Talk:Bulbasaur/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Redirect

There is no consensus, or even discussion that this article should be a redirect. As many people tried to revert this as do it. While the matter is being discussed, the article should be restored to its former state and edit warring over this needs to cease. THings are done here by consensus, not bullying. Discussion goes here. pschemp | talk 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to restoring the page to the version before the blatantly unjustified content deletion. Restore first, then discuss later. The discussion should probably goes here or at the DRV you started. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 -- Cat ^chi? 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking a featured article seems a clear case of WP:POINT. Since there seems to have been no proper discussion of this here, it should be reverted as vandalism. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented. TTN used to perform self-delisting GA without any reviews and blatantly merged that article. @pple complain 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias

It appears that an article about this Pokemon exists in 18 other Wikipedias - do any of them contain content or links to sources which could be used to improve the English version? (Of them, I only speak Spanish, and es:Bulbasaur doesn't appear to have anything to recommend it over the English version). JavaTenor (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

フシギダネ doesn't have anything useful in the Japanese one, either.Kww (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a third-party source?

If video game content is discussed in a game guide that is not published by the same company that made the game, doesn't that count as a third-party source? I'm not familiar with Pokemon content, but there are third-party guides available for almost all of the games I do play. Certainly some of these could be found and cited. *** Crotalus *** 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• For instance, I had previously added one such citation to Technodrome#Technodrome in videogames. *** Crotalus *** 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IINM, the consensus at PCP is that strategy guides and such are usable as 3rd-party sources. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Though, note that there is a difference between a third party source and a third party source that establishes notability. TTN (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is an official policy, and it requires that we have "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Notability is merely a guideline, and one that is clearly the subject of significant dispute as to its applicability and scope. *** Crotalus *** 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can attribute primary information to reliable sources does not mean that the article is worthy for inclusion, if that's what you're trying to get at. Being a guideline that expands upon and balances out with WP:V and WP:RS, WP:N cannot just be ignored like that. TTN (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There's clearly no consensus to apply the notability guideline in the fashion you want. WP:V is a major core policy, and non-negotiable; we can't indefinitely keep an article if it lacks any valid sources and none can be found. WP:N, a guideline, doesn't have anywhere near the same level of weight or importance. More importantly, all Wikipedia guidelines are based on consensus. They are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If a substantial number of users disagree with a guideline, then it should not (and probably will not) be applied. Guidelines do not justify edit warring. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Trying to clarify TTN's point. If the source is about a Pokemon game, and it mentions that Bulbasaur is available as a starter, or can be received from so-and-so at level such-and-such, that is certainly verifiable information, and able to be included in the article. Does it establish notability? By itself, probably not. If there were 50 game guides, reviewing the same game, and all 50 of them mentioned that information, it's just a detail of the game, and doesn't establish that there's a reason to have a article. If three or four of those same guides held that one of the reasons it was the best/worst/most-challenging/most-interesting Pokemon game was because you finally got to get a Bulbasaur, which everyone had been waiting for, then you have a winner: clearly, that kind of discussion establishes notability. That's why WP:RSWP:N includes the language about direct and detailed examination ... passing mentions don't count for much.Kww (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are incorrectly reading WP:RS. It says that "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." That is basically a reiteration of No original research. It doesn't say that passing mentions are not reliable sources, only that we can't extrapolate further beyond what the original source says. There are stricter requirements for biographies of living people, but that obviously doesn't apply here. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected myself ... it's WP:N that calls for sources that address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.Kww (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I have a magazine called "Pokémon Master guide". It covers Bulbasaur quite a lot with comments such as "Although all the starting Pokémon are cool, Bulbasaur is the Nintendo Offical Magazine choice" and "Bulbasaur's a good starting choice if you want to build a strong squad". Would these be acceptable/relevant/etc? I've added a sentence or two to the Video Games section. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate ... who publishes it? Is it by Nintendo, or by an independent game guide producer?Kww (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've scoured the whole magazine but I can't find any publishing information. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that disqualifies it as a reliable source ... if you don't know who is talking, you can't establish whether they are reliable and independent. To say what TTN says directly below a little bit more nicely, while this is a start, it isn't sufficient. If this was all you could find, it would still best fit in the main list article. More things like this (that we can verify who wrote), and discussion outside the context of the game is important. Notice the difference between Bulbasaur is a good starting choice and Fans were happy to get to be Bulbasaur, because he is a good starting choice or The availability of Bulbasaur as a starting choice was a prime factor in driving "Pokemon Fuschia" to beat sales records. Kww (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. It's these guys. And I was just asking about that source, not if that makes the article (in your eyes) follow policy. —Celestianpower ^háblame 09:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo is not a third-party source, no. It's reliable, so you can use it, but not independent, so it doesn't count towards getting the article away from being primarily based on self-published material.Kww (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline trivial and game guide material. If it's that important, it can fit on the list. You need true reception if you want to get anywhere. TTN (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What your opinion of what is trivia is your opinion.--Barnyard animals (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What cannot be covered within the list entry?

