Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 19

; Archives
	August 2005 – April 2006; 1 May 2006 – 15 May 2006; 15 May 2006 – 28 June 2006; 28 June 2006 – 12 July 2006; 13 July 2006 – 18 August 2006; 18 August 2006 – 26 September 2006; 26 September 2006 – 14 October 2006; 15 October 2006 – 13 November 2006; 13 November 2006 – 18 November 2006; 18 November 2006 – 3 December 2006; 3 December 2006 – 31 December 2006; 1 January 2007 – 14 February 2007; 15 February 2007 – 9 March 2007; 10 March 2007 – 5 April 2007; 5 April 2007 – 14 May 2007; 15 May 2007 – 30 May 2007; 30 May 2007 – 22 June 2007; 22 June 2007 – 29 July 2007 ; ; Other archives; FFA archive 1;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 19 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Last TP archived on 7:08 UTC,29 July 2007. All unresolved comments that I found have been copy-pasted here, in addition to a cleaned-up version of the future focus articles segment. Feel free to copy-paste any I might have missed. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pokémon

General information

Lists

Articles

Project templates

Task forces

Video game characters

Last TP archived on 7:08 UTC,29 July 2007. All unresolved comments that I found have been copy-pasted here, in addition to a cleaned-up version of the future focus articles segment. Feel free to copy-paste any I might have missed. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future focus articles

Next Pokémon Creature article

Next Miscellaneous article

Cleaned out to gut old discussions. Archived FFAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Red and Blue. It's one of the best-selling games ever, and WP:CVG has excellent style guidelines (And plenty of willing help) to help us get a featured article about something that exists in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This, along with Ruby and Sapphire, should go straight to our next MA, but our current focus, our flagship, should be made an honorary focus so that this could cycle again. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think this project can turn Pokémon into a proper FA or even a GA unless someone commits to doing the hard work of proper research. With Pokémon Red and Blue, that research still needs to be done; it's just less onerous. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon (video games) More detailed comments are at the bottom of this page, but to sum it up, for an page that's supposed to be the main article for the video games, it needs a lot of work. 蜻蛉の目_e.o.t.d 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final draft of consolidated navbar

As TTN suggested, I've now created a more condensed version of the Navbar.
Navbar: Here
To be templated as: {{Pokémon}}
Intended to replace:

In default of opposition and/or criticism, I will template the consolidated Navbar as {{Pokémon}}, replace all instances of the other Navbars, and drag them to TfD beginning 20 hours from now. Feedback is appreciated. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't, that's going to make a huge template that's going to be no use to anybody. Combine anime characters and Gym Leaders (especially 'cause they're very related, and most are lists). See Yu-Gi-Oh! Directory, just a huge mess. It was split off at my suggestion and it looks much better now. hbdragon88 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, you could possibly combine anime, Gym Leaders, and directory, as all can be considered characters, in some sense. hbdragon88 03:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEMPLATING POSTPONED 'TIL ISSUES RESOLVED. Ummmm, check out the draft first, you'll see that every section has a show/hide feature. that prevents it from cluttering up the whole screen. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help at all. It's a hack solution. Templates should not be so big as to require a show/hide. Part of the principles of AMIB's navbox proposal to make the infoboxes small enough so that they didn't need a hide/show. hbdragon88 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, IMO. Better than users having to sort through a bunch of unrelated navbars.--Zxcvbnm 00:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, and where does this new template criterion stem from ,Hb? There sems to be no logic for it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hb"? You could at least call me hbdragon. Hb sounds bad. I, on the other hand, do not see the logic of compressing so many templates into one. They work fine as-is. hbdragon88 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point of using templates is to group related articles, and a consolidated template does that better than disjointed ones. The disjointed ones group in-universe stuff, the consolidated one groups the whole franchise. And the answer to a question isn't a question, I still see nothing discouraging the use of show/hide options. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, can others bother commenting? Two on one isn't really what I'd like to call "consensus". --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF NO ONE HAS ANY MORE OBJECTIONS, I'LL BE CREATING THE TEMPLATE IN 48 HOURS. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the show/hide function, the box is still enormous; it's about the size of a medium-large show all infobox while everything is hidden. Perhaps the "Characters" section is not necessary. Bosses, Proffessors, and Crime Syndicates are all region-based, and can probably fit with the locations.

Oh yes, and you forgot about these people if you decide to keep the "Characters" section after all. I'm not sure where they'd go otherwise. You Can 't See Me! 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that already. Pocket Monsters Special protagonists. I was working on it 'til a few days ago, I'll be resuming this Saturday. If that works out, I'll redirect everything else to it and add it to characters. That tab should probably stay, though, "Regions and characters" sounds podd. As for size, it's only 6 lines long with everything hidden! ~~Just look at the size of {{India independence movement}}. And it's not OTHERCRAPEXISTS, simply because you can't call WikiProject India a bunch of noobs, they have 71 Fas!!!~~--The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAs that they have is completely irrelevant to this topic. My philiosophy on navboxes is that they should not be so large as to require a show/hide button. Yet again I will point to the Yu-Gi-Oh! example, similar series, and how they split off those characters when the main directory template was deemed to be too huge. hbdragon88 00:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ignore it. But you can't quote your philosophy as if it's a guideline, hbdragon. There is nothing that prevents show/hide boxes either in policy or common sense: The proposed navbar is definitely not unaesthetic. Actual reasons for merging them include:

Navbars exist, after all, to group related articles. As I pointed out above, the current Navbars group articles related from an in-universe perspective, while the proposed one groups the entire franchise from an out-of-universe perspective. An extension of WP:WAF.
It's gonna help reduce the clutter on articles under the purview of more than one navbar: Brock (Pokémon) for instance.
As for size, it's only 6 lines long.

