Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Archiving

I archived the talk page, which was getting long. I kept FFA. Feel free to re-add any important topics. Glad to see new faces, and I hope I can get back into this. Alvin6226 talk 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I've restored the last four threads from the previous revision, all of which have been active as of yesterday. One of them is rather long. You Can't See Me! 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions for what could be articles...

Note: Not necessarily what I think deserves it, but proposals based on a string of logic

  • Pikachu - No reason necessary.
  • Meowth - Appears more often than any non-Pikachu Pokémon in the anime, is one of the mainest characters in it.
  • Charizard - A very popular Pokémon of great importance in many works in the series, including the anime and several games.
  • Munchlax - A Pokémon which Nintendo has been attempting to popularize.
  • Pichu - Pichu became a "mascot" type with G/S, almost had their own game.
  • Mew - A main character in three movies, the subject of much speculation and hoaxes, considered one of the rarest Pokémon ever, along with Celebi, Deoxys, and Arceus.
  • Mewtwo - A main character in two movies, was the "final battle" in the first game, was the strongest Pokémon in the series until Arceus. Is a main character and plot point in the manga.
  • Celebi - A main character in one movie.
  • Bulbasaur - A main character in the anime, well-known because of its immediate presence in R/B.
  • Charmander - A main character in the anime, well-known because of its immediate presence in R/B.
  • Squirtle - A main character in the anime, well-known because of its immediate presence in R/B.
  • Ekans - Well-known, and appearing in every episode until it evolved.
  • Koffing - Well-known, and appearing in every episode until it evolved.
  • Wobbuffet - I'm not sure, but I think that this Pokémon has been in many episodes, more than a lot of Pokémon.
  • Geodude - Brock's main Pokémon throughout the anime, and appearing in every single main Pokémon video game as one of the most common in each.
  • Zubat - Same reason as Geodude.
  • Raichu - The evolution of the most notable pokémon, Pikachu.

Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You should be listing Raichu as well. Raichu is also very notable. And it's impossible to merge it if the other two of his evolution line have their own article. For Geodude, anime sections are also suppose to list something besides the role of Brock's, mainly besides his pokémon's roles, I still think it should belong with Golem. And Zubat should still be merged, as Brock's Crobat IS his Zubat. And I see no reason to have Ekans and Koffing have their own article, Weezing and Arbok had MUCH more appearance anyway. And since Ash's Charmander evolved to Charmeleon then Charizard in the first season, they should still be in same article as Charizard. And it's clearly unnecessery to have Wobbuffet listed, as it has nothing in common with Delibird except for version availability, and Wynaut would have little anime appearance anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh?? I'm not sure what Delibird has to do with anything.
Also, do you think that the character of Pikachu could use an article separate from that of the main one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the bad example. But of course, I still think you should list Raichu, if you're gonna list Pichu. TheBlazikenMaster 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Pichu's more notable than Raichu, though. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's unfair for Raichu to be left behind while rest of his evolutions aren't listed. Raichu is still very notable as it's evolution of Pikachu, the most notable of them all. TheBlazikenMaster 22:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm honestly fucking sick of you all throwing "notability" around like it's valid. None of these articles, aside from Pikachu, are any more notable than others. Their importance is irrelevant. Their popularity is irrelevant. This is about reliable secondary sources, and no one has shown any. These topics are not notable at this time. --Teggles 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hell, yeah. Good point. Especially since some of the pokémon listed, only had appearance in the first season. TheBlazikenMaster 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Teggles, may I recommend you stay off Wikipedia until you're mature enough to have a civilized discussion with a two year old? Your statement was completely worthless to this conversation and the only purpose it could serve is to instigate a flame war. Ironic that you called someone a horrible user. I don't want to have to experience your crap whenever I discuss anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
But still, you have listed some pokémon in the list that had main appearance only in the first season, after that they evolved. But I agree, calling someone a horrible user is against the policy No personal attacks. TheBlazikenMaster 22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no excuse in trolling this conversation with uncivil comments, like Teggles did. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he shouldn't be using the word 'fuck' here. But I hope you understand that some of these you listed have less anime appearances then their evolved forms. I'm trying to explain it to you nicely and politley. TheBlazikenMaster 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you completely glaze over the note that I left at the very beginning of this section? What Teggles did amounted to saying "OMG, PPL R DISCUSSING SMTHIN??!!?! I BETR DERALE IT AN TRN THE PROJIK INTO A SESPOL!!1!!1" - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What do you say we wait for Eric and see what he got to say about this? TheBlazikenMaster 23:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Erik is not the boss. I can assess Teggles' statement as both insulting and worthless without anyone giving me a second opinion to validate such an assessment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, come on now. Let's try to keep our cool here. Granted, Teggles may not have phrased his post as civilly as he should have, but ALttP, none of your posts afterwards were as civil as they should have been either. I realize you're frustrated at Teggles' comment, but keep calm. You Can't See Me! 23:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen him make a disruptive/rude/insulting statement. I'm personally tired of it, and I don't view anything I've said as untrue - his message WAS worthless. Where's the worth to instigating flames? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
ALttP, my comment was not "useless". The only "uncivil" part was the profanity, and frankly I'm a believe that profanity is harmless, so from my perspective it was not uncivil. The comment explained to you that importance and popularity is irrelevant in terms of keeping articles. It nullifies all of the "keep this because important/popular" comments, and to call that useless is a lie. The comment against Vikrant WAS uncivil, and I apologize for that. --Teggles 23:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I added Raichu to the list myself? TheBlazikenMaster 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to avoid discussing notability, popularity, importance, etc. all because you can't control your attitude. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. But these articles are not notable because they are popular or important. The concepts are completely different. --Teggles 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Point? I don't believe that excuses your attitude at any point. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. TheBlazikenMaster 23:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't excuse my attitude. But the point is that these articles should not be kept because of importance or popularity reasons. I'm trying to sway away from the pointless slapfight and actually discuss the topic at hand. --Teggles 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was gonna say "Can you two argue somewhere else?" but didn't because then I'd be no better. TheBlazikenMaster 23:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dudes, all that seems a tad volatile. Not too sure why anyone would need my opinion on these matters, but ALttP is absolutely correct in saying I'm not the boss, cuz nobody's any more of a real boss than any other on Wiki. All I really am in this case, and therefore consider myself, is a user that contributes viewpoints to discussions, and I'll provide my opinions on this particular discussion as such:
  • Ekans, Koffing, and Zubat, in their notable roles in the anime, all evolved later on, so those evolutions should be considered notable for that same role in the same way; if Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat were all notable for one individual Pokemon under the ownership of Brock, that would sorta reinforce the practical nature of covering the three evo-stages of that line in one merged evo-line article.
  • If it is decided that Pikachu and Pichu are good as separate pages, there's really no choice but to make Raichu its own article as well, and compared to most of the current separate pages we have right now, Raichu really shouldn't be that bad among Wikipedia article standards for reasons noted above. Looking over the general conversation.
  • While Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle are immediately present in the games, and are shown as the earliest Pokemon the trainers acquire whenever the newest season of the anime starts off the newest generation, the same can be said of the other three sets of starters. And since the starters would be at the top of the merged evo-line articles, their being in merged articles in the first place seems fair and good enough to those Pokemon anyway, for me personally at least. Whereas Charizard seems much more notable than any of those Pokemon, so it's status as either its own article or part of a merged article I can't honestly predict at this point. But wasn't Blastoise reveling in somewhat similar fame to Charizard?
  • Mewtwo seems both notable and sourceable enough to make its own legit article, and if Mew has its own pretty good amount of notable stuff according to ALttP, and since it wouldn't be merged with the GA Mewtwo, it would need to be in its own article.
  • Munchlax: I know they tried to popularize it as a "mascot" for the fourth generation, but whether or not they succeeded depends on the quantity of reliable sources that can be found for it. If there isn't enough sources for it to retain its own article, I support merging.
  • Meowth: The Meowth that appears in the anime may be considered more of a human character than a Pokemon, and as the human-like character his coverage suffices as part of the article on Team Rocket. (In my personal belief anyway.) It's not really a major Pokemon in all its other appearances in games, cards, and the like, so to me it makes sense just to keep it as the first Pokemon covered in Meowth evolutionary line, with a Main Article link to Team Rocket for the individual Meowth that talks.
  • Celebi: I'd say have it in its own article if it can't be uncontroversially merged with any other legenaries. We should also consider the fact Celebi could receive some coverage in the article about the Pokemon movie itself.
  • Wobbuffet: Not just a main character in the anime from season 3 onwards, but the Japanese's homage to a Japanese comedian with similar mannerisms... If that, coupled with its infamy as a combatant in the RPGs, isn't able to produce enough reliable secondary sources to make a full article, I'd think it better off as a Pokemon covered together with Wynaut.
These are all my personal opinions and viewpoints on the above article proposals; obviously that doesn't mean what I would like will become fact in the future, I'd go with whatever consensus decides on these issues, which is really the way it always should be.
As for the debate between Teggles and ALttP, the reason I'd rather not get involved in that is because I believe it should be easy for them to kinda cool it with each other; Teggles' first comment had parts that weren't warranted, and also parts that were untrue; popularity and importance are relevant to the subjects of articles to a degree. If Teggles can avoid comments that contain extremes like "importance and popularity are irrelevant", ALttP should be willing to commend him for that. None of this is a criticism of their conduct on my part. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I now notice that Teggles has made efforts to make amends for his incivility, both above and on one of the AfDs, so I commend him for that. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I did NEVER say you were the boss. It's just that you often make long and helpful replies. TheBlazikenMaster 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, right, I just have a fetish for clarifying everything. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are we discussing this now? We create the merged articles, I AfD the stupid Whismur line to see if we've stopped irrationally keeping all Pokemon yet, and then any Pokemon that can sustain articles of their own get split off. Those that can't either are not created or are re-redirected. -Amarkov moo! 00:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a plan. No, seriously... That does sound like a familiar plan; was it, perhaps, the original one?! How'd we veer off course all of a sudden? By the way, did you say something under your breath? I could have sworn you whispered something about Whismur, but the text was too small for me to hear. You Can't See Me! 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • well for one thing, WP:POKE/Layout is still a proposed guideline. i admit that i've taken a backseat on a lot of the drudge work, mostly becuase i disagree with the way the articles are being written and felt that more discussion was in order before we ended up with 15+ merger articles. the largest issue is that consensus was gained from most of the "we like it the way it is" group because the intent was to hopefully be able to create new and improved separate species articles over time. and by combining all media info there is no way to logistically EVER do that. we will never have a section on Mew that is large enough to split per WP:SS, and this is like a campaign promise... saying a change will do one thing to garner support, and then effectively preventing that from ever happening. and Amarkov's comments are proof that things are NOT quite kosher yet. We need to STOP creating merged articles and focus on what they will become in the end to ensure everyone is happy. (as of right now, Whismur would eventually be deleted which is something that few people in the project, and even the community, ever supported - this makes the mergists look like deletionist backstabbers) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Event Pokemon