OK, what cannot be covered within the list entry at this point in time? This describes the basic function of the species and links to the anime version (which will have its own list entry eventually). Besides maybe expanding to three paragraphs, there is no reason that the entry will ever grow much larger or require an article. TTN (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything currently in the article would need to be adde dto the list and you're not willing for that to happen. —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not need any of this. The lead is irrelevant. Concept and creation is generic filler. "Characteristics", game appearances, and the anime character are covered. TCG and manga are trivial filler (if they weren't, they would be covered within Pikachu, for sure), and they could easily be summarized anyways. "In other media" is trivial and pointless in this case. TTN (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, concept and creation is not all generic, game and anime are covered much better and in more detail here than there, TCG and manga are not fillers - they're just as important as the rest. In other media is equally not a filler but verified and useful information. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would rather hear from someone that isn't trying to keep this afloat just because they worked on bringing it up to our old FA fictional character standards. Honestly, if you really felt that this coverage was adequate and worthy of an article, I imagine that you would be fighting for the rest of the Pokemon articles to come back (The first 251 could easily match this "quality" quite easily). TTN (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I match those criteria: I never worked on this article (or any Pokemon article) and I think all Pokemon should have articles. This article is too long to go into a list (although it is admittedly somewhat short and may not be comprehensive); merging would necessarily lose about 75% of the content. (I'm sure you feel most of the content is stuff that nobody needs to know, but some of us believe in comprehensive coverage.) Everyking (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving single Pokemon articles without providing real world context is giving them undue weight. If you like the content, you're free to move them over to Bulbapedia or another relevant wiki. They certainly don't belong here. TTN (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What if there's a consensus against you? When consensus goes against you, do you concede, or do you try to force the issue? Everyking (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not based in small groups deciding that their articles are good. Consensus is found within our policies and guidelines, and this article certainly doesn't meet them without some heavy wikilawyering. TTN (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see: if you can't get consensus here, you can claim to have consensus somewhere else and use that to force the issue here. You do realize that people have different interpretations of policies and guidelines? Everyking (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See, people act like a consensus within a small discussion rules this site. Policies and guidelines require the use of third party sources to assert and establish notability for all articles, and this article does not do that. No number of users can override or actually get around that interpretation without changing the relevant policies and guidelines. You're free to join the discussion over at the most relevant of the guidelines, WP:FICT, if you want to make sure that fictional characters can be covered just by existing and having a subjective view of notability placed with them. TTN (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that there are different interpretations of policies and guidelines, Everyking, but it is difficult for me to see where your interpretation comes from. There aren't third-party sources that address Bulbasaur directly and in detail ... what interpretation of policy do you use to get around that?Kww (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a policy issue because WP:N is not policy. It's a guideline that some editors agree with and others disagree with. The question is whether the article meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and, if not, whether these issues can be fixed. I think sourcing could be improved using third-party game guides, but there are already reliable third-party sources cited. The article meets all three of the main content policies. I don't think the non-binding guideline has enough consensus to justify a redirect. *** Crotalus *** 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles have to follow policies and guidelines. To ignore one because it is convenient is not proper. And as WP:N is essentially the core guideline, it's even less proper. And you should read over WP:RS if you believe that problems are fixed just by citing third party sources. They have to actually provide information relevant to notability. TTN (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Articles have to follow core policies, usually meaning in particular WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. While it is best for most articles to follow guidelines, it is not required, nor desirable under all circumstances. According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which is official policy): "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, though to differing degrees: policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." Furthermore, both policy and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. They're supposed to reflect existing consensus, what editors actually believe. If you find yourself having to edit war to enforce a guideline, that's a good indication that it doesn't really have consensus and it should be disregarded (or amended to reflect actual consensus and practice). *** Crotalus *** 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it is straight out of WP:V. A policy. Not a guideline. What will it take to get you to drop the wholly mistaken notion that it is only a guideline that articles need third-party sources?Kww (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But there are reliable third-party sources for this article. So far the complaints have been about triviality, which is not part of WP:V. *** Crotalus *** 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Color me unimpressed, but you are technically correct. Two third-party sources have been found, one pertaining to the McDonalds toy, and one pertaining to the Burger King toy. Now all you have to get past is the part of WP:V that says that an article can't rely primarily on self-published sources, which this article clearly does. Still a policy violation, not a guideline violation.Kww (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't say that in so many words. WP:V says that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Emphasis added.) Also, it does say that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." We already have some secondary sources, which satisfies the bare minimum requirement. Now it's necessary to find more. A search for "pokemon" on amazon.com (books) shows quite a few game guides, many of which are not published by Nintendo, which presumably would contain information relevant to this article. (I don't have these guides and am not particularly interested in this game series, myself.) Searching on books.google.com found this, which describes the change of the name from Japanese (though it looks like we've already got another source for that). Here is another reliable, published third-party source that mentions a few facts about Bulbasaur. (From a university press, no less!) Here is a published mention of Bulbasaur appearing on airplane art, though that might be considered trivia. This game guide by Prima showed up in the search results, though I can't read it online. *** Crotalus *** 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says so in exactly those words. Look at the last line of WP:SELFPUB, which is just a shortcut to the middle of WP:N, so it is policy.Kww (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) You're right, WP:V does say that. I apparently overlooked it the first time. Still, as I mentioned above, I'm confident that this article can be rebuilt using mostly third-party sources. I was able to source one Bulbasaur-related tidbit to a book published by an academic press. Much of the rest can probably be sourced to third-party game guides (Prima is a company well-known for this specialty). Next time I'm at Gamestop, I'll see if I can find any cheap third-party guides there that I might be able to use as a source.

I also think we're sometimes missing the forest for the trees. This article isn't anywhere near the worst we have. In fact, I would place it above the median. This argument isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; rather, it's saying that if we redirect or merge this article, we should redirect or merge over 50% of the articles already on Wikipedia. We are a work in progress, which means not all articles will be perfect at all times. Articles should only be gotten rid of if they fail policies and there's no realistic hope that they ever will pass them. See Category:Articles lacking sources for a long list of articles that have no sources at all, and thus completely fail WP:V. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus some effort on them, rather than this article, which does have some valid sources even if not as many as we'd like? *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Bulbasaur could become a featured article once again. I think we really need to work on its reception for now. I'll check the images for fair use information now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this will ever become a featured article again, let alone a good article, without a massive surge of information. There is just not enough specific information on the species to warrant an article. This only became featured in the first place because people worked on it because it is the first one. Afterwards, Torchic became an FA, and Charizard was about to at one point, but the standards had already changed by then (see Charizard's six FACs). Then the two were demoted and active work to bring the rest of them to this "standard" stopped. TTN (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All images now have proper rationales. Chances are that Bulbasaur may pass as a good article once all requirements are met. What do you suggest TTN? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this remains a redirect until proper conception and reception notes are provided because this cannot become anything without it. If this stays around for much longer, I will definitely be cutting the sections way down. TTN (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You heard that people! Let's get to work then. TTN, when do you plan to start trimming? It'd be good to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea because I'm sure the people trying to defend this crap that they're calling content will just revert it. The end result will be something like this. TTN (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a huge slash if you ask me. What'll happen to some of these categories:

1. Category:Basic Pokémon
2. Category:Grass Pokémon
3. Category:Poison Pokémon

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently bloated with unnecessary details, so of course it's a big slash. People are trying to justify this content as relevant and useful, yet it's just bloated and crufty. Those categories no longer have any use, so they'll be deleted. I believe that someone is working on a system similar to {{ER to list entry}} for characters, if you're worried about categorization. TTN (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Crap, unnecessary, bloated, crufty...At heart, every deletionist is just somebody who has contempt for information that doesn't interest him. Everyking (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant information interests me. This is just a bunch of game guide material, trivia, unneeded plot summaries, repetitive info, and plain junk used to justify keeping an irrelevant topic around just because it once met our FA standards. Everything relevant is already covered, and if you find the information to be fun to read, find another wiki that covers it. That's what I do when I feel like reading about details regarding the Mario series that don't fit here. TTN (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Sesshomaru the cut is too big. As far as I'm concerned, the article has already been cut down enough during the series of negotiational edits I made when I created this account. Who knows what future readers will find interesting and what they'll find crufty, only they can make that decision. I agree with Everyking's comments. I notice TTN said he goes and reads other encylopedias - shame on him :p I don't know how long a project life span they will have, I do have an expectation (can I demand? Yes I DEMAND) that this project has an exceptionally extended life span, lets keep accumulating knowledge please.Barnyard animals (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that TTN is a stickler for policy, and, if you work at it, you can make that work in your favor. Once you find so many third-party sources for the article that the article is primarily based on third-party sources, it will comply with WP:V and WP:N. Right now, you have about four sentences of material based on third-party sources, so he can rightfully argue that the rest can only occupy about three sentences. I don't think you stand a chance, but you would be better off trying to find independently sourced material than arguing with someone that is correctly interpreting policy.Kww (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that at this point, we all agree that we're trying to follow policy. The problem is that one side wants time to be able to reach that standard, and the other group feels as if enough time has already been given. At this point, it's immaterial to me whether the page is merged or not. Discussions seem to be getting more heated, however, so... MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whack!

