer in the future. If it *is* supported by actual use, then I'll stop. --Kjoonlee 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've been going on, and frankly, I've been dealing with scores of editors who think they have a PhD in Pokémon grammar. You just have to think about it, have you heard Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaurs"? Sorry. Highway ^Batman! 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and you have to understand this: probably all of those people have no experience with Pokémon . I know I don't.

Normal rules of English grammar, and similar words (such as tyrannosaur) suggest "Bulbasaurs" is the "acceptable" plural. If you don't want people changing it back, you might want to mention it in the article instead of including it in the talk pages. --Kjoonlee 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But one more thing: How many times did Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaur" when they met more than two one of them at the same time? --Kjoonlee 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall an episode set in a Bulbasaur ranch. I could be thinking of a different Pokémon, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you check it, to be sure, please? If the answer to my earlier question is either "zero," or "not available — they've only met single bulbasaur Pokémons," then I strongly disagree with the use of Bulbasaur as an uninflected plural. --Kjoonlee 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact the plural of Pokémon is Pokémon. I'm sure someone who feels more strongly about this than I do will be along to confirm or deny my claim about Bulbasaur, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bulbasaur's Mysterious Garden"? The episode that contained the mass evolution ritual, where dozens of Ivysaur and Bulbasaur evolved into their next forms together? I think it's no 51, not sure though. But they never said "Bulbasaurs" in it. Highway ^Batman! 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode guide here]. Highway ^Batman! 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Pokémon names are like this because a lot of the names (Pikachu, Ariados and so on) use names taken directly from Japanese, which has no plural (フシギダネ could mean Bulbasaur or Bulbasaurs). The in-game Pokédexes definitely don't use "Pokémons" or "Bulbasaurs"; Clefairy's entry reads "On every night of a full moon, groups of this POKéMON come out to play. When dawn arrives, the tired CLEFAIRY return to their quiet mountain retreats and go to sleep nestled up against each other". Not tired Clefairies; tired Clefairy. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaurs cannot be any different from tyrannosaurs. This is English, not Japanese. Evertype 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (And the plural of euro is euros, too.)

And why not? English is full of exceptions. This is one of them, get over it. What will it take to convince you nay-sayers? You have the official anime, the games that this very subject originated from, and the creator, just accept that it is not Bulbasaurs. XXDucky21Xx 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true. The plural of Bulbasaur is Bulbasaur. 67.182.178.220 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Anonyomous

Portmanteau?

I can see how the word Bulbasaur would be a portmanteau if it were a combination of bulb and dinosaur, but if it's merely a fusion of the words bulb and sauros, how is this a genuine portmanteau? By the same logic, Dinosaur, derived from combining the words dinos ("terrible") and saura ("lizard"), is a portmanteau. Heck, almost every scientific word is a portmanteau by that definition. I think you've either got the name's etymology wrong, or this is a classic case of misapplying fun terminology like portmanteau through arbitrary overuse. -Silence, 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to state the obvious, but it's not a simple fusion of bulb and sauros or else it would be bulbsauros. --Doradus 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

u're arguing over semantics..... many words lose or gain letters when combined. that's like saying Abrosaurus is not a fusion of habros and sauros b/c it's not Habrossauros neway.... u'r prolly right Silence, but only half-way. What we should change is sauros not "portmanteau." Rather than misapply fun terminology, we misapplied fun Latin scientific-sounding naming conventions. It's been changed for now since no one seemed to care enough about it to voice a contrary opinion. -Zappernapper 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Editing

I am a user who mostly uses wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I don't fully understand how it works and I only contribute through grammatical corrections! However, I was under the impression that Main Page Featured articles were locked, this is why it surprised me when I clicked on the bulbasaur link from the page page at about 01:20 on 28th July to find that the contents of the article had been deleted and all that was left was a hugely offensive message. I would just like to know how this happened - surely it is possible to avoid this kind of thing, as it could cause a hugely damaging media-storm! Madmatt52 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles most certainly aren't locked as a rule. As for a "media-storm" because of some transient vandalism, Wikipedia would long ago have sunk without trace if such things were possible. As you get to know Wikipedia more you'll learn that vandalism is a common problem that we just live with. Revert the page and get on with your life is my advice. 86.136.2.158 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of the little bastards

The front page currently says there are 401 pokemon while the article says 403. No idea which is correct. --72.224.4.179 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, 403 appears to be the correct number. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

now, there are 493 pokemon. good luck catching them all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.255.62 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Featured Article

You have got to be kidding me. --Mr. Blake 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is on the front page, then the quality of Wikipedia has REALLY declined...

I was so suprised too, I was like "bulbusaur!??".....

Any subject has a chance to become a featured article if it's written and well-sourced. I think it has passed the standards. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about time you changed the rules then because this is making the whole site look like a fucking joke! 86.136.2.158 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fine article that deserves its status. Your claim is an insult to the many editors who spent their time on it. --Merovingian - Talk 01:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, there is absolutely no way this article helps anybody at all. It's a waste of everyone's time and makes it look like Wikipedia caters to 13 year-olds addicted to anime. Were there no actual ENCYCLOPEDIA articles that could have been used? Omnislash 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That, in fact, is the glory of Wikipedia. By its very nature it caters to no one in particular (and anyone, in general), and therefore any subject, including Bulbasaur, is acceptable. --DanielNuyu 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of how well written it is, It's still a fucking joke. People are laughing at wikipedia right now.--Akaces23 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people are laughing at Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia where anyone can sumbit any level of bullshit and no one could ever know. --Macarion 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. --Merovingian - Talk 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...or rather, Wikipedia appeals to everyone. It's as good a resource for main stream things like World War 2 as it is for niche things like specific pokemon. Whether or not people ought to look it up is one thing, but people do look it up, regardless (just look at this pages history). If they didn't do so at Wikipedia, they'd do so elsewhere. So why not have it at Wikipedia?

