Talk:Magikarp and Gyarados

Merge proposal for Magikarp and Gyarados

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to merge. By just looking at the numbers, no consensus appears to be the most likely closure. However, the support !votes raised the point that Magikarp and Gyarados are very closely related, only being notable in relation with each other. The oppose !votes never gave a proper counter argument to this, which resulted in the consensus to merge. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

---

A bit unorthodox, but unlike other species articles these two have a large amount of overlap, to the point one cannot fully be discussed without the other even in terms of reception. I know other editors have suggested this in the past also, and I feel a combined article would be a long stronger and more cohesive without feeling like a coatracked topic. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per basically what Kung Fu has said. The two have substantial overlap and would likely be better covered as one topic rather than by themselves. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Right now we have no combined articles about multiple Pokemon. The criteria for merging is that one can only be talked about in the context of the other, and that's simply not true. Both Magikarp and Gyarados can be talked about separate from one another. There's also the fact that Gyarados may not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• If Gyarados doesn't meet notability though, wouldn't it be better to be merged into Magikarp given a lot of 'karp's notability comes from "One day I'll evolve and kill you all"-esque stuff? For the sake of argument, I did consider rolling Gyarados into Magikarp's article similar to what was done with Tinkaton and it's pre-evolutions, but in this case we have dev history for Gyarados which may be out of place there unless carefully handled.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I guess, but the article would still be titled "Magikarp". It would just mention that Magikarp evolves into Gyarados and it does X and Y. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue against that. Magikarp and Gyarados are very heavily tied together; should we merge Gyarados's content, it'd be talking about both of them rather equally to a point where the article is focused on both Magikarp and Gyarados's impact. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I think that's a fine thing, but I do prefer them as a duo, because I think a lot of the notability Magikarp has applies to Gyarados as well. Shared notability, basically. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Yeah, I don't see the issue of a shared article. We don't have combined articles about multiple Pokémon because very few Pokémon that are notable enough to be separate from a list are not independently notable from another also-notable form. It is important to note, however, that we have multiple video game articles about character duos. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This is an ingenious but fairly inelegant solution. It is unorthodox, and whilst it streamlines some information, it might lead to splits in other sections that discuss the characteristics and appearance of the Pokémon that would be a trade-off in terms of reducing length. That said, I agree the independent reception of both is not strong and largely defined by their transformation into the other. And a merge would be inappropriate in my mind, because a person looking for information on Gyarados would not at first instance think of looking for an article on Magikarp. So if there is a live issue about notability, I think I could waver closer to a weak support after taking a look at the sourcing. Otherwise I'm not sure. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If the article has "Gyarados" redirect to it, then it will lead to this same article with little to no difficulty. Searching shouldn't really be an issue here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

support per "99% of the reasons they're notable heavily involve each other"

except mega gyarados, that thing is just kinda notable on its own around the anime's fanbase cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 11:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure how it will turn out to have an article with multiple Pokemon/characters in it. But, I just felt like Magikarp is more notable and could work on its own without Gyarados. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I see the main concept behind the duo article being that, while Magikarp can work as its own, it receives increased value if it covers the other half of its notability, the implicit aspect of its notability, which is Gyarados. The way I see it, without Gyarados, Magikarp would be no more notable than Delibird. There wouldn't be much to say except "it's a shitty fish." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support If Gyarados turns out to not be notable, then it would be better to cover this at Magikarp than not at all. They are different but I can see how much of the article is actually the same. Archrogue (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Sebbog13 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support – I've always been highly supportive of combined articles for evolutionary line, seeing them more as growth stages of the same creature. You'd be hard-pressed finding a source on this page that doesn't talk primarily about Magikarp evolving into Gyarados. I believe a merge is appropriate no matter what, looking through all the listicles on this page. I don't think this is a WP:COATRACK issue: Magikarp and Gyarados are notable as a single creature that represent a specific storyline of growth and power. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Quick addition to my argument: it would be like having separate articles on silkworm and silkmoth: two stages of the same creature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Clarification: This would merge the article Magikarp with Gyarados. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magikarp and Gyarados/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Greenish Pickle! (talk · contribs) 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

In progress. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Concept

• "specifically dragons seen in Chinese mythology." (No sourced at the end) Unsourced
• The next sentence is also unsource

Appearances

• Link NPC

In anime

• seems repetitive, reword it into simply just "In anime"
• "the first one being in Battle Aboard the St. Anne." unsourced?
• "returned in Pokémon Journeys: The Series" unsourced?

Reception

• "Magikarp has been regarded as one of the weakest Pokémon in the series, as well as one of the worst Pokémon of all time" Why IGN is the only source cited here? try to find other sources, if you can't then reword the sentence, but the worst part is the IGN source is dead so you could probably end up removing it.
• Dexerto source seems unreliable
• NPCs was linked here instead in the "appearances section", so change it.
• "Paste said it "exemplifies power through perseverance,"[15] and praised it as an iconic staple of the series" Well, paste didn't praised it but "TheGamer", reword it. Also, the add the name of author for the Paste.
• "core themes of bonding with Pokemon, with The Verge" add the name of author before "The Verge"
• "The game was also praised for making the joke" Add the author's name and website who praised it.

Sources

• ref 20 has no name of the author
• ref 38 has no name of the author
• ref 39 has no name of the author
• ref 40 has no name of the author, website name is wrong (why is it anime?) and date of the article
• ref 41 has no name of the author + I don't knowthat's a reliable source. I'll recommend to remove it.
• ref 42 has no name of the author
• ref 43 has no name of the author
• ref 45 has no name of the author
• ref 49 has no name of the author
• ref 50 dead source.
• ref 51 has no name of the author
• ref 52 has no name of the author

That's everything what I can find. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle! made the requested edits. I can't really fix much about the dead link, though I removed the IGN one since I was unaware it was broken. The Battle Aboard the S.S Anne section is cited to ref 32. I've fixed what edits I could in places, so hopefully it's alright. Let me know if there's any other changes I need to make. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes and I'm happy to pass this. Thanks for working on the Pokemon articles, it really gives hope to the Wikiproject Pokemon. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 00:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.