Confused

What does this sentence mean? Bulbasaur, known as Fushigidane (フシギダネ, Fushigidane?) in Japan are the first of the 493 fictional species of creatures. By which I mean, what does the word first refer to. And also is Bulbasaur a plural term, because otherwise I do not understand the usage of "are" instead of "is". Hiding T 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And what does this sentence mean? Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon that can be obtained in the Pocket Monsters Aka (ポケットモンスター 赤, Poketto Monsutā Aka?, "Pocket Monsters Red") and Pocket Monsters Midori (ポケットモンスター 緑, Poketto Monsutā Midori?, "Pocket Monsters Green") Game Boy games originally released in Japan. Hiding T 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is the name of the creture. Fushigidane is it's original Japanese name. When it comes to describing Pokemon, there are no plurals. One Bulbasaur, two Bulbasaur, red Bulbasaur, four Bulbasaur. It's just like how we don't pluralize Deer. One of the problems in this article is that "are" and "is" are being used interchangeably. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I remove the "jargon" tag now? The article has since been reworked. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If the issues mentioned when the tag was placed have been addressed, yes it can be removed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above concerns have not been addressed. I still do not understand what the term first referes to in the first sentence, nor what the second sentence means. Thanks, Hiding T 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which term in the first do you not understand? Fushigidane? MelicansMatkin (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to wikilink off to somewhere in the Pokemon article that explains the sequencing and evolution of Pokemon.Kww (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay let me try again. First, this sentence: Bulbasaur, known as Fushigidane (フシギダネ, Fushigidane?) in Japan are the first of the 493 fictional species of creatures.

• To me it says Bulbasaur are the first Pokemon. Is that what it means? Is that correct? I'm asking what you mean by first and what you mean by 493 fictional species of creatures. Because at the minute it is overly jargonistic.

• Second, Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon that can be obtained in the Pocket Monsters Aka (ポケットモンスター 赤, Poketto Monsutā Aka?, "Pocket Monsters Red") and Pocket Monsters Midori (ポケットモンスター 緑, Poketto Monsutā Midori?, "Pocket Monsters Green") Game Boy games originally released in Japan.

• What does this mean. That in the game boy games Bulbasaur is one of the characters you can play at the beginning? The text is really really unclear. Hiding T 14:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is the "first" in the sense that it is #1 in the pretty much unexplained numbering system for the monsters. It's one of the first obtained because at the beginning of the game, you're given either Bulbasaur, Charmander or Squirtle (your choice) to start off with.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cite

I asked for a citation of the statement that 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 cite tag has been removed but no reference added. Can someone please tell me where this fact can be verified. Thanks, Hiding T 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Their respective articles say they are friends. You're right that it still needs a source, because the articles could be wrong. Have you tried googling for a reliable source? Tajiri calls him a friend in his MySpace. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a cite on them being friends, I would like a cite on him doing the design and art direction. As you may have seen Pokemon confuses me and I don't know what I am looking at when I do google. It's all gobbledygook. I put the cite tag in so someone who knew what they were doing could cite it, because that's how I thought things were done. Would it be better simply to remove the sentence then? Hiding T 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Might as well just remove if you feel that way. Seems the citation tag was taken off. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This interview with Ken Sugimori states that he designed and created the Pokémon. It doesn't mention Bulbasaur by name, but need it? It seems to be a reputable magazine. Reverted removal -I'm not sure how best to write the reference, but that's the source. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the reference in, although I think the cite that Hiding was asking for was related more to the fact that they are friends. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err... "I don't want a cite on them being friends, I would like a cite on him doing the design and art direction". From above ;). Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. This is the sort of stuff that builds an article and provides out of universe detail. Hiding T 13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Squirtle and Charmander

If bulbasaur gets an article so should squirtle and charmander. They are just as significant in the games and Bulbaaur is only slightly more significant in the anime.

Block quote

• Above was an unsigned addition by User:99.231.78.63

That's a variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Unfortunately, Bulbasaur is defended vigorously, despite the fact that there is absolutely no justification for this article's existence.Kww (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some serious justification, or else it wouldn't be possible to defend it so vigorously. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Any excuse to justify this article's existente can be used to justify Charmander or Squirtle having their own articles, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.28.125 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, if anybody would care to write one with about the same amount of sourcing as bulbasaur... I don't see why not, at least. Feebas_factor 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the reason why there is no article on Charmander or Squirtle is because... no one bothered to make one. Elm-39 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they certainly existed. It's because the editors of those articles had sufficient restraint and maturity to recognize that the articles no longer met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and didn't throw a tantrum when the names were redirected to the lists.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if you could possibly explain, why exactly is Wikipedia giving in to such tantrums? Elm-39 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If I could explain it, I would fix it.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that's a mature and restrained comment, of course, Kww. —Celestianpower ^háblame 00:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why can't they all be in the same article? OrangeAipom (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you add them, you might as well make a page for all the starter Pokemon. Tempest115 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Fushigi da ne"

After Kww's edit I did some digging to see how that could've slipped by as long as it did, and noticed here the info was different, and a google search turns up that the phrase does indeed exist. The kanji is also there on that page, so someone with the font available to them should splice it into the appropriate slots. Again, thanks for catching that Kww.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, 不思議だね would be read as "Fushigi da ne", and "it's a mystery, isn't it" or "it's strange, isn't it" would be possible translations. I'm pretty skeptical about the "pun" story, and think you should find a pretty good source that states it's intentional before you include that version at all. Japanese has a lot of homophones, and it's pretty common to be able to read a phrase two different ways. Sometimes it's a pun, but more often, it's an accident. Kww (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean there, though the "tane" -> "dane" seems to support that a little alongside the fact it's evolution Ivysaur sports a name that can be read as "Yes, it is strange". I'll see what I can do to dig up other info, at least Venusaur's japanese name to make sure it is a trend.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tane"=>"dane" is a phenomenon known as "rendaku". When a kanji that normally begins with an unvoiced consonant is used as the last component of a compound, the consonant frequently becomes voiced. This one is voiced in 火種 (hidane, or "coals"), 変り種 (wakaridane, or "hybrid"), 子種 (kodane, or "children"), 新聞種 (shinbundane, or "news source"), 艶種 (hiyadane, or "love affair"), 特種 (tokudane, or "news scoop"), and others.

As for Ivysaur, 不思議そう could be read as "appears strange" (never "Yes, it is strange"). Venusaur is 不思議花, "Fushigibana", and that pretty much only means "mysterious flower". From the kana, I could get "mysterious nose" or "mysterious mesa", but neither of those even seems worth considering.

BTW, I keep having to correct your links to make them work. Only use the | in wikilinks. If it's a URL, just use a space.Kww (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, with that settled it seems it's just a happy coincidence so I removed the info in light of that, leaving the realistic name info behind. (makes me wonder now if the thing about Wobbuffet and it's baby form having names that mean "It is so!" and "It is?" is true or not)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the sentence "Fushiginade is a Japanese phrase that translates as "weird, isn't it." that I added a while back? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above, that's going off the speculation they made it a pun off that. The evolutions don't seem to support it though, especially Venusaur, and it's more or less guessing that's how the kanji is. It's something that would need confirmation from Nintendo or a reliable source as being the intention of Bulbasaur's naming. And it's "da ne" btw, not "na de".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

why not the others?

cahrmander, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by My bullterrier (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

They all had their own articles at one point; almost all of them were merged into lists due to several reasons. A few editors managed to delay the merging for this one, and that delay turned into a "keep separate." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Darn, no party hat emote...)} 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

The mention of Joyce Millman fails WP:UNDUE. Bulbasaur's notability is mostly with people who are at least a bit immersed in Pokémon culture, so why are you giving so much weight to mainstream non-gaming sources? --68.161.154.230 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should it matter if the source is non-gaming or not? I don't see how that source fails WP:UNDUE, since Bulbasaur is a fictional character presented in anime and literature material as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No undue weight there ... it's nearly the only independent source in the entire article. If we actually followed the rules on weighting and notability (which the editors of this article have steadfastly refused to do), the information presented from third-party sources would need to outweigh the information derived from primary sources, and the article would become Bulbasaur is a Pokemon character that is confusing to the outside world. Some believe he overpowers his opponents with pesto. I won't try to edit that change in, but please don't try to claim that the one, solitary outside source that actually examined Bulbasaur is being given undue weight.
Kww (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how it falls under WP:UNDUE either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit late but I agree entriely. The last thing we should be doing is removing out of universe information. If anything we should try to add more. --76.71.208.254 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New Age Retro Hippie's edits