Now, if you have something to refute that, fine. But stop quoting "precedent", please. That navbar had nothing in common with ours. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. For the staggering number of navboxes that the Wikipedia has, you'd think there was a single, consistent guideline, but there isn't. Some proposals, like AMIB's, are marked as {{historical}} or rejected. Wikipedia:Navigational templates is mostly a directory of navboxes. Anyway. First, the "unasthetic" is purely opinion and based on one's subjective view. You say it's not. I say it is. Of course it's better if we can get more than four voices here – two for and two against isn't consensus in any regard.

You keep saying that the box is six lines long, that's only because everything is hidden. If you unhide everyuthing, the navbox is enormous. I've never seen WP:WAF used as a reason to merge all articles into a giant box, actually, interesting interpreatation. The reason why I cite Yu-Gi-Oh! as an example is because it's very similar to Pokémon: card game, video games, anime, magna, etc. I realize that this is better organized, appearing to interlock several templates rather than displaying everything in one big blah, but I feel that it still posest he same problems.

There really isn't anything to refute. How do you refute someone's opinion? I could once again go on my thoughts about a navbox that requires a show/hide is too large and should be cut down, but I already made my point above. hbdragon88 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, about the WP:WAF thing, I disagree. WAF specifically applies toa articles. We should view the articles as one by themselves rather than focus on the navboxes. The only way that they will be strengthened is through finding sourced analysis of them from significant third-party sources, not through consolidating their navboxes. hbdragon88 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it is indeed getting to be opinion vs opinion here. Looks like we'll jut have to wait for anyone else who butts in. As for WAF, I said "extension", i.e., I'm extending it to navboxes that way. Sorry if the intent wasn't clear. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Sugimori Images

It's easy to batch convert them when you have all of the originals (even though it took an hour). :p

http://www.pokebeach.com/kensugimori/wikipedia.zip

Also, could you change that one statement to: "Larger and transparent images are available there."

Could you guys tell me when you have downloaded them so I can delete the ZIP? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Water Pokemon Master (talk • contribs).

i've downloaded the .zip would have done it sooner but was expecting a msg on my talk. pray tell, how do i remove the transparency in a batch convert (never had to do it before)... will converting to BMP throw out transparancy data? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are finished. The transparency is removed, and they are to what I specified. All you have to do is upload them to their pages, and you're done! :) Water Pokemon Master 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah... i saw that... oh well. I need to get some feedback from the group before I go ahead with this. I've mass renamed all the images in my possession to "Pokemon lead image #.png" I did this because I've always felt that undescriptive names like Image:388.png were unhelpful for wikipedia. To keep everything consistent I'm asking if you'd rather have a mass upload of the new images (because Images apparently can't be moved to new names) and tagging all the old ones with {{redundant}}, or is this a non-problem and we should just update existing images? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've long been slightly worried about having the Pokebeach images on Wikipedia during the time when it wasn't formally agreed with the webmaster to have them there, unlike what's turning out now. :) We might be told off for not paying attention to Wikimedia's "Avoid Copyright Paranoia" guideline, but I honestly have to wonder how that guideline could ever be considered seriously by any sensible Wikimedia project... It's like saying "don't worry about causing lawsuits until you're the subject of them". Heh. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zapper, just tag any images that aren't used in articles any more with {{subst:orfud}}, and some admin will be by to delete them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

k, then i'll take silence as consensus on this issue. I just need to upload the damned things. Here is a list of all the old images that will need be replaced, and here is a list of the new images (these are temporary and will be speedied shortly after this as a housecleaning measure).

All old images can be tagged with {{redundant}} or {{subst:orfud}}.
All new images are titled "Pokemon lead image #.png" (no é)so those of you who know how to be creative with find and replace can easily update the lists.
Because I have to upload them by hand (don't know of any active bots that i feel like waiting two weeks for a response from), I'm only uploading them with the template, {{non-free character}}, and Category:Pokémon lead images because writing out individualized rationales and summaries (i.e. their names) requires more than a copy/paste approach and with the whole project working on it, we should be able to have that part done in no time

OK, i've started uploading... if anyone wants to check my progress they can take a look here. Help with rationales and help with updating pages would be GREATLY appreciated. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing the images on the pages. -WarthogDemon 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't all the images up yet? It's been like two weeks. Only the R/B Pokemon are up currently. Water Pokemon Master 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good question. I don't know; I've been waiting for someone else to pitch in. I'll continue replacing the images if nothing happens in a few though I'm also wondering why it's stopped at 151. Weird; I or someone else shall look into it. -WarthogDemon 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for the images to be updated. :/ 71.103.54.80 08:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur merge