I was looking at the pages for certain event-only Pokemon, such as Mew and Celebi, and it occured to me that, while it says that they can be obtained at Nintendo events, it doesn't say where. So, I thought that we could either put what event these guys are being given away at, or, if it conflicts with the "game-guide" policy, we could provide an external link to where readers could obtain that information. So, if anyone knows a Web site where we can get that information, could someone put hyperlinks to it on each respective event legendary's page?Leprechaun Gamer 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck finding the Japanese person in charge of events, but www.pokemon-center.com might know where the American events are held. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would conflict, and most of these events were in the past.. Alvin6226 talk 03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A merge question that begs to be answered:

What do we do with character articles? I would venture that many articles on characters are less notable than some of the less notable Pokémon (simply because people will remember a certain Pokémon better than a person).

For instance, Wally (Pokémon) - not about a main character, and short. Could easily be merged.

Many others are notoriously short, and will not be expanded unless they are used in future animes, mangas, or video games.

Other comments:

Team Rocket (anime) could be merged into Team Rocket (that article is quite short), or renamed "List of Team Rocket members"; unmerge the three main guys from the article into Jessie, James, and Meowth if at all possible.

Also, may I say that I feel that Jessie, James, and Meowth are individually more notable than Giovanni is.

Anyway, those are some misc. comments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop incorrectly using the term "notable". I will quote WP:N - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Jumping to conclusions based on popularity is not a good idea. There's a very good reason the guideline separates itself from popularity: popularity does not imply reliable source coverage. Now with the ranting gone, I think that Wally should definitely be merged into a blanket character article. What that article would be I am unsure of. --Teggles 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
List of Minor Characters in the Pokémon Games, perhaps? -Jeske (v^_^v) 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this merger is becoming a silly disease! Team Rocket anime already has a vast coverage and must not go to the games' Team Rocket. Vikrant Phadkay 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what we're suggesting, Vikrant. Team Rocket (anime) will more likely than not remain safe. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolutions of Eevee.

How are we gonna put all the evolutions of Eevee to one page after merging is finished? Eevee has seven evolutions, that makes eight in total with Eevee. How the hell are we gonna merge the evolutions of Eevee? I know it isn't gonna be easy, I have a revision of the future that it will be a huge article. TheBlazikenMaster 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect a fork article or two might work. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's possible to have pages that look like separate articles stacked on top of each other and be respected pages. Check out Meta Knight, that's essentially the page on Meta Knight stacked on top of the page on his ship, The Halberd. If we disband You Can't See Me's structure for merged evo-line pages like on Porygon evolutionary line for the more straightforward system of eight big sections stacked upon each other in order (sorry YCSM), one per Eeveelution, we'll end up with what is merely a pretty long page, but one that should work, and surely long pages aren't frowned upon at WP. [[Check out Hubble Space Telescope) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
yes but if people keep writing articles that follow the non-separate organization then Eeevee's gonna be inconsistent with the others.... and thank-you for providing another reason why it's prolly not the best scheme. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
my plan for eevee -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lookee at Whismur.

I said I would remove all the OR, and I have. I also removed a couple sentences about where it's found, as I belive we determined that locations aren't encyclopedic unless the Pokemon being found there is somehow important. So, we now have the four sentence stub I predicted. The external links section is longer than the actual article. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm... All of the reportedly unsourcable Biological Characteristics material you cut out came from Whismur's various dex entries. That's the sort of stuff that was actually supposed to stay. You Can't See Me! 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I was a bit aggressive. I'll go restore what I can find a source for. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've now done that. I still didn't find any sources for the second paragraph, but the first three sentences are indeed supported by Pokedexes. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lessee here... The stuff about Whismur startling itself and breathing through its ears comes from its R, S, and E dex entries. I'd actually revert just a tiny bit more, but with the merger going on, I figure it's not worth it until the Wismur line comes together. For instance, Whismur was responsible for an in-game event (blocking the tunnel). Due to the infrequency of events triggered by specific, non-legendary monsters, I think that warrants mention. Perhaps its affinity for sound-based attacks also warrants a sentence of mention, similar to Hitmonchan's punches (though this is more of an evo line thing). Still, I think the rest of those edits were made with good judgement. You Can't See Me! 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
actually that stuff is worth keeping, regardless of the merger. i put it back, but the article was still pruned down. it's not right to leave articles in a condition that makes them appear less robust than they are... especially when the subject doesn't have much to discuss in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't do this because of the merger, I did this because there are things in the article that do not need to be in the article. If a subject doesn't have much to discuss, we aren't under obligation to inflate what there is until it looks like there's something to discuss. -Amarkov moo! 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, there are so few things that can come to my mind when I think of Whismur anyway, so good thing you got rid of the unencyclopedic info. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Say "Whismur", and all I can think of is a 1d8 aberration that is easy for a blind Nimmo cleric to defeat with both arms and his left leg tied behind his back. I do know it did cause the halt of the tunnel project in Ru/Sa/Em, but otherwise he's unnotable. Ah, well. At least the Pokedex info was useful for me. -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Amarkov, i completely agree. articles that include ramblings on stuff not even relevant to the subject are prolly my biggest pet peeve. but the stuff you took out, that i put back, appeared encyclopedic to me. if you disagree perhaps we could take a closer look at each section and discuss it, but that might be more appropriate on the talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have the TCG sections