OK, this isn't helping. Why was cited information removed in the first place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you plan to explain why sourced content is, by default, good content? At what point do we need to reiterate "Bulbasaur is only in RBGY" three times? That Bulbasaur makes recipes is utterly trivial and unimportant. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're telling me that secondary sources are trivial? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the sole factor in content's quality is that it has a secondary sources? That every single thing that can be said about anything that ever has existed and ever could exist can be said in any article if it's relevant and has a secondary source? You've never argued that we NEED to mention that Bulbasaur makes food for Pikachu in a game ten years ago that he never does ever again - Hell, you pretty much only complained that I removed a source. The Bulbasaur article was as crappy as it is now back in the day - let me guess, if I found a secondary source saying that Bulbasaur can be found in Yellow on the route that it's found in, I can add it "just because"? Hell, it isn't even a secondary source, it's a guide book about Pokémon for people who like Pokémon saying that Bulbasaur is in Pokémon Snap. The entire section is almost entirely unsourced, so I reserve the right to revert. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out! If there's anything that's unsourced, place {{fact}} tags. They exist for a reason you know. Seems you still haven't changed your ways since you were User:A Link to the Past. Inclusively, you still haven't given a reason for deleting reliable references. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I missed the notice that unsourced content is now, magically allowed. Just curious, but is there some magic reason you've never argued why not one thing I deleted is good content? You constantly argue that it's sourced, but that would indicate that bad content is good if it's sourced. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And why did you even revert? I thought this was about sourced content. In my last revert, I fixed the problem - I didn't remove any sourced content. What's the problem? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you hear what I just said? Get used to putting up fact tags. An outright removal is not contributing to the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But I'm pretty sure you never complained about their removal until I kept the stuff you actually DID complain about being removed. But Sesshomaru, I notice you have not once explained why this content is necessary. What does it add to the article, his purpose in Hey You, Pikachu!? I mean, you must have a reason since you're opposing me on its removal so furiously. Will you please answer my questions at any point in this discussion instead of making adhominem attacks and responding to my questions with more questions (and on top of that, continuing on the removal of sources when my last revert removed a total of none)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for each line of text.

• The added text to specify what Red and Green are. People may not understand that Red and Green are Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue (essentially).
• The three specific mentions of Bulbasaur not being in the three sequels. Can be summed up in one small sentence. Definitely not necessary to say that "Bulbasaur can be fought in Battle Tower and Battle Frontier".
• That you can take a picture of Bulbasaur. You can take a picture of any Pokémon in the game, so all that needs be mentioned is that he is in the game.
• That you can get Bulbasaur in MD and Stadium. It's not terribly relevant that Bulbasaur is one of the choices in Stadium, and further detail is suggested for MD than is present. It sounds like you get Bulbasaur like you do in other games.
• That Bulbasaur is in Hey You, Pikachu!. Why does the reader need to know what he does in the game? Is it a significant aspect of the game?

I'm not sure what sources will do to make the bad content good, however. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then see what others think. Go ahead and place those fact thingys, but do not do another blind revert. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I believe reverting the removal of unsourced content for no reason is the exact definition of a blind revert, and is exactly what you did. You haven't responded to my questions because you know you're wrong - if you continue to argue without answering my questions, then how exactly is it a discussion? Ignoring is a great stall tactic - I'm sure you enjoy using it, but if you continue to ignore me, this discussion is over, and the content is removed. If you can't so much have ANY reason, not even the slightest one, to demand certain content be included, then you have no right to revert. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I already answered your question. If not, what is it you wanted to know exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You have never addressed the content of the article, only that I shouldn't delete sources. That they CAN be tagged with {{fact}} doesn't mean they can be kept. Why do we need to keep specific mention of Bulbasaur's role in Hey You, Pikachu!? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it's part of Bulbasaur's appearance in other places, and it's sourced. What else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an argument to have it mentioned that he appeared in the game. How in the world does being sourced and that he appeared in it warrant mentioning a trivial aspect of the game? I think you're confusing sources with quality - the mere act of being sourced does not allow any trivial detail onto this page. Do I have to re-ask every single question to you (since you weren't participating in this discussion earlier, after all)? Like I asked you, is his role in Hey You, Pikachu! important? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And if anything you could ever say could make you look like the loser of this debate, it's that you aren't even paying attention to what you're arguing for! Are you entirely positive that Hey You, Pikachu! is sourced? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just play the game. And yes, it's verifiable. If it weren't for me, this article wouldn't be what it is today. It's rich with reliable references because of me, but mainly other good faith editors. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry God - I call you that because you seem to act as if you are God. Let me guess - because you did such a good job cleaning the article up, you think you have some right to tell people how the article should be? Too bad it's not rich enough - you have no right to say "just slap fact tags on it", because that's not how it's done. Wikipedia says in many places that any unsourced content may be deleted. You have no right to oppose removal of unsourced content if you're not even going to FIX it. And onto the answer in particular, I didn't realize "just play the game" was a source to say that Bulbasaur is important, and saying "it is" without ever explaining why is either. I did not ask you to say "it is". I wasn't looking to you as a source, I'm looking to you FOR a source. Why won't you provide one? Why won't you personally explain why he's important enough in Hey You, Pikachu! to have that much content about his role? Why doesn't the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If expansion is what you want you can always use {{expand-section}} and it'll garner attention. As for the source, again, it's right there. There's no need for me to explain anything. Anything else? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about explaining what "right there" means? It obviously doesn't mean "right after the sentence in question", since it is not right after the sentence in question. Every single source on the page is completely irrelevant to Hey You, Pikachu!. And there's no need for you to explain why you're reverting my removal of unsourced content? Oh, wait, I forgot - you are the God of this article and own it. My bad. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Sesshomaru, you are being completely disruptive with this article. If I didn't know you would go against Wikipedia policy to keep certain content, I would continue to remove the content, as you do not have any right to revert the removal of unsourced content if you are going to refuse to explain the merits of the content besides the vague "it's relevant". Your arrogant attitude is the worst thing this article should ever have to experience - the only reason you brought up your work on this article was to assert some ridiculous idea that you had any right to control its content. Let's pretend you aren't God for one single, solitary moment and actually answer my questions. Because this discussion you created is a complete joke, solely because you refuse to participate in any meaningful way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) - Can you stop with the ongoing incivility? I can't take your ranting seriously if you're gonna be crude, and it's bad enough I have to deal with being comparable to "scum". Now, are there any questions that I haven't answered yet? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop opening a discussion with incivility? Calling edits unhelpful because you disagree with them is nothing less than uncivil.