OK, discuss away. TTN 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? Haven't we already said everything that's needed to say on why Bulbasaur can't have its own article? TheBlazikenMaster 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just make it so those two have nothing to complain about (I linked the merge tag to this discussion). TTN 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such discussion, I do see that a number of experienced editors saying it's a bad idea to merge Bulbasuar.--Alf ^melmac 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They might be experienced, but they're wrong. Bulbasaur has the same prominence as, say, Torchic, so by their logic all the starters should get their own page when there really is no reason for it.--Zxcvbnm 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you having no problem at all with Charizard? It's way more notable. TheBlazikenMaster 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of what it is, is not at play here, at least not for me, you may set up your own standards for inclusion if you wish, I will not and will continue to judge each article on it's own merits, regardless of where it fits with others (unless against policy). By your logic, we should merge all King and Queens of England into one list as only a few are really prominent, see also my comments about the Dracula fims, there is no diference there.--Alf ^melmac 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wishing for anything, or playing, or having my own standards, all I'm doing is agreeing with TTN. TheBlazikenMaster 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really been discussing because I don't have much to add that isn't already said. You want a vote, then merge. Merge alot, we don't need to be a freaking pokedex! There's better pokedex resources than Wikipedia could ever be: Wikipedia's policy on verifiability means it will never get scoops from nintendo like Serebii, it's not a game guide, and the wiki software isn't suited to useful tables like Veekun's dex has. Get it? You want the old info, when you goto Bulbasaur and are directed, go to the top of the page, click the 'redirected from Bulbasaur' link, then click the history tab to look at past versions. And what Pokemon ruled England? England is more important than Nintendo, regardless of which one has more bearing on your life personally. :P There's books written by historians on all of them, with sources and verifability moreso than any work of fiction that is less than 20 years old. Spriteless 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice for finding an old diff for info is of no use to readers, who are those we are here for. There is no limit on space and we are talking at the moment about one specific page, not something that needs 'a lot of merging'. I have neither Ninetendo nor any other game machine, I was merely pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments that 'because we said we'd merged them all - this one is included' and the silly spaghetti that has been used to try and salvage that position.--Alf ^melmac 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't gotten my point. I keep telling you that Charizard is more notable than Bulbasaur, and you still haven't answered my question on why you have no problems with Charizard. Your Dracula example doesn't answer my question. TheBlazikenMaster 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I have a problem with Charizard, it looks like a nice page to me. I don't see the relevance of the question, though I'll answer your question in spite of not being adequately answered elsewhere on the page. I don't have a problem with Charizard because my default position is not to automatically have a problem with a page because of a pre-set notion.--Alf ^melmac 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's get back to what we're talking about, I still can't see how Bulbasaur is any more notable than the rest. TheBlazikenMaster 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That again is the wrong notion of deciding on whether the subject deserves a page or not, you're using pre-set notions of notability in a small subject field, not using the wiki-wide notions of what is for and what is not for inclusion.--Alf ^melmac 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only arguments for not merging seem to be Cel and pschemp's ILIKEITs and Alf's OTHERCRAPEXISTS, neither of which are valid arguments. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to read my posts carefully (at all?) then you'd notice that at present I have not indicated whether I feel that it should or should not be merged. I am expressing my (increasing) disatisfaction at the number of bits of inappropriate silly spaghetti and nonsensical arguments dragged in to defend a policy type decision where none applies. I'm only defending the position that tag-teams and project members do not decide on what happens to individual articles. A by point I have not yet stated is that it looks pretty darn shoddy when many other wikis in other languages have a reasonable article about this subject, but here it is objected to on principle. Sheesh, even the English simple wiki has an Bulbasaur article.--Alf ^melmac 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, we are not in an xfD discussion, and I have not once used a comparative to any other article stating "see this, why not this" as you suggest by your silly spaghetti, please either re-read my posts or stop attributing silly spaghetti suggesting I'm saying anything other than the words I choose to use. I don't need to intimate bad motives by saying "ooohh see that - (silly spaghetti!!!)" myself and wish to God others would see sense and do likewise.--Alf ^melmac 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, i must have misread something. But your later argument is OTHERCRAPEXISTS all over again. As a matter of fact, policy does apply. See WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. From what I see, the article consists almost entirely of plot summaries of anime and manga, TCG card lists, redundant biological characteristics, and OR about the name. Incidentally, also see WP:NPA. Also incidentally, you're ignoring the spirit of the law for the letter. As a matter of fact, you did point out the Dracula movies and the other language wikis. No WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Indeed. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry then I have failed to make the point clearly to show the fallacy of a previous argument when I used both the Dracula and the Kings and Queens argument - maybe I should have tagged with "caution - sarcasm may be at work here". I also strongly disaproved of you splitting up the discussion that had already started, as you have done again.--Alf ^melmac 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not split up the discussion. This is the merge discussion. The above is about why this discussion should take place along with some random bits of discussion. I want this to be over and final. I don't want people to say "Oh, that wasn't a proper discussion" for some pointless reasons. TTN 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like you were splitting up the ongoing discussion rather than being inclusive of it, there are valid comments there which apply here. And I'm pointing out that this insistance on being merged is on principle only, which is not something done here or on any other wiki I know of, and it looks shoddy by comparison for the English wiki to do so, you may care to read each and everything I say as some form of breach of silly spaghetti, I'm not in control of that.--16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They can readd their comments to take part in this "vote." It is way too cluttered up there to be useful. Comments like that show that you have not done any real research on this merging process. The reason these are being merged is because they don't have enough real world information from non-trivial sources to sustain an article (per WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Only Pikachu definitely has that much, and a couple of others have been put on hold until they are researched. TTN 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you're making them re-add their comments. Even a cursory glance at the two pages and their cites show that their isn't as much difference as you'd like us to believe.--Alf ^melmac 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to say restate (just to have an absolute view of their points). It's only two people anyways. Which two pages are you talking about? TTN 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same two that you were talking about, the subject of this discussion - Bubasaur and the one you state is the only one meritable enough to deserve an article - Pikachu. We don't delete stubs because they don't have all the requirements of a full article, if the subject merits it, it stays and gets improved - we're teetering on suggesting that a different principle applies here. I also count more than two people (like Killerchihua for example) --Alf ^melmac 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking at their current status. I'm looking at their potential. The staple Pokemon of the series has real world information and it can obtain even more. Bulbasaur has like one small bit, and that is it. I'm talking about the previous discussion, not one from last week. TTN 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though by the way the discussion was going I was getting worried it was. If you ignore all previous disccusion then how on earth will you be able to judge the consensus fairly, KillerChihuahua may not be even aware that this discussion is taking place, does that discount his view in terms of consensus? I mean "only those who show up can get their say" is a bit poor form when we know there are relevant views recently made on this very subject.--Alf ^melmac 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their comments may be relevant, but we don't mix and match discussions with regular mergers (as in the case if I had just started this discussion on the list). I guess you can drop them a note if you feel like it. TTN 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to stop you, but I still disagree, I already said my point earlier. TheBlazikenMaster 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using the Chewbacca Defense! All this card game and anime stuff can be better used in a fansite, PERIOD. No plot summaries are allowed, neither are game strategies. "Silly spaghetti" is being used to defend a (correct) policy decision, which you are somehow defending by saying "I like Bulbasaur, and articles are like this somewhere else."--Zxcvbnm 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the policy decision that says 'Bubasaur may not have a page'.--Alf ^melmac 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability: It doesn't assert its real world notability, any more than the others.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Noone can find enough verifiable sources to fill a whole article, without turning it into 90%game guide, trivia, and plot summary..