Our style guideline indicates that information about presence in the TCG should always be added. So, why is this? I mean, every single Pokemon has a card; unless a particular card is important, why does it matter? -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Probably only particularly notable stuff like the Sneasel problem should be mentioned when it comes to cards.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that the TCG sections were just some of the filler stuff required to de-stubbify certain monster articles. With everything all merged together, there won't be any need for those anymore. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly, guys! The listing must be there! Or else, our articles will never be complete Vikrant Phadkay 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And listen "You Cant See Me"! You are now surely coming up with vandalizing guidelines. Stop this OK? Stop! Vikrant Phadkay 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the melodrama. This isn't The Days of Our Lives, it's a project aiming to provide a better encyclopedic coverage of Pokemon. I've had enough with your constant crap on seemingly every page, saying they're "surely" vandalizing or violating WP:POINT. We're trying to make this a better place. However, I don't think the information should be removed, at least, not all of it. This kind of redundancy is the least of our worries. It just doesn't need an entire section. --Teggles 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As scary as it sounds, I agree with Vikrant. Limited TCG info should be included for sake of completeness. Encyclopedic info would include first set, rarity, frequency of re-release, misprints, and notable public reaction (Alakazam's card originally had a swastika on it). All pokemon can include the first three. it's three to four sentences for each pokemon, and up to a paragraph for notable occurences. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zapper more than Vikrant, in part because Vikrant has an axe to grind in re merging. However, I think notable controversies - cards or no (such as Uri Geller suing Nintendo over Kadabra) - should be noted only in the Criticism of Pokémon article and/or on the pokemon's section. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some categories needing attention

Is Category:Ash Ketchum's friend's Pokémon of any value? Also noticed Category:Species article templates - this seems like a good candidate for a rename. --- RockMFR 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change that to Category:Brock's Pokémon and Category:Dawn's Pokémon and others as needed. Joiz A. Shmo 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally say that the three friend cats should be CfD'd (per What Wikipedia is not). All it is is collecting trivia. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
the friend categories are bordering on ridiculous. the Species article templates might be able to use a rename, and needs to be populated (like with the variations of Pokeinfobox). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What can be used as a reliable source?

Maybe making a list might help matters a bit. --Sonic Mew 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How's that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please make sure episodes sources are the episodes, not some random article from Serbii.net, or other pokémon websites. I'm sick of seeing sources like that. But I'm not gonna sit around here waiting for someone to do it. I'm gonna source the episodes tomorrow. On the same note, what's the best template to do that thing? TheBlazikenMaster 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
When you source episodes, you are to give the quotes (in the ref) that support your claim. Just in case you didn't know. --Teggles 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the template, there exists a {{cite episode}} template for that very purpose. I wouldn't know how to track down individual episode airing dates, though. Oh yeah, and don't forget to add the games themselves to the list of sources. Dex entries are likely going to be the most common sources. You Can't See Me! 08:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have few pokémon in my watchlist. And I will replace the Serbii.net episodes links with that template. So don't be shocked if I don't add this template to many pokémon, as I'm saying, I will only add the template to the pokémon in MY watchlist. TheBlazikenMaster 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm done with that. But I don't think I'm the right person to replace the templates with games, I don't know much about the games themselves, I only do the anime. But additionaly I removed off-topic games from the reference sections. TheBlazikenMaster 13:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good looking list... People unfamiliar with the merger can be excused for glancing at that list and assuming that we shouldn't really be having any sourcing issues, and they would therefore believe that no merger should be necessary. Have we proven that these are insufficient sources for the 493 separate species articles? If not, I suggest we prove the sources are insufficient for all the separate pages right here and now, it would help our cases when selling the merger concept to users unfamiliar with it. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious about cannceling the merging? Or are you just doing it for Vikrant Phadkay? Just asking... TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, of course not, I want to see merging to improve the quality of content in our species articles, for my main philosophy is that when related minor subjects are covered together, it's a better reading experience for all of Wikipedia's readers, and people can go to Bulbapedia to see individual pages for each of the species. Doesn't have anything to do with Phadkay (though I do feel sorry for him, he did excellent work in making Mewtwo a GA before all this). The above is a rhetorical question I assume we completely answered in the past, and I assume we have proven in the past that these sources aren't enough to keep all the articles (I know AMIB believed they weren't sufficient right up until he left, and a lot of us agreed on that, so that probably counts as part of the proof). I just think it's a good idea for us to clearly state here that the above reliable sources are not enough in quantity for hundreds of individual Pokemon pages, but are great for merged pages; that way there's less people inside and outside the project wondering the exact same question above, for we can refer them here. Sorry if I scared you. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I edited some pokémon, and replaced url with episode citing. But I think we need to change more than that, we need to use the right templates. But don't worry Eric, is it ok if I call you Eric with c instead of k? We will be able to find more templates. My point is that we need to cite the episodes or whatever, not the urls, unless of course they have info that aren't available elsewhere. TheBlazikenMaster 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that this is one step to aid the sourcing problem, but won't fix it. There is still a lot of unsouceable (and even unnecessary) filler info on certain pages. In fact, there's some of that in some of our FAs. Look at Crawdaunt's video games section; there's still stuff sourced to Psypokes and Bulbapedia. I'm not sure how in-depth official published Nintendo strategy guides go into specific moves and stats, so I'm not too sure how much can be salvaged afterwards. Even out of the sourced items, how much is needed? A lot of the information there is borderline gameguide, and that huge section in the middle about the various attacks Crawdaunt can learn just crosses that border without a second thought.
In other words, what's going here steps towards solving the sourcing problem, but it is not enough. The merge takes a step towards solving the problem, but that is also not enough. Putting the two together would be two steps in the right direction; this does not detract from the usefulness of the merge at all. You Can't See Me! 08:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That just reminded me: any published strategy guide for the game can also be used as a reliable source. Let's also not forget instruction manuals and manga chapters. You Can't See Me! 08:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I can say that at the very least, Nintendo's own strategy guides are complete when it comes to move lists, right down to egg moves. However, the strategy guides are something I would shy away from, if only for the reason it's largely redundant and/or supplanted with what we have here already. Also, I thought the manga, anime, and game were all separate canons. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about manga, but you're damn right. Anime is a lot different from the games. For example, there is no mud in the games you can use to trap the opponent's pokémon with. TheBlazikenMaster 18:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem...AIM FOR THE HORN!! hbdragon88 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying, but he won't go down! He claims it's but a flesh wound! -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't you moved