A better list would be "list of questions you've answered", because that list's done in a flash. But to be more specific:

1. Why do we need to repeat that Bulbasaur is unavailable in non-first gen games?
2. Why do we need to know that Bulbasaur makes five recipes?
3. Why do we need to know the nature of Pokémon Snap, why is saying "he's found in it" not adequate when all Pokémon available can have pictures taken in it?
4. Where is there a source for the Hey You, Pikachu! thing, anyway?
5. Why did you remove the Brawl part of the paragraph?
6. Why did you remove the mention of what Red and Green are to those who may not understand? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think both need to step back, count to ten, have a soda/beer/whatever. From looking at the diffs and the what is currently worded in the article, maybe a little better copyedit/rewrite and a little condensation is in order as opposed to outright removal of all the material. I understand that some of it is a little excess, but even some facts can be verified through primary sources (i.e. the game itself), provided the content doesn't go into original research as a result and can be written in a way in which both can be satisfied. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am getting annoyed because this happens in any discussion with Sesshomaru. He makes it entirely difficult to even HAVE a discussion, because as he did above, he will not answer half, if any of the questions asked. I have asked a countless number of times why we need to SPECIFICALLY mention what his role is in Hey You, Pikachu!, and he has never answered. Not only that, he lied in this discussion, saying that the sentence in question is sourced when it is clearly not.

But I digress, we do not need to specifically say what he does in Hey You, Pikachu!, nor do we need to repeat that Bulbasaur is not available in non-first generation games when it can be summed up in one sentence. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor is Bulbasaur worth arguing about... WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, dudes. I'm sure nobody wants to get a warning slapped on their talk page because of a cat with leaves on it's back. Chillax.--Koji† 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a lizard, jerk! kidding. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought I had it narrowed down to either a cat or a frog. Damn. :-) --Koji† 03:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) - MuZemike is correct. The section needs a little cleanup/copy-editing, maybe even the entire article. And as for your questions Link, all of that is covered because of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). See, articles on fictional subjects need both in-universe and out-of-universe data. That's the point of having #In other media and #Cultural impact. Also, if you're gonna add something in, WP:SOURCE it. I didn't see you do that when you wrote in that bit about Brawl and Red and Green. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how this discussion has gone on between two people and only one person participating! In-universe content is okay, but just because we need some does not mean you are in charge of deciding which in universe content is good. MoS does not tell me why we cannot say "he's not in RuSa, GS, or DP" in one sentence, and why we have to repeat it three times! MoS does not say why we need to say that Bulbasaur makes five recipes in Hey You, Pikachu!. And as for me adding unsourced content, you're removing content immediately after it was added, I removed content that's been unsourced for who knows how long. Just a hint: That may be an improper comparison, because removing content almost immediately because it's unsourced is assuming that the source will never be added, while removing long-unsourced content is appropriate because there's an implication that it will remain that way, since it's remained that way for quite a while yet. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, and in case you want a third ref, see this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It MUST have been hard, since you didn't do it until now. But that source doesn't show that it's necessary to include - it deals ONLY in whether or not him making five cakes is true. Being true does not mean it is appropriate for inclusion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I just didn't check before because we were conversing. Not sure if you noticed yet Link, but Bulbasaur's role in Hey You, Pikachu! isn't as minimal as you think. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu's role as stated in Pikachu is summed up in a smaller sentence than Bulbasaur's role. And no, I don't think his role is minimal because I don't know what his role is. And guess what? I don't know what his role because you've consistently refused to answer me when I ask why it is significant! This is completely disruptive, the only answers you've given me are cryptic bullcrap like "he's not as minimal as you may think" and completely unwikipedian crap like "play the game". If you can answer the question, then telling people to play the game to find the answer is completely disruptive and unhelpful to this discussion and everyone in it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why must you keep making a big deal out of this? Why do you care so much anyway? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I'm shocked - Sesshomaru refused to answer my question. Again. If you do not answer why it must be included in the article, then you lose the right to dispute its removal! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the sarcasm! Remove it, and I will revert your edit as vandalism. The only thing you wanted was a source. I provided two, and now you want it gone? I swear, some people don't know what they want these days ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) - Link, why'd you do that?! I already gave you an answer. What more do you want?! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me where you answered "why does the article need to include a summary of his role in this game?". And next time, do not lie and say that the only question I asked was "where's your source?". I don't care about the source. I'm sure that it is true. My concern is that there's no "content rationale", so-to-speak, to say that this article needs to go into anymore detail than that he was in it. If I missed it, please copy and paste it in your response to this, and perhaps we can continue this discussion calmly. But if you didn't, please answer the question. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And Sesshomaru, have you forgotten the list of questions I asked of you? Particularly this one: "Why do we need to know that Bulbasaur makes five recipes?" If you will scroll up, you will see the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That is enough, already! Either stop the uncivil bickering, or I will make a trip to Wikiquette alerts. Obviously, the talk pages are not helping; please request editor assistance as per the dispute resolution process. MuZemike (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even want to battle him in the first place. Can we just end it here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For all you know, this may end if you provided an answer to the question of the inclusion of Bulbasaur's role in Hey You, Pikachu!. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Sesshomaru, I was ready to have an actual discussion without any heated collars, but I don't think you've gotten over the past, since you ever-so-rudely denied my sign of good faith and respectful message from your talk page. If you do not want to participate in this discussion, then I will try to search for wider opinion and hopefully this discussion can be over one way or another.

And I am sorry to other users for having been disruptive on this discussion page - no matter the irritant, I should have kept my head cool, but I made this discussion lame. I just want to assure you that I won't lose myself like that in this discussion again. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Link, I obviously didn't want to offend you on my talk page. In my eyes, it was just too random of you to do something like that. I guess in order to conclude this silly discussion, we'll have to ask for a third opinion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I did it because I had calmed down and didn't want to have to go through this again with you, because I have had a fair number of unpleasant discussions with you in the past. But your removal shows an unwilling attempt at accepting any olive branch and isn't helping this discussion return to an adequate level of sanity. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:3 ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant to my comment. I'm responding to your unwillingness to get over this for the sake of the article, choosing to rather gripe on the unhelpful discussion that was had. It just doesn't seem helpful for the article to refuse to accept a peace offering. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, you wanna settle this? Take my advice: drop it. That's it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to be angry about it anymore, and yet you seem... pretty angry. Regardless though, I can't drop it because I want these changes made. If you would like to participate in the discussion, feel free. But please make sure you cool off beforehand. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am "calm" (if that's what you wanted to hear). You don't appear to be annoyed by this but I am. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this to Wikiquette alerts. Please resolve this over there instead of littering the talk page with this stuff. MuZemike (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

I am thinking about getting this assessed for Good Article. It is defineatly not a C. What does it need before I do this? Has it been copy-edited? --Blake (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps making it meet WP:RS would be a first good step. Perhaps that part that says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources ...". Right now, it relies primarily on primary sources, with a secondary reliance on Nintendo-published material.—Kww(talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible refs

[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand why if you take the time to compile such a list, you couldn't take the extra 10 seconds per entry to examine the links and take note that not a one of them contains a speck of useful information about the topic. Why are you edit-warring this article back into existence when there is no third-party sourcing available for it?—Kww(talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They do contain specks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And in my opinion, it past NOTE when I added those other refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They are passing mentions at best. Barely that. I'll assume this is just an accident. But this? A passing mention in an article about teaching people to read using Pokemon? Yet another list of starters? Reggie White's son's favorite character was Bulbasaur can't count for much when Reggie White's son probably couldn't rate an article. You are an established editor that's been around for quite a while. How can you be listing such things as sources?—Kww(talk) 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put them in a "Possible refs" section. For looking at at my leisure. You've probably looked at them more than I have, at this point. It's how I like to organize stuff on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[11] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That counts as notable media coverage, IGN giving him a biography. Good find! Dream Focus 16:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I knew more about video game RSs, there are probably more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I really wish we'd TALK this out before going "OH YES TOTALLY NOTABLE RESTORING NAO" especially considering in each time nobody's bothering to remove the two bad refs.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Which two bad refs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KfM. If you think Bulbasaur is notable now, then discuss it with us. Dont bring it back with something that could barely work... There are multiple thing that need to be done. 1. Adding pictures. 2. Fixing random things. 3. History merge articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's do all those things. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was from Spore. That's why I put them here before I put them in the article. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD comment