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): Wikipedia shouldn't have alot of plot summary and in world context for such articles, but a large collection of stubs can be combined into a list, if as a collection they are notable. Large articles and lists can be broken up into sections.

Please don't make sarcastic remarks. It makes me get all patient. Spriteless 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur is far and away more notable than the countless articles we have about obscure music groups and movies that 3 people have seen. Additionally, verifiability issues in no way preclude an article from existing, they just mean it has to be sourced better. That means you work on it, rather than delete it. pschemp | talk 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then, practice as you preach and find a verifiable source detailing its real-world impact - not the games, not the anime, not its cards, just real-world impact or references. Neither myself nor the Project have been able to do so. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I used to like this project, but ever since this started happening, I've lost my respect for what's going on here. I honestly thought that the evo line pages were a good choice, but, then everyone seemed to forget about the evo line pages when the mass merging started happening. If you want to do this and kill off this WikiProject, then do so; I simply don't like the idea of such a project ending. So, if you need me, I'll be at Bulbapedia, where the site isn't overrun by "oh, this cruft doesn't belong on such a respected site as this, so I'll merge it." Leprechaun Gamer 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like alot of the evo-line pages myself. I wouldn't have any problem with Bulbasaur evolutionary line, as it would still cut out the huge amount of 'cruft'. I think Pokes that have evolutions spread throughout many generations in paticular gain alot context from it. But not every Poke family has enough to warrent a page, either; Bidoof evolutionary line would be a stub with two sections. Bulbasaur evolutionary line wouldn't be paticularly useful, since the others are right on the same page, but it would be harder to maintain. Spriteless 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur is an article of high quality and should be kept and if possible restored to FA status. I can see no conceivable reason to merge it. Tim! 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is full of junk that is going to be cut either way. I would imagine three paragraphs at most. TTN 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice threat. pschemp | talk 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users Celestianpower, A link to the Past, Tim!, Leprechaun Gamer, Master Spider, Killer Chihuahua, Alf and I have all stated in this discussion, in the above discussion, or on the article talk page that we are not in favour of the merge and have stated various reasons for this. This can't be ignored, and doing so is a backhanded way to force the appearance of consensus. I see Zxcvbnm, TTN and Raven not in favour, and disregarding the reasoning given. Celestianpower has given specific reasons where this character was emphasised. Not a single person has in fact, said keep it because I like it, but pointed out it's a major character, there's enough info for an article, Wikipedia is not paper and so forth. As no policy violations have been pointed out either, and the FAR of the FA did not lead any of the reviewing editors to suggest the article doesn't exist, there is hardly consensus to merge the article. Claiming that it's too crufty is not a defence either, Wikipedia is here to capture the sum of human knowledge, not just the knowledge a particular person thinks is worthy. pschemp | talk 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that isn't a threat. That is the truth, and it is going to happen either way. This is not an AfD. We don't count votes, making numbers irrelevant. We use argument strength to decided in the end (Consensus is not about numbers. If it were, the anons and some of the bypassers would have a consensus to stop the merging). Cruft means game guide material, OR, and unneeded plot summaries, all which of which we have WP:NOT for, so it does fit. TTN 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people arguing a merge keep trying to boil everyone's arguments down to simple acronyms. Never in this discussion has anyone said they think it should be kept because they like it, or because other articles are similar. Please read our actual words. You may, of course, disagree, but please stop trying to refute them by pointing to acronyms (look, I can do it too). —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you guys think that the article should be put back, and make huge paragraphs summarizing that Bulbabaur is more notable than some rock band, still doesn't prove that the article isn't in violation of the guidelines that were just posted. Those "mere acronyms" are what is proving you wrong, no matter what. I read your argment, and it still fails when faced with What Wikipedia is not.--_ZXCVBNM 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, er, I mean, please try not to jump down each others thoats over every percieved slight (and don't take that as permission to give underhanded slights and claim AGF in your favor). The reason people keep pointing you to those acronym pages is they say wikipedia policy very concisely, and they don't want to reinvent the wheel, personally. The reason this is upsetting is because it appears to sidestep the arguments for keeping bulbasaur, and gives the impression of elitism.

The reason the mergers want to merge bulbasaur, is if you take out all the original research, game guide, and plot summaries then the article would be reduced to a mere stub. You say to keep the info, but just because giving a tiny acronym(WP:NOT) is snarky, doesn't make the name origins, how to get it in Pokemon Yellow, or the description of how he did in every tournement in the anime any better to keep. Linking to the policy is an attempt to give the argument more precedence without taking forever to type in the response. Spriteless 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, quote the policies (WP:NOT, etc), but stop trying to "summarise" the arguments made by turning them into an acronym (like WP:ILIKEIT). —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 'someone' bothered to collect a bunch of arguments that bear little weight, you might try to find a different argument. But I agree about the acronym shortcuts, I think they should all be gotten rid of, as they encourage people to not actually tell you what they find wrong with an argument, but to use a snarky soundbite. WP:CIV

The burden of proof for an article's encyclopedic potential lies on the defenders of the article. Just because Bulbasaur is already here, doesn't mean it should be. Maple Village was an article for years before I found it put it up for deletion. Hence, any argument that says the article is good enough, or will be eventually, without providing proof (especially from someone who hasn't edited an article as much as the opposition) gets grouped into ilikeit. The existance of other crappy articles on indy bands likewise has no bearing on bulbasaur, put them on articles for deletion or merge if you'd like. These arguments tend to be grouped into othercrapexists. These two in paticular are common arguments, and familiar to long time editors, so explaining repeatedly gets old.