If you haven't noticed yet, our images of Poké Balls on Commons were deleted! Why haven't you done anything to stop it? Maybe you care more for Fair-Use images... That's why I proposed the International Relations! Please take more care for Commons images.

ManecoWifi 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would persuade them to do so, but I don't have the clout to persuade them. -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because they decided that they were derivative works and thus not free. Can't control or protest copyright violations. hbdragon88 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have, at least, voter to keep the images and then we could have a bit chance... Poor images! I only saved two of them in my PC. I wish I saved the Poké Ball with yellow background. Well, I contacted The Pokémon Company asking permission to upload fan arts on Wikimedia. Let's see what will result this.

ManecoWifi 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More the same, if what he says is true. Derivative works, under U.S. copyright law, are subject to conditions the entity holding the copyright sets, and as a result, cannot be "free". WP:FAIR would have more information. -Jeske (v^_^v) 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it can't just be permission. They need to be put under a free license (i.e. no restrictions, public domain). Commons is strict about only hosting free images. I'm just guessing, really. I'm not actually sure why they were deleted – but I had a feeling that they might be reclassified as derivative works. hbdragon88 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem in the Lusophone Wikipedia! We can't find laws in Brazil's or Portugal's consitution which frees the use of copyright images under educational fundaments. Other problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a server in a Portuguese country, so we are under Commons' images... ManecoWifi 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, copyright issues can be hard sometimes. TheBlazikenMaster 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia operates in Florida, and we could use the provision of fair use, but WP:NFCC is very strict about how such non-free content is used. It's stricter than plain fair use. Wikimedia wants to be as free as possible, which is why prohibits images solely being used for noncommerical and educational use-only images. hbdragon88 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
actually, that's why we're lucky to be able to use Image:Wikiball.png. it's mostly because we have a big W on the top and the colors don't match any currently used pokeballs. I'm glad though that those "free" images were removed. too many people in the video game projects think that derivative works don't qualify as fair-use. this image is still incorrectly labelled as a free image, but that's becuase it was uploaded from germany where derivative works aren't covered by IP rights laws. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a member of this Wikiproject but I would like to comment, whatever the reason for the grey Wikiball being gone, alot of the Pokemon images now seem to need new Free Use tags or something. Can anything be done about this?
What do you mean? P.S. Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -Jeske (v^_^v) 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
All the Pokemon image tags got deleted, and ^demon's bot is replacing them with a "no tag here, add one" template. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Schnee... Right when we're dealing with memes and mergers, too... sadly, I am of no use in this, as I don't know the first thing about images on Wikipedia. If I knew, I'd do my damndest to see if we could at least get them the appropriate tags.-Jeske (v^_^v) 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
*swears softly* the least they could have done was categorize them correctly considering how much time it took to do that in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Was anyone aware of this?

A bunch of Pokémon images have had copyright tags removed because of this TfD discussion. Am I right in assuming that nobody in this project was made aware of this discussion? I wish things on Wikipedia weren't like this. Now a bunch of images aren't declaring any copyright status. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no notice here about it. We didn't learn about it until Amarkov reported that the templates had been nuked. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page of the admin who made the decision. Please feel free to complain there. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I did you one better - I left a note on the talk page of the nominator. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, please do not complain to me. I merely closed the discussion. It wasn't my place to notify the WikiProject. As far as the deletion goes, I have replaced almost all of the tags with {{fairuse}} and have deleted most of the templates by now. ^demon[omg plz] 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't you say anything? -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm sometimes absentminded, and it honestly did not occur to me to check that it was mentioned here. Anyway, does anyone have an argument why it shouldn't be deleted? -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I say that they should be kept as legit fair-use templates, and that the TfD should be at the least redone so as to get input from the members of this project. Also, an anon just chastised me for "failing to observe my watchlist". I didn't know about it until it was too late! -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend posting at WP:DRV if you can come up with a legitimate undeletion rationale (Amarkov making the nomination might carry significantly more weight). Insufficient notice itself is probably not a good enough reason, but if you add to it the fact that the tags satisfy one of the conditions of the normal fair use tag (attribution of copyright holder) and allow for auto categorization of the images and then you carefully follow the culture of WP:DRV (it's not a vote, use some original reasoning in every post) and ask for "overturning and relisting at tfd" you might get them back. -N 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to make more prudnet use of WP:POKE/N, which I created for a reason. Translcude it in multiple places, use it. hbdragon88 21:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah, I agree 100%. I hate having to add nominations for deletion when there are only few days left, and it's far away from the beginning. TheBlazikenMaster 21:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
so is someone going to submit this to DRV? as the creator of these templates i might be seen as having a biased opinion for keeping them. the largest reason for a review is that complaints of "over specialization" are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. the second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of pokemon images facilitates maintenance of those images. while the closing admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokemon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and doing it, all the images that were tagged by them are now being labelled as "copyright status unknown". (Check this out.) If the templates're not undeleted in 7 days, we're gonna have OrphanBot hell. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This should get taken off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon_mystery_dungeon_code Toastypk 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, there is no need to bring this to our attention, because it's already tagged. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's because I saw this and just did so. -Amarkov moo! 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page warning templates