My vote in the AFD got edit conflicted in an edit war over whether the AFC was closed. Ironic, neh? Anyway, here is my text that couldn't go in:

• Delete, replace with redirect, protect to avoid resurrection. I'm sorry, to me this is a pretty obvious one. I'm sorry that it used to be a featured article, too. But, bad judgment in the past does not require us to continue to have bad judgement. The article is a massive violation of WP:SELFPUB's restriction against primarily basing an article on self-published sources. Of the 20 sources in the article, article, only 3 are indendent of the creators -- 17 of them are official websites, affiliated with the creators; manga, affiliated with the creators;PR Newswire releases, a press release by the creator; or videos, affiliated with the creators. The information gleaned from independent sources are sales figures from Nintendo in a source that doesn't mention Bulbasaur, a game review that doesn't mention Bulbasaur, and a Time article that gives us the riveting information that Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur. That is in the context of Fushigidane being a popular Pokemon in Japan, which it would require synthesis to state applies to Bulbasaur in the English editions. In short, there are no reliable third-party sources for this article. No sources = no article. It really is that simple.Kww (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is ridiculous that a valid AfD got speedy kept because it USED to be a FA. What is the problem when there are multiple reasons against the article and the only thing going for the article is its past FA status? The only people who were able to voice on the AfD were the people actively involved with the conflict in the time that the AfD was brought up and was unjustly closed due to some sort of FA immunity. SpigotMap 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to raise a stink about this. This article's FA status was revoked for good reason, as stated above and on WT:PCP, because everyone realized that FAing the article was a shot in the foot. Former FAs should not be immune to XfDs or DRV or somesuch just because they were frontpaged. To me, this is just further evidence of the deterioration of PCP, and I will be henceforth removing the supporter userbox from my page barring people adopting common sense in re Bulbasaur. Not to be crass, but this article is shit. It's been shit from before the FA, shit while an FA (notwithstanding the vandalism from hell while it was on the frontpage), and shit even after it stopped being an FA. The editors here have had enough fragging time to come up with sources. It appears they have failed or not even fragging bothered. Time to redirect to the list. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've seen AfD's speedy kept based on FA status. If the article does not meet inclusion guidelines, how did it become FA? The thing went all the way to Front Page and no one noticed it did not meet inclusion crtieria. So "FA status" is certainly a powerful argument for a speedy keep. The idea of the subject not being notable leaves me speechless. Pokemon in general and Bubasaur in particular are, in my opinion, notable as meeting "household name" status. Notability does not wear out or expire. If the current version is flawed, the correction for that is always reversion to a better version or re-editing. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this case, there is no "better version". Everyone realized when it was FA-reviewed that it was a travesty of an FA. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't deny the fact that this article survived one year as an FA and a day as an FA main page with thoudsand of people looking at it. Oh, and it got through the first FAR, too. Not meeting FA standard doesn't mean an article should be redirected somewhere, because, let's face it, you cannot merge all the valid, relevant and well-sourced materials currently presented here to some "list of characters" page. Please drop it. - PeaceNT (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

... valid, relevant, and well-sourced materials? The article has no third-party sources. Absolutely none. How can that be described as well-sourced?Kww (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And the article has had zero third party sources since before the FA nom. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of third party sources doesn't make an article less "well-sourced", all materials here come from reliable official sources, thus are verifiable, and go perfectly in accordance with WP:V. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." TTN (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to take words too literally, from WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." — article doesn't violate this spirit of the policy. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

PeaceNT, it is general understanding that because of this limited interpretation that leads to thousands of controversial redirections. Wild claim that article has no or zero reliable sources is fallacious. At the same time, as stated in WP:V, self-publish sources can be used under certain conditions, to which this article satisfies. @pple complain 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says that self-published sources are OK if the article is not based primarily on such sources. This article is clearly based primarily on self-published sources, as only 1 of the 20 sources is a third-party, independent source that mentions Bulbasaur. My claim is not wild... it's factual.Kww (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that V isn't the only threshold an article needs to meet, right? Just because the information is verifiable doesn't mean that the information has anything to do with notability. WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS all require or put a great emphasis on reliable third party sources. This is expanded upon in WP:FICT (No, being "disputed" does not make it irrelevant. The consensus is leaning towards "keep but make less harsh and more workable" anyways.) and WP:WAF for fictional topics. There is no way that you can call this current article anywhere near a viable topic. TTN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TTN, you are going around the circle without the willing to advance the process of building consensus. Don't play JUSTAPOLICY as an excuse for lacking of argument. Even a new user can cite pure links to policy like you, but it is unappreciated, anyway. OK, back to the problem. V is one of the core content policies along with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:N, WP:RS or the disputed FICT are just some of subdivisions of the broad V. WP:N is one criterion for article inclusion, i.e. a barometer for topic suitability and should never be separated from WP:V. You claim that "the information is verifiable doesn't mean that the information has anything to do with notability" enhances the another side of your superficial comprehension of policy. @pple complain 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not one or the other. All articles have to come in line with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and any other specific MOSs and notability guidelines. The information in this article can be attributed to sources just like any other fictional topic, but per the rest of those, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. TTN (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what Template:Primarysources is for. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this has been through plenty of discussion with absolutely no good sources turning up, that's not going to do much good at this point. TTN (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It takes only a second to redirect a page, but days or maybe weeks to find sources and write articles. There's nothing so urgent that one has to deny the article's right to improvement and redirects it right now. No reason has been given as to why this page has to be redirected now. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) We have had many months in this case. Many people have searched for sources in that time, and none have been found. It needs to be a redirect now because like the other 492 non-notable Pokemon, it does not assert notability and needs to be part of a list. There is currently no reason to think that this is a worthwhile topic.

The fact that it was featured means nothing. We let this become featured at one point, but our standards changed. This article became a featured article, but again, our standards changed. While Wario is currently possible topic, this and Torchic (the other featured Pokemon) have not even came close to showing anything that places them in today's Wikipedia. The only reasons to even think that it is worthwhile topic is because it is the first Pokemon, which carries absolutely no more weight than being 29, 265, 429, or any other number, and the fact that it is one of the first starters. That second carries no more weight than any other starter or legendary of the series. Are you going to try to get those brought back soon also? TTN (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the main argument ... this article has been around for a long, long time. The lack of sources has been a sore point for a long, long, time. Not a single editor has discovered third-party sourcing ... what's the argument for keeping it after such a long dry spell? How can keeping such a poorly-sourced article be justified? Kww (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you considered the possibility that the problem isn't the article, which covers the topic quite well, but rather the mess of contradictory and unwieldly guidelines and policies you are treating as infallible? Catchpole (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If guidelines seem fuzzy or contradictory, one goes back to core policy. Core policy insists on reliable third-party sourcing being available. This isn't an argument over whether an article can be fleshed out with self-published material (which it can, and no one arguing for redirection says that it can't), but whether an article based primarily on self-published sources can be allowed to live, which is prohibited by WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, haven't searched for third-party sources simply because I wasn't aware that was an issue. I'm sure the situation is the same with other editors; not everyone has been a part of the Wikiproject for as long as TTN, Jeske, etc. I wouldn't mind following WP:IAR for a short time to give newer editors on the Project (such as myself) time to find reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. Odds are that none will be found, but I don't mind spending a day or two trying to find some.