In summary: I am Ms. Exposition, and hate snarky shortcuts. But they point to decent counter arguments. Spriteless 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to say everything that I wanted to say. This should be bolded and placed on top of the discussion.--_ZXCVBNM 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Well, looks like I missed out on a lot.

Bulbasaur represents the failure of the original goal of WP:PAC: specifically, to write a complete article on every single Pokémon. This is meant as no sleight to the admirable work of Celestianpower and everyone else who brought that article up to featured quality in every sense but one, but the lack of that one quality is why we were back to revisiting the Poképrosal and merging the Pokémon into lists.

That quality is notability. There just aren't the reliable sources who have seen fit to comment on the vast majority of Pokémon. We don't have the raw material to do anything but write our own original synthesis of primary sources and personal observation.

It's why Bulbasaur was defeatured, it's why it is no longer a Good Article, and it's why all of our FARs and GARs end up defeaturing or degooding our articles.

I would be elated to be proven wrong. It's why I hated to send Torchic to FAR. But, unless someone can find the sources to use to build individual articles, it's time to continue with the merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, there is simply too little real-world information or references in the articles being defended by Celestianpower, etc., to make them articles and not plot summaries of the video games, anime, and Pokemon world in general. If even a famous Pokemon lacks information on the character development by Sugimori, and all things relating to it in the press, there is absolutely no way that all 500 could have that information...unless you have a crystal ball I can borrow.--_ZXCVBNM 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't at all help that Sugimori is famously reclusive.

This debate is about Bulbasaur in particular, any other example, or the entire mass as a whole. With a few exceptions, there just isn't any possibility for an article, and I strongly feel that our experience with Bulbasaur and Torchic fall on the too-little side of the line. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering, I think the Charizard article has an example of "external info" that I was talking about:

Due to Charizard's appeal, it has featured in many lines of soft toys

In 2004, the "Charizard Medium Plush" was part of a major recall

Things like that will probably not be found for every article. Not to mention that you will probably never find Sugimori saying anything because he's so reclusive.--_ZXCVBNM 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so is something like that why charizard still has an article? if so... then why was Eevee merged? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charizard is only back right now because a user has stated that they will provide a rational soon (though it has been a while as of this point). TTN 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can we go merge both Charizard and Bulbasaur now? This thing's been sitting a day without any objections raised. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refute that it's not notable and carries as much crap as you think. Either take it to AfD or RfC or something.SmallPotatoes 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did. Two years ago, with a huge wiki-wide debate and vote at Wikipedia:Poképrosal. Ever since then, we've been running on borrowed time, based on the argument that we could write these articles based on reliable sources.

We tried, particularly admirably in the case of many users (and if you think I'm talking about you I absolutely am), but unless someone suddenly figures out how to come up with reliable sources it's time to merge the Pokémon, just like we merged the human characters and places and fictional things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, were the human characters merged? I'm looking the article Brock, which doesn't even tell me he's fictional and has been totally unreferenced/uncited since November 2006.--Alf ^melmac 05:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does now tell it's fictional, you could have just gone ahead and fix that. TheBlazikenMaster 09:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you did it, I had no idea we even had a category for fictional chefs. Though the point remains that AMIB states that 'we're doing this, just as we did...' - which isn't correct, as the article is there, unmerged.--Alf ^melmac 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the major characters hven't been merged (yet), all the minors have, check out the Gym Leader lists. Even the articles on individual towns have been merged into the regions. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks, so that article will be merged into the Gym Masters list then, ok , I didn't like the apparent double standards that the comment was making me see - (as in that article apparently being ok not to merge and heavy pressure for a referenced article like Bulbasuar that some editors do not think should be merged) No probs if it to be merged with no further questions.--Alf ^melmac 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nonexistent protagonists list, rather. How soon is just a question of how soon someone gets around to it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the compliment, shame I'm not prepared to spend more time finding more cites for it. I see it's pretty much a mexican stand-off with the views, some think it's crap others think not. I'm limited by the 3rr or I'd revert again, I can see why others have given up on this, there appears to be no possible meeting in the middle. I think it'll have to end up in RfC to decide.SmallPotatoes 11:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the article has been merged because no reliable sources exist, not because it is crap. In its current state, it is fine for fans (if you want to transwiki it), but it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It needs real world coverage outside of the franchise, which it doesn't have currently. TTN 11:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our tolerance levels for this are obviously different, I've no more time to waste flogging a dead horse, I can see that no matter what, it's fixed that we shouldn't have a bulbasaur article, I go spend my time soemwhere where it won't be wasted and/or reverted. Goodday.SmallPotatoes 11:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poképroposal came to the conclusion that WP:FICT applies to Pokémon. FICT says that major characters reside within the main article until they become too long, and then are given their own article. I already argued (and maintain) that Bulbasaur is a major character. Therefore, it deserves its own article. Many/Most Pokémon obviously do not.

The Poképroposal also said that only stub Pokémon articles are to be merged. Bulbasaur is not a stub. Ergo, it shouldn't be merged. And plus, if there are concerns about the actual content (its OR-ness, POV...etc), these should have been tagged. Since nobody has, the content can't be as much of a problem as it's made out to be. People here seem to say that there are major problems with content; then why has none of this content discussion happened before?