Anyway, pursuant to that, I think all articles ought to be treated equally when being considered for the frontpage featured article of the day. To parade Wikipedia around as a more main-stream encyclopedia is to ignore one of the things that really makes Wikipedia stand out, imho. TerraFrost 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't think there is something mildly stupid about the fact that this article is longer and more than 10 times as many sources as most articles about important events in world history? Go compare this page with the one for the Battle of Hastings, for example and then tell me that the fact that this article is somehow not only more detailed but also FRONT PAGE MATERIAL is a strength of Wikipedia. I am anxious to hear your stirring defense of Bulbasaur. Omnislash 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an article on The Guardian a while ago that suggested that 1% of people who visit a website actually contribute. If that 1% amounts to more edits for Bulbasaur then it does for the Battle of Hastings then that means, quite simply, that more people are interested in Bulbasaur than they are in the Battle of Hastings. It might not be fair and it might not be right, but whomever said life was either of those two things?

Feel free to call it a problem with Wikipedia. I'd rather call it a problem with society, in general. It's for this same problem, imho, that people who watch the news would rather hear about the latest celebrity scandal than they would about something more relevant.

Also, I might add that the article on the Battle of Hastings mainly suffers because it covers something that is old. When something is current it is covered in such detail that it makes this Bulbasaur article look like nothing. Consider Category:2003_Iraq_conflict. Fifteen subcategories. Does that mean the 2003 Iraq conflict is one subcategory shy from being as important and as influential as that which Category:World_War_I documents? No. It means that old events are simply harder to write about then current events are. And Bulbasaur, like it or not, is more current than the Battle of Hastings. TerraFrost 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon on Wikipedia

I like the idea of having Pokemon featured on the main page on Wikipedia. Do you think more video game/video game characters could be featured in the future?

Perfect Dark was Wikipedia's featured article on May 12, 2006. This is not the first video game article to be featured, but one in a line of many. 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget about Final Fantasy X that was featured recently. 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's awesome! H2P 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's disturbing! :) Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here really cares that you think Bulbasaur is "disturbing". Jerk.

I care, and I agree with him. I really hope you aren't older than 13 for liking Bulbasaur for Christ's sake. Troubleshooter 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You folks need to buy yourselves a sense of humor. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm 23 and married with my own house.... both me and my wife enjoy pokemon a lot, but I don't like Bulbasaur... I like Umbreon *raspberry* -Zappernapper 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

403 Pokemon?

To the best of my knowledge, there are only 386 pokemon, rather than 403. Either this article or the wikipedia page on pokemon is wrong. - Mr Awesomeness 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say one of the 403 known species of Pokemon? Pokemon is a man made thing, people know how many there are currently... --CrazyCasey 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It says there are 403 Pokémon because with the continuing information being released about Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, there is constant information relating to new Pokémon that is released to the public, and so far there have been 17 new Pokémon, sixteen of which have been named. For example, see Bonsly, Lucario, and Munchlax. Ryūlóng 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find the "403 known species" comment a bit odd, not because I dispute the number but because it implies that there 'exist' spicies of pokemon that no one knows about. Since Pokemon are fictional creatures they surely only 'exist' in that they have been invented by the shows creators, pokemon that are not known about even by the shows creators surely can't exist! That said I understand the point that the sentence is trying to make which is that within the fictional pokemon univerce there is a (fictional) posibility that more pokemon may be discovered.--JK the unwise 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But since there are going to be more Pokemon in Diamond and Pearl, that we, "we" being Wikipedia and its Wikipedians, really don't know about yet, the comment is valid. Plus, they give the "species of Pokemon we don't know about yet" line in the game and anime, too. Mostly to give them wiggle room to make up more species as they come about.

Think about it. In Pokemon, we really don't see much in the way of other animals, except for some fish and insects(like the worm Pidgeotto was seen eating in the second episode before Ash tried to catch it), other than Pokemon. Considering the sheer number of species' there are worldwide on Earth, we("we" being Game Freak and Nintendo) likely haven't even scratched the surface of the "true" theoretical variety of Pokemon in the four or five areas we've seen in the games/anime. SAMAS 12:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying you're an employee of Game Freak/Nintendo? WikiSlasher 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can humans claim to know of the existance of every species of creature that currently exists or existed at some point in time? Of course not. Pokemon is a fictional series, and new creatures have been created for every generation, or as would be said in that fictional universe, new species have been discovered. MelicansMatkin 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's 493 now! good luck finding them all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.255.62 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Featured article?

Geez how are these featured articles chosen?! Bulbasaur of all things?! NSD Student 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)NSD Student

Quiet. Bulbasaur is a god among Pokemon. --Captain Cornflake 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, strange. Oh, and someone put "FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG" right in the midde of the artice, in the intro. Took it out.EAB 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I can't stand pokémon.They are strange but like I said, I didn't do it.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are based on the article's writing and style, not specifically based on whether the article is about something extremely notable or likable to all. --WillMak050389 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Talk pages of articles are for discussion on improving the article, not for discussing the content of the article and (in this case) complaining that this particular article is now featured. Ryūlóng 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that talk pages should be restricted to one goal. It is through the freedom of creativity that people thrive, and as such, I think as long as a discussion is going on about the damn green plant thing, it deserves to be going on.--ttogreh 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. One could argue that by us questioning whether this article has merit for being "Featured" status is as much as important as making the article factually accurate.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng is mistaken. The Talk page is indeed the place to discuss whether an article is of Featured Article quality. In my opinion, this one isn't. The sections are long and unstructured, and have a number of grammatical errors (particularly comma splices). I think we blew it on this one. I would have opposed it if I had been paying attention. (NOT because the topic is silly, but because this is most definitely not an example of our best work.) --Doradus 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for a Featured article review. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Idiotic Vandalizing

Who the ---- is Jamie? This moron did something that corrupted the portal to the Bulbasaur article! Something about Bulbasaur being "------- ---" or some ---- like that. Whoever you are, "Jamie" or whatever", you are an IDIOT! Fix the portal!