It's obvious that we are all here because we want to improve Wikipedia. The problem is that we just have different interpretations on the best way of doing that. If the redirect can be postponed until next Sunday (February 3) to give the newer Wikiproject members time to find the sources, we will be able to know for sure if the article is kept, or redirected. Any objections? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have stated before that due to my custom D&D material (which does involve Pokémon), I have a conflict of interest w/ regards to Pokémon species and thus avoid editing other than the redirections or reverting vandalism. The same COI also kept me out of the PCP - I was merely a supporter of it until the AfD.

As for the time, I would normally agree to this, except that the users who want this article separate have had literally months to find such sources. As I have stated above, they either have not found any or have not looked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to be common ground that the Wikipedia should contain an article about the Bulbasaur. The only difference seems to be whether that article has an arbitrary and unhelpful title like List of Pokémon (1-20) or is the more direct and obvious title of Bulbasaur. The latter seems better. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• What the heck are you guys looking for in a "third-party source" that isn't here? Please explain for some of us who think that this article has quite a few third-party sources. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Third-party sources are independent of the subject or its creator. And, Colonel, I have a question. Were you even involved in the endless discussions at WT:PCP last year that led to the merging? The consensus was to redirect to lists. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• To expand on third-party sources: they have to be independent of the creator (in this case, they basically cannot profit from Pokemon in any way), have a reputation for fact checking, and have to have a direct and detailed examination of the topic. Look at WP:RS for the rules. Essentially, you have to find someone like Time Magazine or the New York Times that wrote an article about Pokemon that took the time to write a paragraph or two about Bulbasaur. It can't be just a passing mention (like there are 492 first-generation Pokemon, with names like "Pikachu" and "Bulbasaur"). Given the topic, you would be better off looking at magazines like Newtype and Animage. Be careful though ... if the source is really talking about Fushigidane, it may not be OK to use it in reference to Bulbasaur. That would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The other thing you need to find are in these third-party sources are things that show that Bulbasaur himself is important... best-selling Pokemon toy, satirized or parodied in other works, things like that. If all they are talking about is Pokemon in general, that doesn't do anything to make Bulbasaur any more notable than the others.Kww (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is incorrect. Per WP:SOURCES, Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations.. In other words, since Nintendo is the copyright and tradmark owner for most of this material, it is essential to reference them to show fair use. Also, since Nintendo is the creator of this material, their sources are literally authoritative. Economic independence is not an decisive factor as most sources have a vested interest in their subject.

• Moreover, note that WP:RS are not rules but is a guideline, which ... should be treated with common sense. Please see Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy which is an official policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Never said that you couldn't/shouldn't use Nintendo as a source ... I just said that they aren't a third-party source.Kww (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think our common sense would agree that Bulbsaur is notable. Pokemon are not created equal and bulbasaur is exceptional. Pokemon wouldn't be popular if there wasn't the original three starting pokemon backing up pikachu. They highlighted pokemon's animal characteristics, emphasized collection, and the weakness and resistance part of pokemon battling. They really are the companion mascots to pikachu. Tangeros (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question: Why does Bulbasaur have it's own page, whilst Charmander and Squirtle don't? What makes it more notable than the others? 87.194.48.225 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fallacy of the above claims that this article was somehow accepted by the community as a Featured Article for some period of time. As a matter of fact, as soon as it appeared on the front page, there was a tremendously negative response including immediate calls to revoke its FA status. These were largely dismissed on the reasoning that editors should have raised their complaints during the Featured Article process (logic I found frustratingly circular) and therefore the article remained Featured for some time. Thus, the amount of time elapsed does not make its selection as FA retroactively valid. --Doradus (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't drag your argument with SandyGeorgia in here please. It was promoted in March 2006 and featured on the main page in July of that year. At the immediately following FAR it was kept as an FAC, and it was not until June 2007, well over a year after it's initial promotion, that the article was demoted. The standards have changed over time, but throughout most of 2006 and a good chunk of 2007 the article was deemed to meet the standards of the time. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that it wasn't an FA in the past even though it went through the same process as every other FA, just because the standards have changed since that time. Please keep your argument with SandyGeorgia on her talk page; don't divert it here with an unexplained and completely unwarranted rant. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My claim has nothing to do with changing standards, and nothing to do with SandyGeorgia. I'm just pointing out that Bulbasaur was a contentious promotion immediately after it happened. --Doradus (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Restore article

I think it should be restored. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please justify that opinion, rather than just stating it. Detailing which of the sources that you consider to be completely independent of the Pokemon franchise that discuss Bulbasaur directly and in detail would be a good start.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's here, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that in that last discussion, the IGN source was viewed relatively favorably, but the college newspaper one was deemed unacceptable because it was satire. I think it was more silly/humorous than satire, but regardless, notability is based on RSs noting subjects. They noted it, and the writing style only effects how we should write it up, not whether it effects notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's based on reliable sources providing detailed discussions of subjects, not providing passing mentions. Satires aren't acceptable, leaving only IGN. I tend to discard IGN as a source of notability because it strives for directory status: isn't it's goal to cover everything related to gaming, regardless of notability?—Kww(talk) 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know where our rules on satires are? I think they are acceptable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source got rejected at RSN based on that. I don't know of a venue where the general question could be addressed, but I would be amazed if you ever got a satire through RSN.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really rejected, it was mostly ignored. Anyways, I know RSs better than the people who answered, and for certain statements, it is reliable. Exactly what those statements are, we could discuss on this talk page if the article is restored. The question is, does it effect notability and I know no reason why it wouldn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is reliable. It is whether it is suitable for reception. It is just a bunch of random joke made about him, which is barely real reception. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's something better than using it for reception. I'd like to agree that it helps the article pass the notability bar (which I think it does), and we can decide the best way to use it on this talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if there are some sources that don't meet the requirements for reception, why don't you formulate a paragraph of things that do work? You have to think, Pokemon aren't really notable enough for someone to just write an article or book just on Bulbasaur. That doesn't mean these Pokemon can't have an article. We have to take passing mentions and use them as well as we can. If there is enough that is really strong, actually giving reception to the character, then it should be notable.