I'm reverting TTN for now, as I feel he was a little too hasty in judging this discussion over. It's barely been 2 days. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than wiki elf's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If that's true, then Charizard can also have its own article, since it has many anime appearances. TheBlazikenMaster 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already apologised for using sarcasm and (probably by doing so) failing to show the fallacy of a previous argument when I used both the Dracula and the Kings and Queens argument, though that argument is still rubbish. shrugs Please stop with the SS to an essay about what arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, or are we at AfD checks page header again.--Alf ^melmac 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that's ok. I know you're just trying to help. TheBlazikenMaster 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:FICT, I'd say the following are major characters (other than the obvious Pikachu) for having centric movies (in movieorder):

Mewtwo (1, VHS)

Mew (1, 8)
Lugia (possibly by extension, Ho-Oh (as its counterpart), Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres
Entei (and possibly Suicune and Raikou as counterparts)
Celebi
Lati@s

Jirachi

Lucario
Manaphy
Dalgia
Palkia
Darkrai

I would say the following evolutionary lines are major for being on the boxarts of the games:

Charmander (R/FR)
Bulbasaur (G/LG)
Squirtle (B)
Pikachu (Y)
Ho-Oh (G)
Lugia (S)
Suicune (C)
Kyogre (Sa)
Groudon (Ru)
Rayquaza (Em)
Dalgia (D)
Palkia (P)

There aren't many other Pokémon that are major enough IMO (then again, I don't watch the anime) - I'd be for putting Onix as it's Brock's staple Pokemon, and possibly the starters from all four generations. But not every Pokemon needs an article. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Rayquaza or Deoxys? They are as notable as the rest of the movie pokémon you listed, since they were also part of a movie, don't forget that. TheBlazikenMaster 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only deciding factor is out of universe information. Without that, they cannot exist as articles. Only Pikachu has asserted any as of yet, Mewtwo has asserted higher possibility due to the various pieces of media (it will probably have its own discussion), and Deoxys has some sort of promotion with NASA that is worth looking into (though it may not be enough for an article). Those are the only exceptions as of yet. There needs to be some sort of backed assertion if any others are proposed (i.e. Don't say "It's a major character." Say "It has real world information. See X.") TTN 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you yet again made a good point, TTN. Maybe you should invite everyone opposed by the merging to join Bulbapedia? TheBlazikenMaster 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true, TTN. The deciding factor is only out-of-universe information because you say so. The Poképroposal came to the conclusion that Pokémon articles should meet WP:FICT. That's all. So long as the character is major, it gets an article. There is a short list (Sceptre makes a good start at one) of between 10 and 20 Pokémon I (and others) would describe as major, and therefore deserve articles of their own. These need to be discussed individually, as we are doing now with Bulbasaur. The others can (and should) be merged, though being sure to retain relevant information. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure, that isn't sarcasm or anything, right? Well, we're at the single discussions right now, so nobody here seems to oppose the actual merging. TTN 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't being sarcastic. But anyway, I'm glad nobody is opposing the actual merging. TheBlazikenMaster 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't sarcasm on my part either. And yes, nobody opposes merging most of the articles. It's just a relatively small number (including Bulbasaur) that are disputed. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read the proposed rewrite of the guideline because that is not the point of the whole character section. Major characters receive articles if they can meet WP:WAF (It is linked right from "encyclopedic treatment" in the main character part). That means that they need real world information backed by non-trivial sources (as does any other article per WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS). TTN 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's just proposed policy and thus doesn't apply. The Poképroposal voted on the current WP:FICT, not this one. Plus, that proposed policy looks a long way of consensus to me, though I haven't read it thoroughly, I see a lot of people not in favour. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I want you to read it is because you don't actually understand the guideline. It directly relates to WAF (which is what the proposal makes clear). How exactly can you follow one but not the other anyways? So going with WAF, we must give real world info, such as development and reception. TTN 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAF says that you need both real world information and primary information. It does have plenty of both. While the article is not perfect, and probably doesn't get the balance exactly right, it clearly does have both, so it deserves an article. The video games, anima, manga and trading card sections do have plot summary, but they treat it from an out-of-universe perspective, as the guideline describes.

However, this is irrelevant, since this is a discussion of whether there should be an article, not how good the article is as-is. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has no real world information, and it cannot have any. Primary information is irrelevant unless that stuff exists. Real world information means having sources that prove that this single fictional creature is notable in the real world. Writing in an out of universe tone doesn't prove that and having a few toys doesn't assert anything. Look at some of our featured character articles for what needs to be there. If you assert that it is possible, please actually provide some sources. TTN 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon that, it needs a development section that can talk about why it was designed that way, what sort of concept designs were there, why it was chosen as a starter, any outside influences, name origin, and stuff like that. It needs a reception section and possibly a mass media section that describes it has been taken as a single Pokémon, how it has influenced things, been parodied/used in other forms of media, and other things like any mass media attention. The former doesn't exist, and the latter may exist, but it may as well not (as it is will not be useful for building a section). TTN 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To BlazikenMaster) Yes, I forgot Deoxys, completely by accident - yes, it is notable.