He was probobly ------ that a Pokemon was the featured article. How is Wikipedia gonna convince the world that it's a legitimite source/Greatest Achievment of Mankind if we have ------- Bulbasaur on our front page?

In case you haven't noticed, it isn't all over the page and it isn't the background either. I also didn't know people cared that much about the feature article, much less even read it. Besides, I thought wikipedia has already set itself as a reliable source of information. Just cause it isn't some dead guy/an old builduing doesn't mean it should be take off.

It isn't the only video game article that was a featured article. Can someone please fix the Bulbasaur article? Some immature moron changed all the "Bulbasaur"s into "ballsasaur". Idiot...

What the ----- the problem with it being featured? Seriously. I really don't get it. Do people care about their precious encyclopedia that much? Oh wait, it ISN'T theirs.....EAB 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think we should get the page locked; its too much hassle and its not fair on the people who have to watch this page every two minutes just so some ------- can have some fun... (Daydreams21 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

I know some of the people that are idiotic vandals, and that's a great description of them. Vandals pay more attention to the front screen than other people, because they feel it their moral duty to let everybody know what is, in their opinion, rubbish.--The last sheikah 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for the people who worked really hard to make this article what it is: great. No, great is and understatement. Brilliant is more like it. I feel so bad right now. All that work and people can't even stop to THINK about appreciating it. All you vandals, go the ---- away! You aren't helping to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information! You are only hurting yourselves and for that, I laugh at you. HAHAHA!

"THE ONLY PLACE YOU NERDS WILL SEE ONE OF THESE IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!"

heh, WHAT an assumption. Sh*t, I'm using long words, only geeks use long words. Iim goin to fall for a rough trick namd Jim.EAB 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone can count to five without using their hands doesn't mean that they're geeks. By the way, ever heard of spellcheck, loser? You can't even capitalize; I wonder what you CAN do...

Speaking of Vadalizing (sort of) someone posted something on this article saying that Ash's and May's Bulbasaur are in love which is never brought up in the english anime. (LatiRider 04:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

More vandalising, yayyy...

This time, people thought it would be funny/gross, to put a picture of a vagina on the page.

How immature, evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? -- Megalomania

I wonder...were the other featured articles about games vandalised also?EAB 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone actually put a picture of a vagina here? Ugh... the vandalizing is so bad that the article is now sprotected. My God, how some people can be so idiotic I will never know... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? Swish. Pokemon articles get vandalised more, becuase they're so unpopular with charvers and the like. They want everyone to know they don't like uncool stuff.--The last sheikah 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon is cool, though. The vandals probably think that they did something biblical by ruining the article, but let's be serious. You morons aren't doing anything helpful. Go the hell away and stay the hell away. Wikipedia has enough vandals and we certainly don't need anymore. Besides, Bulbasaur's my favorite Grass starter!

Pokemon is cool, though.Depends on your definition of cool. It definately isn't popular with the average teenager.--The last sheikah 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not the average teenager then! Yay! :)--Cherimu is beautiful! 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, you might be. See, most teenagers around here (Brooklyn), at my age (15) like Pokemon. Not in the "ooh saw that episode last night lets trade cards" kinda way. More of a nostalgic kinda way. See, as kids, we traded cards, saw the show, etc. It's like Pee Wee's Playhouse, ask an 18 year old if it's a good show and they might say yes, just cause they grew up on it. See, I grew up on this stuff, and so did everybody else, and it was popular when I was a child, so if you had the cards, you're considered to be among the poular ones. The true geeks are those kids that play with Yu-Gi-Oh cards (a show that wil never match up to Pokemon). Oh, and no, they aren't "geeks" or "nerds". They're quite the opposite.

sprotected

I have sprotected the article. Currently there were about 3 vandals per minute, and the article was more often vandalized than not. I agree in principle with Raul that main page articles should not be protected, but i would go for an exception in this case. I have no problem with the article being unprotected in an hour or so to see if the vandal(s) have left. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Using Geography as a guide, I'm guessing people are bandalising as soon as they see it, in the morning... at the moment, it's round about the right time in Europe, and soon it will be morning in the middle of the atlantic, so there'll be a low point then, then a massive boom as America wakes up. Or I could just be being paranoid.--The last sheikah 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. You aren't being paranoid. If anything, you could be an oracle. ^.^ I just hope that all that hard work put into the article won't be for nothing... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is one scary History log. I doubt we'll be getting another Pokémon on the front page after this. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right... hopefully, you are wrong. (Sorry if that sounded rude!)

If (when?) it gets unprotected, it might be worth it to report blatant vandals straight to WP:AIV at the same time they are given {{blatantvandal}} warning. Admins may not block as it's out of process after first warning, but if they do vandalize a second time before an admin investigates, blocking will probably be immediate. Just a thought.--Chaser T 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...It seems to have been unsprotected. EDIT: No, it's back.--The last sheikah 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN and Pokemon?