There are loads of character articles with not as much Cultural Impact as we have here. This is enough to work in my opinion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the article has to be based on material taken from independent, reliable sources that address the subject of the article directly and in detail. The Pokemon articles have, as a class, always been bad in that regard: they take a few passing mentions from people discussing the Pokemon franchise (which certainly is notable, and I have never argued otherwise), and then dress them up with restatements of plot points derived from manga, anime, and games. That doesn't pass WP:N in the first place, and then trips over numerous other policies and guidelines.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Many were against its removal, it done without consensus, by one administrator. Later on they added it back with a redirect. Lot of protest. This was a formerly featured article, and it a major character in quite a notable franchise. Anyway, I agree, we should restore it, there never any consensus to get rid of it. Dream Focus 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it was members of Wikiproject Pokemon that moved it to project space, not "one administrator". It wasn't until Colonel Warden violated the GFDL by doing a cut-and-paste move out of project space, followed by an edit war between Peregrine Fisher, Colonel Warden (complete with his usual deceitful edit summary), Kung Fu Man, Bws2cool and yourself that Black Kite got involved.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, a bunch of non-impartial people, including the admin. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• I only redirected it back because I wanted him to get a consensus before reviving it. I think it is notable enough to be out. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. What do you say KWW? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it passes WP:N. It doesn't rely on reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, so it doesn't pass WP:RS. As it stands, the article consists primarily of a list of appearances and trivial plot points, which I don't see any reason to have at all. If someone puts the article back, I won't restore the redirect because I swore off editing this thing years ago. That shouldn't be confused with assent, however: more like being resigned to the fact that some people don't really seem to worry about the article being unsalvageable and refuse to let it die a graceful death. There really isn't anything important to say about Bulbasaur that isn't listed here. It would be nice if people would start from there and explain what is in the underlying article that isn't in the list, and why they think the sources they have for it are sufficient. Instead, it seems to be some kind of matter of pride, that there should be a standalone article because somehow Bulbasaur "deserves" one.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just checking, although I do believe there are two articles that discuss it directly, and in detail. Some people don't like one of them, and I understand why, but as far as I know, there isn't any policy or guideline stating that a satire article in an otherwise RS is not reliable and doesn't help with notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• You can always try taking that issue back to WP:RSN. That's the normal method for resolving issues about reliability of sources. I would like to hear why you think the material at List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur is an insufficient discussion of the topic.—Kww(talk) 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Page unprotected. However, I would strongly recommend that all parties leave the redirect in place, and discuss before making changes or restoring the article again. Regards, JamieS93^❤ 19:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of notability as it seems generally agreed that we should cover this notable topic in some way. The recurring issue is whether this coverage should be at List of Pokémon (1–20) or here. The most relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME which states, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.". List of Pokémon (1–20) is not a common name used by any reliable sources, nor does that particular grouping of Pokemon seem to be notable or helpful in any way. Bulbasaur is one of the top tier, A-list Pokemon and the continuing emphasis and interest is confirmed by recent news coverage such as that which I recently cited. Forcing all Pokemon into a uniform format so as to deliberately prevent coverage in proportion to the topic's importance is contrary to core policy. We must therefore retain and improve the featured article and discard the arbitrary list. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. Bulbasaur can't get FA sitting in a list. Although his article was cluttered with a lot of fluff, I think a rewrite would do it good. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we can restore it, based on the other related conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Bulbasaur.... People seem to be mostly agreed that we should give it another shot, besides KWW, who isn't really that crazy hardcore against it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• That was precisely why it was taken to project space: I thought it was a brilliant idea. Give it a place for the people that believe it can be salvaged to work on it, without having this thing sitting around in article space. Unfortunately, everyone that was so eager to resurrect the article into mainspace seemed to refuse to touch it there. I mean seriously: this is 9 months worth of effort? The biggest addition is a trivia point about a horse in Australia? At that rate, there's another ten to twelve years of effort required. I really don't understand that aspect: why on earth was so little effort made to fix this thing before restoring it? Is it a point of honor that it was beneath people to work on it in project space? Maybe the "article incubator" project would work better?

Also, you shouldn't get me wrong: I am hardcore against placing this article back into mainspace. As I said earlier, you shouldn't take my deciding not to edit this thing (including restoring redirects) as an assent to the article's existence. Just resignation.

On another note: it would appear that the editor who chose to anonymously resurrect this thing resurrected some bizarre old version: someone should look into this diff and figure out why all the references and work that occurred over time was erased.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a number of us think it's good enough for project space as is, and would like to see an article on it. To help try and keep it in project space, we work on it whenever it's there. After dealing with Kww and those old Pokemon project editors (I forget their names) last time, I don't want to work on it and have that be the group of people judging my work, since I mostly don't agree with that group. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fisher, you seem to have confused the "project space" with the "mainspace".

Having the article in the project space was fine. I just didn't like that all the history was moved there. Also, that was just some IP that reverted to that. I have no idea why they did that. But the thing is, there is enough Cultural Impact to show it's notability. As well as having "Promotion and merchandise", there is plenty of "Critical Reception". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. I meant mainspace. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always been against calling these sections "Culural impact"; such a title implies that mentions in popular culture are the only way to demonstrate notability. And Pop culture is barely worth mentioning. These sections should be named for what they are supposed to be: Reception. Quite frankly, what we need are sources that critically discuss the subject in depth; that's what Reception is. Garage bands that nobody has heard of who named themselves after the creature definitely does not qualify. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's something I can wholeheartedly agree with. It is the existence of those sources that critically discuss Bulbasaur in depth that is the major problem. If they existed, it probably would be possible to create an FAC article on Bulbasaur. Since they don't, it isn't. Having it be in a list isn't the stumbling block, it's the lack of sources that actually talk about Bulbasaur.—Kww(talk) 19:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• There are plenty of sources which discuss Bulbasaur in detail such as The Official Pokemon Handbook which is published by the reputable and major publisher Scholastic. Substantial sources of this sort plus the numerous details found in other sources are quite ample for our purposes. These generally indicate that Bulbasaur has been well-received by many children and so its reception is good. The issue is not the lack of sources for Bulbasaur; it's the lack of sources for Pokemon #1-#20 as a distinct concept. Presenting these Pokemon together constitutes improper synthesis in that it suggests that these Pokemon have some particular relationship when they do not. If we were to group Pokemon then this would be more sensibly done by evolutionary path. There is an association between Bulbasaur, Ivysaur and Venusaur and so it makes some sense to cover them together. But putting them together with Charizard makes no sense, especially when we see that Charizard is covered in a distinct article, just as we wish for Bulbasaur. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Scholastic material is licensed by Nintendo, so it doesn't qualify as an independent source capable of discussing the topic objectively.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Colonel, the lists being deleted/merged is not up for discussion. If anything, they will be merged into lists of around 50, by Generation, as shown here. But yah, the Official Handbook doesn't count as a source for notability or else every species would have an article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Every species does have an article, so far as I can see - they've just been combined together in arbitrary batches for no good reason. Licensing does not mean that there is a lack of independence for our purposes - it is just a matter of trademark law. The publisher Scholastic is independent in a commercial sense and the fact these these works have been published in multiple editions and printings shows that they are adequate to establish notability. The key point is that that they are not self-published or a vanity press. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The existence of this article is not hinging on the garage band reference, although thanks for the input. The two reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail are this and this. Although there have been gut reactions against the writing style of the second reference, I've yet to hear any policy based reason why it doesn't help with notability. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If both of those were enough to establish notability, then Charmander and Squirtle, and plenty of other species would have articles as well. IGN covers every Pokemon. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The IGN ref wasn't really disputed the last time we had a big brouhaha. It sounds to me like a lot Pokemon are more notable than we think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying it isn't reliable. It can be used for reception, but it shouldn't be the ONLY thing. Even though many people would love to have all 493 Pokemon have articles, I am sure their notability would get disputed, and they would get merged back. Focus on one battle at a time. We may get there in time. I am sure the sources are available for each Pokemon to get it's own article. We just don't have the time or resources to find them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's how I feel as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Even the new GenV Pokemon, Zorua and Zoroark could have an article after some more people write about them. The main problem with Notability is that the guideline says "_{A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."} That means it is debatable what amount is "significant" enough. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine, the issue with satires really can be put to bed simply. You took it to WP:RSN before an no one took it seriously. Try it again. If you can't get the only mechanism we have for accepting sources to accept it, you haven't got a source.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I took it there again a while back, but again not much feedback. I've since asked a few experienced editors to look at it. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Humor.2Fsatire_articles. Feel free to comment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)