(To all, same indent as above so that this won't be squashed) Additionally, I think that we could merge the Pokemon down even more from my list:

Starters in their own evolutionary line.
Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres into "Legendary flying Pokemon of Kanto"
Raikou, Suicune, Entei into "Legendary wandering Pokemon of Johto" (yes, I know they roam Kanto and the Sevii too, but that's a bonus rather than the subplot).
Ho-oh and Lugia into a merged article.
Latios and Latias into a merged article.
Kyogre, Groudon and Rayquaza into "Meteokinetic/Weather manipulative Pokemon of Hoenn"
Dalgia and Palkia into "Dalgia and Palkia" or "Spaciotemporal Pokemon of Sinnoh"

The titles may be fluffy and the terms neologistic and unofficial, but as long as we establish that K-G-R do control the weather and so forth, IMO it should be fine. (That brings us down to, including Pikachu and Onix, about 25 Pokemon articles from my list). Will ^(talk) 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what became of the discussion? Can Bulbasaur have its own page? Lord Sesshomaru

Discussion till continuing. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about height & weight? That seemed to have been discussed and then dropped without a decision either way. -WarthogDemon 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided that they could be included. But no one followed it up after that. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll try to follow up on that once all new images have been included. It'd probably look nice to have name, height, weight, neat and tidy like that. -WarthogDemon 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this merging ideas are, shall I say, not-clever?

Do you have any better option? Try actually finding reliable sources for everything in the Pokémon articles instead of just complaining. By the way, fansites such as Serebii.net have not, will not, and (likely) never will be considered "reliable sources". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long are we keeping this open? There isn't any real discussion going on, and there is still no reason to keep the article. The attempt at out of universe information is just drawing fluff from indiscriminate places, and it certainly isn't showing any potential. TTN 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know which pieces you consider indiscriminate fluff, as my edits were 'inspired' by other articles' content.--Alf ^melmac 22:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The character was created by Ken Sugimori" is the only part of the first paragraph that isn't fluff. You go into a completely generic statement about the series, and then the naming bit is just a quote that goes into the basic fact that they obtain new names upon localization. Those can be applied to any Pokemon. The review brings nothing to the table as most of the first generation Pokemon were updated. The voice actor info is fine, but it doesn't contribute anything on its own. The CNN bit is just a small joke that reflects upon the view of only a few people at most. TTN 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually talking about two sentences in one paragraph and one sentence in another then. The first sentence merely states that the character was created for those specific games in the Japanese market, so I don't see how giving the standard naming convention that the extra "Game Boy games in Japan" is too outrageous. Articles should not assume a pre-knowledge on the reader's behalf, so the fact that that fact applies to all pokemon is actually pertinent. The next sentence I did think of trimming, to summarise the specific things the company did in translating the game (and thereby the character - you'll find the 'Link' article uses this approach too.) The 'naming bit' deals specifically with how the company aimed for "cleverly descriptive names" and as only three pokemon are given as example, the cite is only aposite to those three and much less so for the other pokemon (who, don't forget, don't actually have articles, so need no 'the information should be able to stand alone' treatment. The 'CNN bit' isn't a joke is it? I thought it was an acknowledgement of how the character's bulb flowers through the 'evolution' done with wit. It most certainly names the character as one of three Pokemon who they consider 'lead pokemon'. The majority of reports by newpapers, reviews by reviewers, books by authors etc. could be said to reflect upon the views of only a few people, they are not the collaborative project that Wikipedia is, after all.

I never limited it to the first paragraph. That was just to give a quick view as to what is useful in it. The reason that I am using "fluff" instead of cruft is that sometimes fluff is fine, but it adds no value to the article, as does the rest of the first sentence. The problem with the little opening and the naming part is that they are not unique. If reworded, they fit into a development section, but they can be applied to basically any single Pokemon (while Link's information cannot be flipped over to Zelda). The goal isn't just to have little numbers around the information. That information needs to be important, and so do the sources.

Citing views from single writers is fine, but they have to be reflected elsewhere. One person making a joke (joke, wit, eyes of the beholder) doesn't make the assertion actually worthy of inclusion. It would only be fine if it were a common comparison. TTN 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with TTN, unless something comes up quick. -WarthogDemon 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

201.88.58.196 (talk · contribs · count) removed the tag, see here. I'm assuming discussion is still ongoing? Lord Sesshomaru 19:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, comments seem to have stopped coming in, and the discussion clearly has no consensus, just like the last one. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the type of discussion that is closed. Unless both sides just want to back off, we well keep discussing until we have something. Plus, the merge side has policies and guidelines, while the other only has real world information that still hasn't been found. That really is enough to put down any "no consensus" anyways. TTN 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think there's much more to say. You won't accept our analysis of the situation, and we won't accept yours. We argue:

Bulbasaur is a major character within Pokémon, for reasons stated above. It therefore deserves an article per WP:FICT.
Various editors are improving the article. It is now very similar in structure to Link (The Legend of Zelda), an exemplar article on WP:WAF.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. The information is doing no harm at all, and as we've seen, people find it useful. Plus, cruft is in the eye of the beholder: we're here to capture the sum of human knowledge, not just that which the elite few deem worthy.
Issues of verifiability have never stopped an article existing. They mean the article needs to be edited or tagged. You can't just say there aren't any because nobody has found any yet: that's OR in itself. And it's not for anyone to find them now. Wikipedia is not on a deadline. Plus, if you see the current article developments, people are finding things.
WP:FAR didn't suggest it be deleted/merged, and they did a bigger review of the article than anyone.
Wikipedia:Poképroposal said that only stub Pokémon articles should be merged. Bulbasaur isn't a stub, so the conclusion of the Poképroposal don't apply.

If I've missed something, please say. These certainly relate directly to policy, so I don't understand why you say we don't go by policy. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the major character section again. Being major has nothing to do with actually getting an article. It is all about notable real world information, which this doesn't have at all. Link actually has some (real information from the creators and other things, not scrapped up reviews), and the article is currently on FAR due to major decline, so it is not a very good example. Not Paper is only applied after the articles pass our other guidelines and polices, which this has yet to do. I don't know how many times that I have mentioned that cruft means OR, game guide information, overly long plot summaries, and trivial bits. Those are to be removed by policy.