Why is CNN mentioned in the lead section? What does CNN have to do with Pokemon? Are they leading experts on Pokemon or something? Seems like they've been used as an "authoritative source" to justify the statement in the lead section - really, CNN should only be mentioned in the reference attached to this statment. Carcharoth 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In-text citations of this sort are good style. News reporters are supposed to be somewhat experts on anything they talk about. 66.41.66.213 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth. I find the mention of CNN and Time to be awkward. It should simply say something like "Bulbasaur is considered one of the more popular and iconic Pokemon" and add a citation at the end that directs to the CNN and Time articles. Grammatically, the sentence is also awkward. Is there a special reason why the CNN/Time sentence is phrased that way? Punctured Bicycle 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"News reporters are supposed to be somewhat experts on anything they talk about" - <falls off chair and rolls about on the floor laughing - gets up and wipes tears of laughter from eyes> - are you serious?? Carcharoth 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

man, you should've been there when this "article" was up for FA like three or four times. This issue was brought up each time but was shot down by the fans. 149.142.103.63 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

I've quickly scanned through the article, and the lead section is OK, and there are a few interesting tidbits scattered throughout the article, but in the main, after the lead section, the article is heavily detailed and probably only of interest to Pokemon fans. Sounds like its been written by fans for fans. Not much here of interest to the reader of a general encyclopedia. Sorry. Carcharoth 11:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To explain this a bit more. The detail I refer to is excessive. Some detail is OK, but not this level of detail. If this level of detail is desired, then a lot more explanation is needed. Currently, to understand much of what this page is talking about, I have to follow the links and read several other articles, and I will probably encounter the same problem there. Essentially, what I am saying is that this article does not cater for those who arrive knowing nothing about Bulbosaur or Pokemon. There should be a warning that the casual reader needs to read the Pokemon article first, as much information that would be useful here, is there instead. Carcharoth 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's deliberately written for everyone. If someone mentions "Bulbasaur" to you now - you know what they're on about roughly, don't you? A green dinosaur-like Pokémon?

This other issue is a bit of a double-edged sword, I'm afraid. On the one hand, one could include reams of stuff not-relevant to Bulbasaur directly, massively upping the article's length, but making it totally understandable to the lay reader or not include any at all, having an article totally inaccessible to lay readers. Both sides have followings. We've tried to compromise here, by including bits in parenthesis and little introductions to sections. If you have any particular advice about a particular bit that you don't understand though, please say so. Thanks! —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I could have found out that Bulbasaur was a green dinosaur-like Pokemon without reading the Wikipedia article. I expected more, I'm afraid.

The lay reader versus fan/expert is always a problem, but I have seen far too many articles leaving out basic stuff that can be found by following a link, but should really be put in the article. As an example, for biographical articles about people, at what point do you give someone's birth/death dates, or their nationality, rather than relying on someone to click through to the article. There is a good example here - the inventor of Pokemon, Satoshi Tajiri, is mentioned in the article, but the article doesn't say that he was Japanese and was born in 1965 - stuff which might be relevant to this article (sadly, the article on the artist for Bulbasaur does not even have a birth date). This article fails to make clear that Pokemon is Japanese, or at least originated there - you have to click through to the Pokemon article to find this out, or at least infer it from the numerous Japanese references (eg. the bit about the Japansese names). The article also fails to give the historical context of Bulbasaur within Pokemon history - the Pokemon article says that it started at least by 1995, and since Bulbasaur's debut date is given as 1996, it would seem relevant to know that Bulbasaur was one of the first Pokemon. There is a fleeting reference to "original series", but this is not made clear. Also, it would be nice to say how many Pokemon existed before Bulbasaur, and how many have been invented since.

And the general problems of lay reader versus fan reader have been discussed at WP:WAF (a guideline for writing about fiction). Carcharoth 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes, you need to know what Pokémon are like for a full understanding of Bulbasaur. This is similar to the way in which you need to know what humans are like and what Germany is to get a full understanding of Adolf Hitler. Following links and reading other articles is an entirely appropriate response to knowing nothing about an entire topic area. GreenReaper 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on context. Here, there is definite need to introduce the Japanese origin of Pokemon, and to put the date (ie. 1990s) further up the lead section. These are basic "where?", and "when?" questions that people should be able to find the answer to in this article, rather than clicking through. I came here because I was interested in the number of people who were defending against the "why is Pokemon on the front page" people, by saying that this was a "well-written article", so I'm not going to apologise for pointing out some basic deficiencies quite separate from the 'suitability' issues (I think the variance in styles is detrimental to Wikipedia, though the diversity in content is a strength). Carcharoth 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(16:18, 28 July 2006) (edit) (grammar nazi strikes)

I believe bulbasaur is the plural form as well as singular, I'm not sure that edit was needed. --Impulse 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...

How is this a quality encyclopedia read, good enough and notable enough to show on the main page. This isn't good PR.

Ah well! We try to promote quality rather than content.--Oldak Quill 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ah well! We try to promote quality rather than content." Hehehe... that's so true. --Cherimu is beautiful! 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

Someone has added very inappropriate pictures to this article. May I request that they be removed immediately?

Never mind. It's been fixed already. Thank you.