Here at WikiProject Pokémon, we're used to seeing bullshit being added to articles, each and every day. That is why I want to take this time to introduce or reintroduce you all to adding warnings to editors who spew BS into articles. Specifically, I want to point you to this page, which draws out each of the available warning templates you can put in an editor's talk page. Some of the ones I think are useful for us are test (for those little edit tests), vand (for downright page-destroying stuff), delete (for content deleters), unsor (an important one for when people don't cite sources), and error (for made up BS introduced to articles). Remember to escalate these warnings as editors continue to mess up our lovely encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Watching the articles

I just discovered a special page titled Special:Recentchangeslinked, which dispalys all recent changes. So Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Pokémon_games shows all changes to all articles liked in {{Pokémon games}}. And Special:Recentchangeslinked/List_of_Pokémon would be nice to monitor all changes to the species articles. This sure beats watchlisting every article. hbdragon88 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon Maps

Category:Pokémon Maps (soon to be moved to Category:Pokémon maps) has quite a few images missing copyright tags and other similar problems. This is probably related to the recent deletion of the specific Pokemon image templates. Might want to check it out if you have time. --- RockMFR 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the discussion above. Oh well, an extra reminder can't hurt. --- RockMFR 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode numbers

I just noticed that Pokemon.com seems to be using three digit season-inclusive episode numbers for all episodes. (For example, the first episode of season 1'd be episode 101.) As it's supposed to be the official Pokémon USA site, shouldn't we be adhering to its style in writing US episode numbers? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

The recently deleted Pokémon copyright templates are now on DRV here. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And we already have a vote against. Where is everybody?! --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what should be done is going through Category:Pokémon lead images and putting {{Non-free character}} in place of the deletion tag and then replacing the image. I've done some of it already, but I've got to sign off for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
That's to be done in the meanwhile, but we should be commenting in the DRV. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed too that OrpanBot went through a lot of articles. By the way what does DRV stand for? TheBlazikenMaster 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Raven, your link leads to the TfD discussion, not the DRV discussion. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk of blunders. It does now. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
ACK! Why didn't anyone list this on the Noticeboard??? It's important that we list any relevant discussions on it. A good way to keep up to date with discussions is to watch the Noticeboard page. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You're not the only one that thinks so, I agree with you, it pisses me off when I don't get to know about pokémon related deletion/reviews whatever until it's too late. I mean common people, the noticeboard is there for a reason. TheBlazikenMaster 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good point, Brandon. I'll try to remember that next time. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another guy came up with a "precedent" to show why the discussion ought to be endorsed. I could do with a few more hands on deck. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ravens Apprentice o.O

I'm new to this what is all this HTML your using so confusing Oh, also, I just joined this project ;). ( Ihave every one of the colour or gem games.) Vancyon 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal messages got to my talk page. And I'd recommend you see Wikipedia:Welcome. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Species task force idea.

I got an idea to make a task force of this project dedicated to the species merge (as well as working to make each species worthy of its own article). 2 articles that are in this task force's scope would be List of Pokémon (1-20) and Pidgey evolutionary line. A draft of this task force is at User:Funpika/Drafts/Species. What do you think of this idea? Funpika 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's interesting, it might be effective in illustrating how much of a consensus to do a merge there actually is. I would be willing to sign up if it's put into effect. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species. FunPika 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are too many on lots of Pokemon, with very similar "Pokedex" entries from numerous sites. Something should be done to get rid of unnecessary external links on Pokemon pages, so the articles aren't "link dumps". Miles Blues 05:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. I would wager that a lot of those links contain redundant information and that not all of them are necessary. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's just form a consensus about removing them right here, then go and remove them. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Especially links to Smogon for "Tactical Data" on most pokemon; that's not very encyclopedic. Perhaps Serebii or Psypoke could stay because they have any relevant information handy, but I doubt both are needed. +

- :::I'll be back to my normal level of editing soon. Keep it up 'till then! You Can't See Me! 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the point of external links is to build on the Wikipedia article with sites that branch out into further information on the subject. So because Wikipedia doesn't have tactical information, people looking for can be directed to where that can be found. --Sonic Mew 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly correct. Which is why there need to be some external links - but not 4 containing pretty much the same info - one to Serebii, one to Smogon, one to Psypoke, one to Bulbapedia, and one to Pokemon Dungeon is way too much. For each article, only one of those links should be there. Right now, all Pokemon articles are link dumps, used to advertise Pokemon sites. I propose getting rid of the following links for sure: Bulbapedia (not as complete as the others), PokemonDungeon (it's the exact same as Serebii, but Serebii is updated unlike Dungeon), Psypoke (other sites like Serebii have much more info), Smogon (most of their links are broken for some reason).Miles Blues 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it's best to use Bulbapedia, since a lot of external links link to other encyclopedias. Bulpapedia get's updated as soon as someone notices something missing or incorrect unlike SPP. TheBlazikenMaster 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd go with replacing Serebii, PokéDungeon and Bulbapedia with just Serebii. Bulbapedia's usually incomplete. Either way, there should be just one link out there, not three. But does Smogon stay? Its got informaton not included in the other pages, but I don't think it's very encylopedic to include it. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we can agree that Serebii is easily the most complete, and was around much earlier than the other sites - it seems some of them may possibly have taken the info from Serebii. Bulbapedia is way too incomplete to be linked to in the majority of Pokemon articles. Smogon's site has been down for a while now, and I have no idea whne it's returning. No matter, broken links should not be in articles. We should come up with some sort of method as to removing all of the unnecessary links... or just go to a couple Pokemon's pages per day and remove the links. Miles Blues 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest keeping links to Bulbapedia in certain instances, such as on Squirtle's page, where it links to the Bulbapedia article specifically about ASh's Squirtle. Otherwise, we should remove all Bulbapedia links. Miles Blues 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but not everyone agree that Serebii.net has the best information. Psypoke is also kept up to date and has great info. Al right, it's been decided, I don't agree to use SPP I'd rather use Psypoke, but since most people perfer SPP we should use that. I just thought Bulbipedia would be more acceptable since it's the only site on these you listed that's external link of the main article.TheBlazikenMaster 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Which I removed yesterday. with an edit summary of "Rm Bulba link-- is that required?" I still haven't been contested, it seems. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another one for Erik's collection

An 8th Generation Pokémon. Thought I'd post this one here first. It's a classic. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, thanks for that, but I figure that future submissions should be posted on my Keeper's talk page instead of here. Anyone can come up with a wacky new evolution Pokemon and name as well as theoretical names for future generation versions, let me try: Abomasnow evolves into Barakaboma, or maybe a Pokemon with a fat rump should be called Obisasu. I think it qualifies as a Keeper, but not spectacularly. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On a related point, why is there an obsession on Tracey's page with people saying his Scyther evolved into a Scizor and even this "Sciben"? --Sonic Mew 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Either it's a new vandal fad or it's just this user under a variety of IP addresses. I caught him adding the Scizor fanfict once. But I'd still go with "fad", I think there's two vandal houses clashing or something, this guy's userpage got vulgarly vandalised a bunch of times by two different IPs. And i did add it to the Keepers talk page, Erik. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Along wih a bunch of other incidents of stupidity. You really should be watching the page. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there's a lot of interesting stuff being posted around here... I'll have to sift through and arrange them as Keepers in my own time. But I thought BJAODN was deleted? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You mean the BJAODN page? HOW DARE THEE SUCH BLASPHEME, INFIDEL! 'Tis still very much there. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I just remember glancing at a discussion recently where someone had deleted "subpages" of the BJAODN collection because of GFDL issues, and it was a giant controversy. If the joke empire is still around, I think I have my own submission for it... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleting bad jokes coz of GDFL issues?! OMG. Anyways, I can't imagine anyone deleting the whole thing, there'd be a mass rebellion. Remember the UBX wars last year? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of those wars... But I found out what I was talking about: Apparently, the whole shlebang was indeed deleted at the end of March; BJAODN was put in temporary limbo as reported on the Admin Noticeboard here. Check out the fallout on the deleter's talk page and here downward on the BJAODN main talk page. It was eventually restored, and our companion Amarkov had something to do with that achievement. Hooray? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See, there was a rebellion. And you oughta update the Keepers' page, Erik, the Kosmo saga is evolving into a story keeper. (Check the Talk Page.) Chers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got a fire extinguisher?

There's a debate going on at Talk:Mudkip, my TP, and User talk:75.68.162.162 over a 4chan meme, and it's starting to get heated. I was wondering if you guys would chip in a couple pennies and make sure the shit doesn't hit the fan? -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

so I herd you liek mudkips? hbdragon88 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Out of curiosity, what is the meme about? --Brandon Dilbeck 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
hering bout lieking mudkips. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Tag teh damn image for dleetion nad submit all tihs crap to Erik's collcetion. This should pleese him, its BJAODN stnadrad. Chears, The Raven's Apprentice 06:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, what image? I seriously need a Wikibreak. o.O --The Raven's Apprentice 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I submitted his "Treatise" to BJAODN. --The Raven's Apprentice 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Pokémon (species). This way, Pokémon types, Pokémon game mechanics, and Pokémon game features could (for the most part) be merged into this article. The only parts of any of those articles that couldn't be merged are game goals, gym leaders, Starter Pokémon, Pokémon battles, Items, Holding items, Pokédex, and Pokémon trades. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the word "species"—that word's attributed to each of the individual makes and models of Pokémon. The similar Digimon article is Digimon (creature); maybe Pokémon (creature) is an acceptable title. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You know, it sounds like a good idea to have an article for the generic Pokémon creature, and an overview may be a good approach to this, but I wouldn't suggest a merge of those articles because there really is a lot of information in them. Just the list of Pokémon types is pretty big and comprehensive. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The templates problem

Now that the image tag DRV is scheduled to close on "Endorse" in around 18 hours, Pomte's come up with a solution so obvious that we should have discovered it ourselves. He says the existing, generic templates could easily support parameters for changing the categories. That's bound to solve the problems of several WikiProjects. Thoughts? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It could still change. The guy who started the TFD even wants an overturn and relist now. I myself changed to overturn and relist after seeing that. FunPika 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It didn't. Pgk closed as "endorsed". -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As expected, which is why I tried bringing up an alternative (first post in the thread). Either that or we make one Pokémon image tag and use parameters for different kinds of pokeimages. Thoughts? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Merges.