67.188.172.165 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. That image showed up on the front page. Xioyux 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me, but that picture that was added,it was a Wikipedia image from another article. Why would such an image be assosiated with Wikipedia at all? I am just assuming that it was from another article because when I passed my cursor over it, its adress apeared on my screen, a Wikipedian image. Are such graphics nessisary? Or for that matter, articles of such a nature? AmateurThinker 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Images like these are used on the Penis article, though in much smaller form. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was very inappropriate indeed — but a quite clever find (they vandalised the stupid {{pokenum}} template, which appears in the first paragraph). I take it that this shows the dangers of Pokemon-cruft... — mark ✎ 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasty. I removed the image. Please check that I didn't remove anything else. Ooops this may be a second spam incident another inappropriate image was added to the links section--86.48.1.176 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good I awarded Barnstars to both Users who reverted they deserve it. Man that was Nasty! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the picture is still there... And no matter how far back the revisions you look at are, it always shows the new one with the penis...Pokemega32 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have erased the picture for the time being. At least this provides a temporary fix.Hektor 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Maywither modified 1bulbasaur.jpg to a picture of a penis, from I believe the penis article. Reverted. User's talk and contri pages show multiple acts of vandalism through. Perhapes someone should do Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation Cronium 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Article of the Day

Congrats, Bulbasaur!

Damn straight lol! (I do not actively play pokemon anymore, yet i still have very fond memories, bulbasaur being one of them =) ) (Daydreams21 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

How the hell is Bulbasaur the article of the day? User:xxx 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is Bulbasaur NOT the article of the day? Good for you, Bulbasaur!

Frankly, I find it funny that so many people can be that insecure in their masculinity. It's a fun game and certainly deep and complex enough that adults can enjoy it, too. --Capibara 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur on Featured Article Review

I didn't notice it mentioned specifically before, but this article is currently up on FARC. --SevereTireDamage 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Too Much Redundancy

I don't know how this article got featured while being so bloated with information not directly related to Bulbasaur. Maybe if this was a text encyclopedia and Bulbasaur was the only pokemon article or something, but this is ridiculous. All the info explaining generalities about Pokemon should be (and I think is) talked about elsewhere, in other articles. In addition, WP is not a gaming guide, so info on strategy is very, very iffy. Blueaster 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've killed off all the strategy info, at least. I have no idea how it got there without me noticing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR again

I've put Bulbasaur up for FAR again, due to the same sourcing problems that unfeatured Torchic and are still holding Charizard back. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article?

I find it odd that the Bulbasaur article got a Featured Article label, but the Pokemon article didn't. Any thoughts on the matter? Sicerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Melee reference

Why is the Super Smash Brothers: Melee reference under the "In the Pokemon Video Games"? Last time I checked, Melee isn't a Pokemon game. Sincerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 01:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The same reason the SSBM reference is under that heading in Ditto. The Super Smash series is anything-goes with respect to Nintendo games (NOTE: Solid Snake and (possibly) Sonic the Hedgehog are the exception rather than the rule).-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i think what he meant was since the heading says the section about Pokemon video games, SSBM shouldn't really be a subheading. Perhaps "In video games" is more appropriate? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Some Pokémon articles like Bulbasaur's start of with Insert Pokémon name here are the first/one of 493 Pokémon creatures/species, whereas some others use is instead of are. I'm confused about what to use. FMB 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say "is" in reference to the whole specie, but I'm not sure. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say "is" is right. For example, "Metapod are one of the 493 Pokémon species..." just sounds awkward and wrong to me, but it can be found in many articles and with 493 individual ones there sure is a lot of work to be done :) FMB 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and fixed "are" to "is" on Metapod, Weedle and Kakuna's page. "Is" is fine, right? Because if that's the case, I'll try to fix it on other Pokemon pages. --Koheiman 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging

Link to psuedo-discussion is here. Looking at it, there is no consensus to merge this to a list. Any such decision should be made here on the article talk page anyway, where the editors of the article can see it. Last, Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason such information should not exist, regardless of someone's personal opinion about "cruft". pschemp | talk 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please leave this article be. Please do not merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.10.65 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 August 2007

Then please give a reason to let us keep this article - i.e. start finding sources. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pschemp above and don't see any valid reason not to have both the article and the entry on the list.--Alf ^melmac 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I say don't merge. If it is merged, significant information will need to be removed from this article which is a bad thing Rob 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

However, most pokemon already have been merged. You can look up the name of any pokemon and it will probably be in a list just like bulbasaur is. Bulbasaur is no exception. 24.15.53.225 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its fairly safe to say that some pokemon are more important than others, especially considering how much media Bulbasaur has been in compared to Loudred, for instance. However, I feel like a lot of the text/info in the article could be cut out. We have all the sources we need, the problem is that we have too much "stuff", specifically in the anime and concept sections. Maybe once enough of the uneeded text is taken out, we can see how much would be lost to merging and if it is signifigant enough to stand on its own. I'm betting it won't have nearly enough info. Ageofe 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keeps saying that, but never does it. I don't personally see any superfluous "stuff" in the article. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your right. I re-read the article several times, and the anime section just contains every notable appearance- although i'm still unsure about the concept/creation section...but even if that was taken out, the article would have enough information to be worthy of not being merged. What do other people think should be taken out of the article? Ageofe 14:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Concept/Creation section was created in direct response to criticisms made at WT:POKE. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on cutting content

Alright, let's talk it out before anything is removed. What is there that is considered unencyclopedic? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will state what I see as being wrong with the version I reverted:

1. Game guide takes up over half the "In the video games" section
2. HUGE anime section, needlessly detailed
3. A large part of the opening paragraph is unsuitable for this article, but rather for the Pokémon article in general (as it describes the localization process from Japan, using Bulbasaur as an example)
4. Large manga section, also needlessly detailed

-Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 20:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I requested full-protection to stem the edit war. Because I'm involved, I can't protect. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 20:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The version Jeske and TTN are reverting to removing cites, leaves sections entirely unsourced, it deletes two sections entirely without a trace as it does with the the MacDonald info. It appears to be removing half of the article, at least visualy, if not acutally. I don't notice any game info in "video games" section, excepting some stuff about a castle in one line; it seems like a textified list of which ones he's in. No section is huge, either capitilized or not; the length of the entire article is less than I would expect of a decent article on Wikipedia; none of the sections take more than five minutes read at a slow pace. "Needless detail" gets entirely wiped in deference to being smartly summarised and the cites kept is improving the encyclopedia how exactly? The lead has not been the subject of the recent editing but it seems compliant with wp:lead, though I do agree there is a sense of 'genericity' about it. Ditto my comments about section size, needless detail should be smartly summarised, not executed, though personally I don't see that this is the case. Thanks for the improvements on the version I tried to negotiate to, Sesshomaru, that was a good edit.86.3.142.101 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The detail you were adding with the cites in the anime and manga sections is far too detailed for a summary-style work. It adds what episodes/issues he's appeared in, what exactly he did or was used for in said episodes/issues, etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY is irrelevent, please go and read that guidance's summary again, you obviously misunderstand its application. Please also note that some editors believe it's bad form to quote guidance and essays as policy.--Barnyard animals 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are enforced, however, cancelling your "citing as policy" argument. From the Summary style Guideline header, and I quote, emphasis mine: It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you miss the sign that says:

This page in a nutshell: Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.

? It's about overly-long sections that are made into their own articles, then summarized and linked appropriately. The only application here would be if you wanted to created a Bulbasaur in media page. The first para says: "Wikipedia entries tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new entries. The text of any entry consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." WP:SUMMARY has no bearing on this at all.--Barnyard animals 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not disputing that, if you'd read my argument. I was disputing your stating that a guideline has no force. WP:SUMMARY was simply the example. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You said (above) "The detail you were adding with the cites in the anime and manga sections is far too detailed for a summary-style work" - you linked the words "summary-style" to WP:SUMMARY. You appear to be citing that guideline to support an edit by TTN which removed data others thought should not be removed in such a way, "replacing data" is what my edits are doing, not "adding data",as you state; stuff was re-moved, it was re-added. Guidelines have no force when common sense tells you something. We should be talking about how the first para of the trading game section and the first sentence need to be shot and that the rest of that is a useful list and keeping that, for example.--Barnyard animals 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Name the others who think it shouldn't be removed. If they're the same IPs as before, be aware anyone can ask for a checkuser to make sure they aren't you. And, as I've stated at WT:POKE, just because something has a cite doesn't mean it should be added, especially since, with what you added, the anime and manga sections read like a fan-made synopsis. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the information should be removed. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on October 19, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

had an obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to WP:Neutral point of view, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. {{{comments}}} I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Yamanbaiia 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Which means - failed because of "edit-warring".--Alf ^melmac 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit to protected page

I removed something that seemed obviously wrong and unrelated to the current dispute. However, if anybody can provide a reliable source that describes a genuine debate between scientists about the biological classification of this computer character then I will replace the material. Tim Vickers 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Current problems

I noticed there's a big fight over this article, and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on its current problems (or if you're more positive than I typically am, what can be fixed to make this a good standalone article). They're kind of random, but hopefully they help.

I make reference to "the second paragraph" or "after that"; I am referring to this version of the article.

A: The intro mentions that the character was created by Tajiri and designed by Sugimori. What's the distinction?

B:"Pokémon is one of Nintendo's flagship game franchises, which has sold over 143 million copies worldwide as of 2007." Copies of what? It's a game franchise in this sentence (what kind of game?), but a children's product line in the first sentence.

C:"Designed by Ken Sugimori, the character's first appearance took place in 1995 in the first ever Pokémon video game, Pocket Monsters, as one of three starter Pokémon the player receives at the beginning of the game." Was the character designed by Sugimori, or was its first appearance designed by Sugimori? Also, this is really awkward in passive voice, when you could say "Bulbasaur first appeared in 1995..."

D:"The character was portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite; in later releases Bulbasaur's appearance has been conveyed by a computer-generated image." Seems to be a non-sequitor, and neglects card games, anime, manga, etc.

E:While I'm thinking of it, why is the bulk of the intro about video games, while the first and last sentence mention "children's product line" and "anime, manga, and games"?

F:In addition, what the heck are we calling Pokemon? Is it a video game series, a franchise, a product line, what? This needs to standardize.

G:The second paragraph seems to be a grab-bag of random "Bulbasaur appears in this, and this, and that." Needs to be focused.

H:Also, WTF does "canon" mean in the context of Pokemon?

I:"A TIMEasia.com article detailing the success of Pokémon described the process by which Nintendo of America hoped to repeat the success outside Japan; names such as Al Kahn, who developed the Cabbage Patch doll, were brought in and the company removed any violence and sexual discrimination or religious scenes in the U.S. versions, hiding the game's "Japan-ness", the Pokémon were given "cleverly descriptive names"." This sentence crawled out of the sea and destroyed Tokyo with its radioactive breath. It needs to be broken up.

J:The claims made in TIMEasia article need to be attributed to the article author(s), instead of saying "it claimed".

K:"A review of Pokemon LeafGreen video game for the Game Boy Advance comparing the graphics of the game on the 'old 4 battery Game Boys' to those of LeafGreen stated 'The back picture of Bulbasaur no longer looks like a snail, each Pokemon has color and has every little bit of detail on it.'" This is sourced to a GameFAQs user review, a source comparable in quality and reliability to things written on bathroom stall doors.

L:The second paragraph of Conception and Creation has nothing to do with conception or creation.