Just a question, what will happen to all the Pokemon GA's and FA's when they are merged? Will they be delisted or something else? 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainra (talk • contribs)

Delisted, I think. What used to be those articles'll just be parts of lists. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there is still any Pokemon specie FAs, Bulbasaur and Torchic have likely been delisted by now. There's still some GAs in the species, including Mewtwo, who's specifically meant to have his own article. But generally, a Pokemon formerly of GA status that will end up merged into an evo-line article would mean that that article should have a much easier time getting to and keeping GA status itself. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get it. Why Mewtwo? Charizard is away more notable than Mewtwo. So is Raichu. By notable I mean sourcable, not exactly favorite. Just because he appeared in a game with mix of Nintendo characters? A movie, and a TV-movie doesn't make it notable in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
But primary appearances in SSBM, a movie, a TV-movie, a TV-special, and the whole series of RPGs makes it very likely Mewtwo can retain its own article based on sourcing. The first two primary appearances of Mewtwo I listed here have likely been the subject of a fair amount of reliable second-party commentary, which is what articles can use as sources uncontroversially, so Mewtwo seems better sourceable than most of the other species. I never said Mewtwo was more sourceable than Charizard and Raichu, but if those latter two truly have better sourcing available than Mewtwo, then by all means give them their own pages as well. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
regarding Bulbasaur and Torchic, it would seem to me that they may have enough info to be considered too long for merging per WP:SS. i might be wrong, but if there is enough substance they will prolly stay their own articles. another example is Eevee. There is too much verifiable information to fit it nicely into a section on a list. the same will prolly be true for these. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, there shouldn't be any merging just for the sake of merging, especially if there'll be info cut out that is presented just fine as part of an unmerged page. By that logic, merging Gligar and Gliscor still seems extremely appealing. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Request and evolution discussion

Someone please remove any content from any Pokémon article that hints at the quality of a Pokémon, any strategies, and information about their high or low statistics.

Also, the discussion on evolution is: Should it be mentioned what level the Pokémon evolves at or under what specific condition it evolves at (such as which specific stone causes the evolution - ie, Skitty evolves into Delcatty by means of an evolutionary stone)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, general stats content should be avoided, but I figured that particularly outstanding stats that practically define a Pokemon (e.g. Rampardos' attack, Shuckle's Defense and Special Defense, the extreme statistical shifts of Deoxys' forms) are good enough to stay, and those can be sourced to strategy guides from Prima and what not. It also seems encyclopedic enough to state "In the Pokemon RPGs, Sentret may undergo evolution into Furret once it reaches experience level 15 and beyond", and cite that to the games. Outstanding stats and conditions for evolution should be the max amount of game data-related info we provide about each species, IMO. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe outstanding stats (for instance, I covered Magikarp's outstandingly low stats and contrast to Gyarados'), but I disagree with evolution details. Do we really know the exact level that a Pokémon evolves at? We don't say what level Ness and co. learns PSI (except Jeff). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps we could look at what level a Pokémon evolves at in a similar light as other stats. We wouldn't say in an article that Doduo's base Attack is 85, so should we say that it evolves into Dodrio at level 31? Perhaps, if it's notable, we could get away with just saying that a Pokémon evolves at a very low or very high level. I think we can get away from "cruftiness" if we list only the notable or important things about a Pokémon without getting into numerical explanations. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think listing the level is necessary. Just say something like "Doduo evolves into Dodrio through normal leveling means" or something like that. hbdragon88 06:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I do hereby second the Dragon. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
i agree, a specific level isn't really necessary (i.e. only matters if you're gonna play the game). in most cases it doesn't aid readers in understanding it. however, in the right context, i could see it being occasionally mentioned: "When Nincada evolves into Ninjask at level 20, if the player has less than six pokemon in their party, they also receive Shedinja at level 20." or something like that, we shouldn't go out of our way to avoid the level if it makes sense to mention it, and likewise no one not playing the game is going to really care if doduo evolve at level 30 or 31 (but a case could be argued for mentioning the regular evolutions of the "catepillar" pokemon Caterpie, Weedle, and Wurmple -> 7 -> 10).
as for stats and stone evolution, they are both valuable for understanding the pokemon as a whole. i've talked a little on this before, this is a case where description is good but numbers are bad (except of course for Shedinja's HP...). it would be very subjective for us to say a certain pokemon is good or bad. but an objective measurement can be taken from their actual statistics. i think it definitly adds to any reader's understanding when they see a heavily armored pokemon like Rhydon and then we tell them that it has high defenses. the question you have to ask is if their view of the pokemon would change no matter how we changed the phrase "high defenses". the answer is yes, any other description would give the person false impressions. however, if we were to say "Rhydon's base Defense is 120" it doesn't change the reader's understanding if we were to instead say "Rhydon't base Defense is 115". First, they don't know what "115" really is, and second of all even if they guessed "well it must be high" their view of Rhydon hasn't really changed (likewise we could have changed the number to "20" and unless the reader had an indepth understanding, they wouldn't have gathered much from the sentence). what i'm trying to say is that there's nothing wrong with saying something has a particularly high or low stat and that in fact it can add to the understanding. the same goes for evolutionary items. many items only evolve one or two pokemon, making it unique enough to deserve mention (if all water pokemon needed water stones it wouldn't be necessary to always say it). a reader can, for example, look at all the pokemon that evolve using the Moon Stone and now appreciate it's role in the poke-universe better. in short: numbers bad, description good. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

This isn't directly related to the Project, but I created a directory in my userspace of all the Pokémon userboxes I've seen on Wikipedia. (Oh, and Brandon, I moved that PokéDex template you created into my userspace per UBM; please don't murder me for that.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_17&oldid=1136048701"