M:Characteristics is just awful. We have a sentence sourced to looking at the image in the infobox, a joke made in Time, and a paraphrase of the Pokedex. Moreover, the second paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Nowhere in any game, anime, manga, or anything is a seed planted on a Bulbasaur, or is a Bulbasaur noted for enjoying basking in the sun, or is a Bulbasaur noted for its ability to go without food.

N:"Bulbasaur made their first video game debut..." "Along with a Charmander and Squirtle,it is one of three starter Pokémon..." WE NEED TO MAKE UP OUR MIND ABOUT SINGULAR OR PLURAL FFS.

O:"In Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal, Bulbasaur cannot be obtained without trading. In Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, Bulbasaur is nonexistent." It also doesn't appear in War and Peace or Red Dawn. Why are we listing works it doesn't appear in?

P:"In Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, Bulbasaur can also be seen in the Battle Tower, always having the move set Razor Leaf, Sleep Powder, Take Down and Sweet Scent." WP:NOT#GUIDE

Q:"In Super Smash Bros. Melee, a Bulbasaur appears as a trophy in a lottery, which the player may participate in by using a currency known as "Smash Coins"." Along with hundreds of other Nintendo characters. Who cares? Why are we bloating this article with an exhaustive list of every time the character makes a cameo appearance (or doesn't appear at all, as the case may be)? We don't do that for actors.

R:The anime header is original research, or sourced to Serebii (which even Pokemon fans consider kind of flakey). It was clearly written by watching the anime and writing a brief essay about Bulbasaur's personality and role. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

S:The TCG section makes a bunch of evaluative claims sourced to lists of things. You can't say "Most of foo are bar" and link to a list of every foo, some percentage of which are bar. Make sure your evaluative claims (most of, many of, none of, all of) are sourced to a source that actually makes that claim. Also, Serebii still sucks as a source.

T:Manga is an exhaustive list of Bulbasaur's appearances, sourced to those appearances. Nothing but plot summary, and utterly devoid of content.

U:Other media is a list of Bulbasaur things. This is potentially endless; there's a LOT of merchandise out there. WP:POKE needs to figure out how it's going to say "This Pokemon appears in a lot of merchandise because there's a lot of Pokemon merchandise" and soon.

V:GRAH WHY ARE WE STILL USING MASSIVE LISTS OF PRIMARY SOURCES AS THOUGH THEY WERE REFERENCES THEY'RE NOT STOP DOING THAT

W:In fact, this article has three references:

• 1. This TIMEasia article
  2. Serebii or even worse fansites (GameFAQs, "Scyther’s Pokémon place")
  3. Direct observation of the game/anime/manga/whatever themselves

So, um, yeah. Feel free to copy/paste this to WT:POKE. A lot of these problems are systemic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits and comments about the current problems

A:Entire lead section re-written and the distinction made clear in concept and creation section.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

B:As with A - now re-written, it seems to be used in a number of different ways, depending on which bit of the franchise is being talked about, have used more careful wording to make that clearer.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

C:Re-written and suggestion adopted.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

D:Linking improved, moved into a better section, distinction made clear.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E:The historical reason for this is likely due to editors following (the now historical Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style. The lead should generally be able to be read by itself as an overview of the article bulk, as a lot of the information for video games - especially the 'plot' aspects has now been removed and the lead re-written is this still an issue?--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

F:Same as for points B and E, which I hope I have some resolution on.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

G:With the lead re-written and bearing in mind the purpose of the lead, is this still an issue?--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

H:I evetually came to conclusion that non-canon meant primarily the Pokemon Trading Card Game, and have edited that accordingly. I am by no means an expert on any Pokemon, never having owned any form of game boy, nor watched/read the anime and managa, so if I'm wrong there, that will still need looking at.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I:Tokyo is now safe :) - re-written the sentence to take out the 'unecessary surrounding noise'.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

J:As with point I, as it has beeen re-written, does this still present a problem?--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

K:That bit is now gone.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

L:With the re-write the second para you say was problematic has now been moved to a better place.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

M:"Nowhere in any game, anime, manga, or anything is a seed planted on a Bulbasaur, or is a Bulbasaur noted for enjoying basking in the sun, or is a Bulbasaur noted for its ability to go without food."

That stuff isn't made up, it's from the Pokedex text collected throughout all of the pokemon games. Pokedexes in the game detail a lot about a particular Pokemon in question, in this case Bulbasaur. I specifically remember the mentions about how there is seed planted and growing as it grows. Toastypk 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares what the Pokedexes say? It's very narrow trivia, and the emphasis on it is out of place. Why are we repeating blurbs of text from the games more or less verbatim, with no secondary sources to offer commentary or analysis or context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the very same appears to be acceptable enough for at least one of the featured articles?--Barnyard animals 09:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bull and shit. Find me a FA using random out-of-context snippets from background text in an in-game database as its sole source for a factual claim so I can fix it or FAC it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue my disagreement that it's "random out-of-context snippets", the double standards exhibited here are much too much for my liking. Gone and won't bother you again. Shame on wikipedia for allowing vigilante groups to use policies to overide the group those editors whose edits others decided made the policies.--Barnyard animals 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

N:Now fixed, the old style guide gave clear guidance on this, it wasn't followed there but the minor fix now made.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

O:Not being an expert in the games here, I thought what the editors we trying to do was to note the games in order of release and point out which one(s) Bulbasaur was left out of (as in A appears in 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, but not 4). If it were left out, readers may wonder if he appears in the game that isn't mentioned.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

P:Tidied up to remove the excess.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Q:Mention of appearance kept in for interests sake, but line greatly reduced of excess.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

R:Practically all plot now gone, serbei now only confirms that the character was in such and such episode, rather than give any detail from it, readers can still find the 'plot' data, though, should they wish to.--Barnyard animals 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

In fixing one of the problems identified by AMIB "The second paragraph of Conception and Creation has nothing to do with conception or creation.", I moved it to the relevant section. This information was in the version that TTN left it in, after this and the subsequent edit, indeed it was there in a later revert he made to my edits, he reverted me again in this recent edit with the edit summary "There is no need to give a random Spanish voice actor (there are probably hundreds to list), and a list of DVDs and a one episode character fall under WP:NOT#IINFO.)", the edit also removed the end of a sentence: "(at different times), although Ash’s was featured for a much longer period." which, again he had previously left in, as did I in further cutting the plot summary from his version. Instead of using the episodes to tell a 'plot', I made it into a short list of four of the episodes and two of the DVDs that Ash' Bulbasaur has appeared in, with two other episodes that other characters had a Bulbasaur in, leaving the previous cites, which are surely sufficient to verify the character's appearance in the 'real world' episodes as well as giving a link to those who do want to know the story around the character, even if the writing there is 'flaky' . I have to say that either TTN or I are getting tendentious and a bit gamey.--Barnyard animals 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, and I highly doubt there have been hundreds of actors of any one nationality that have voiced the characters in toto in the animes, let alone Spanish ones voicing this one character.--Barnyard animals 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC) And in my edit summary just now, by "eight episodes" I meant "eight things" - six episodes and two DVDs, sorry.--Barnyard animals 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Attention: Blah blah blah (Problems mark 2)

This article still has a lot of problems. But Atom and His Package make me a little less irritable about them. A little. Be warned, nitpicks incoming. I could edit the article myself, but I cannot be arsed. The version nitpicked to death is this one.

• The lead
  1. "Bulbasaur (フシギダネ Fushigidane?) are the first of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon that were created by Satoshi Tajiri." So, he created it first? And what about the implied other species that weren't created by Tajiri? Augh, this sentence is worse than the old one.
  2. "The joint venture between The Pokemon Company in Japan and Nintendo of America has produced many incarnations of the Pokémon story and of its Bulbasaur character for their multi-million dollar media franchise.[1]" What joint venture? Is Bulbasaur the joint venture? There's a singular Pokémon story now? Again, not an improvement.
  3. "The Pokémon video games franchise is one of Nintendo's flagships" FLAGSHIP FRANCHISES. IT IS NOT A SHIP AND NINTENDO IS NOT A NAVY.
  4. "and as of 2007 has sold 143 million copies of the Pokémon game,[2]" Which Pokemon game? Aren't those sales split up over dozens of games?
  5. "Bulbasaur first appeared in 1996 in the first ever Pokémon video game" First ever is always redundant. Always.
• Concept and creation
  1. "The design and art direction for Bulbasaur were provided by Ken Sugimori, a friend of the creator of the Pocket Monsters game, Satoshi Tajiri." The most important factual claim of the entire article and it's entirely unsourced. Someone hasn't even tossed {{fact}} on there.
  2. Plural always sounds horribly awkward. Why did we starting doing that in the first place?
  3. "The character in the early video games was portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite; in later releases Bulbasaur's appearance has been conveyed by 3D computer graphics. Throughout, the character has been portrayed with no spoken dialogue. In the anime series, the character has facial expressions, body language and makes noises that repeat syllables of their name, using different pitches and tones" Um. What? This sounds like some really weak OR in the form of looking at the games and comparing them. Remember THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE up above? Yeah, same deal.
• Characteristics
  1. "A CNN article remarked on the flowering of the character's bulb and suggested that it was "perhaps the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures"." Why are we quoting a joke from a CNN.com article as if it were important or relevant factual information?
  2. "In the video games, the Pokédex, a fictional Pokémon encyclopedia, says that the seed on a Bulbasaur's back is planted at birth, it then sprouts and grows larger as the Bulbasaur grows.[6] The bulb growth continues during evolution into Ivysaur and then Venusaur, and as Bulbasaur evolve, they become stronger and more powerful. The Pokédex also states that the bulb absorbs sunlight which makes it grow, for this reason, Bulbasaur enjoy soaking up the sun's rays,[7] and can survive for days without eating because the bulb stores energy.[8]" More in-game trivia paraphrased as though it were important or relevant.
  3. "In the anime, Ash's Bulbasaur was portrayed as being brave but also very stubborn." *sigh* I am tempted to slap {{fact}} on here.

Then just copy-paste my comments from above about "Appearances" and below, none of that stuff has actually been fixed, just fiddled with.

If you'd like a tl;dr version, I have written a haiku.

Unsourced article

Hasn't been improved at all

Since defeaturing

- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to bother addressing the 3rd complaint in your lead complaints section. Good job reading the first sentence of a Wikipedia article and looking at its first picture, but I also recommend looking at wikt:Flagship's 2nd definition. Also see Simple Machines Forum#Modifications for another example of that usage of the word "flagship". FunPika 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And now I changed flagships to flagship franchises... FunPika 09:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I decided to fix a couple of the problems in the article. I hope I did it right... FunPika 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to fix the first sentience, but it looks like I stepped on your toes Fun, revert if it's crappy. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also what the hell is wrong with "flagship"? It's a metaphor, you're taking it literal. :\ Taken from wiktionary: The most important one out of a related group.Toastypk 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That usage is as an attributive noun. You don't use it as a standalone. Even Wiktionary says that.

This article is really badly written. That's only one of the example problems. Focus on the forest instead of the one leaf I pointed out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of GA reviewing, any article (such as this one) with cleanup or expansion banners must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating. If you feel this decision is in error you may seek a reassessement. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 03:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)