The FAR was before people even thought of merging the most trivial of them, and consensus can change, so it doesn't really matter in this case. The merging process also changed over time, which is why I pointed to this page when you first started reverting. It is not even close to how it was in the beginning. TTN 19:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; it does have real world information. What are voice actors, if not real world? What are published books? You keep saying there is none; argue there's not enough by all means, but there certainly is some.

If Link is on FAR, then which articles do we use as examples? Plus, if it's not meant to be a guide, then why is it still linked from WP:WAF?

I, and others, believe that it does pass other guidelines, as demonstrated time and time again. So, we quote WP:PAPER.

Then remove them. There aren't any "overly long plot summaries" at all. There is a bit of plot summary, but a bit is necessary to understand the character's importance within the work of fiction, per WP:WAF. And anyway, if you're so worried about OR, etc, why not tag?

No, you pointed to this page saying there was consensus. There wasn't, and still isn't. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voice actors are fluff. They add to the article, but they define nothing as most characters have voice actors. They only become important when you can get info on how they were chosen, how they have developed the role, and other things like that (which are unlikely for a character that repeats its name over and over). Published books take up a sentence or two at most, so they are also just fluff that can easily be mentioned in the list entry. You need concrete real world development, reception, and things like media attention to have substance.

There is no point in removing pointless content at this point, as it just needs to be merged. Removing it won't make the article any more worthy of inclusion either. The consenus was to merge all of the articles that cannot meet the standards necessarty for a fiction article. This was included. You are the one who brought this whole thing up. TTN 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their being fluff is just your opinion. So what if "most characters" have them? We're talking about Bulbasaur, not them. Most characters don't have these particular voice actors. And once again, your idea of "substance" is wildly different to mine, and Pschemp's, and Alf's, and KillerChihuahua's, etc. You don't get to define substance - consensus does, and consensus has not been reached.

Therre most certainly is. Unless you do remove "pointless content", none of use have any idea to what you're refering. In my view, none of what's in the article is pointless, there's no superfluous plot summary, etc. So, once merged, I would simply copy most of the current article to the list item. Then it would be too long, and get split out. Until you say specifically what's wrong, we can only assume that it's all right.

Yes, there was consensus to merge most of the articles, unless there was opposition to any in particular. That's the most you could have done, because what happens to the Bulbasaur article isn't solely down to WP:POKE.

I know I brough it up. what's your point? Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not just my opinion. This information has to assert a level of notability. You cannot do that by saying "This character has voice actors." You need some of the things outlined in WAF, which is the consensus of what needs to present to assert notability. If you're somehow asserting that because Bulbasaur is "notable", that this information works, please read over the guideline again. The information asserts the notability, nothing else. And if you're really saying that you think it is just good enough, you think that all Pokemon that have appeared in the anime are notable, which obviously isn't what you actually believe. Thus, we need substance.

Just going over it quickly: Unless non-trivial sources are used, the Conception and creation can be trimmed to a paragraph. Characteristics needs to be one paragraph. The video game section can be trimmed to one paragraph (single game mentions are unneeded unless the game has a major impact or the game is based around it). Anime shows the unneeded plot summary. It can be trimmed down to one or two paragraphs to give a description of the two major Bulbasaurs in the series. All TCG sections are going to be cut on the keepers. Manga, if kept at all, only needs two sentences, though it can be fluffed up to a paragraph. The books are fine, but a single toy mention is unneeded unless backed by reception or something. TTN 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just described 7-8 paragraphs, which is more than enough for an article. It's certainly too big for a list, especially when we consider references, see also and external links. Most list items have 4 paragraphs maximum. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a quick run through to show what is not suitable for a general article. It can still easily be condensed in general past that point, and even more for the list entry. The length of an article means nothing if that article's subject isn't notable. If there is too much information for a list entry, it is downsized, not kept. TTN 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop the Bulbasaur discussion and get on to Charizard? I know there is no deadline, but still. TheBlazikenMaster 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a discussion on Talk:Charizard, or indeed here. Just because we're talking about Bulbasaur doesn't mean that we can't talk about Charizard. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous Bulbasaur facts that need to be presented separately. In particular, the Bulbasaur character within the Anime is already notable enough to warrant its own section. 210.176.70.2

Notability =/= Popularity. Most Pokemon pre-merge had an anime section (the only ones without being most of the new Pokes and the Porygon line). If Bulbasaur was popular for being one of Ash's, then why were Snorlax, Tauros, et al. merged? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO!!! I disagree on merging, 100%!! Don't please!! >:( --68.97.69.115 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit too late for that. Feel free to transfer the game content to Bulbapedia however. -WarthogDemon 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the link clickable, I hope you don't mind. TheBlazikenMaster 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate merging myself. however, since it's required, we have to merge Bulbasaur! Why should he stand out

I don't think we should mearge. 69.202.119.212 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an argument in this case. (Though I'm staying out of whether or not it that one Pokemon should be merged; which is just as well since I don't want to sound like a hypocrite.) -WarthogDemon 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page to a gaming wiki as suggested. It can be found here http://egamia.com/wiki/Bulbasaur --Cs california 09:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 2: GS edition

So, has anyone lately come up with any new arguments not to merge, or any new references for any articles? I've heard talk about Bulbasaur, Charizard, and Lugia, but when I go to look at those articles, none of them even begin to solve the sourcing problems raised in the Torchic FAR.

So what's up? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, man in black? I can't agree more. Bulbasaur should get merged in my opinion. I seriously hope it does. But agreeing on merging isn't that easy. TheBlazikenMaster 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that those two are still around is basically due to "consensus abuse" by the side that wants to keep them. They're claiming that there is no consensus to merge, though it is not about numbers. The argument easily leans toward merge, so there is no reason not to at this point. TTN 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus abuse? That's very strong. We're not just IPs with no rational argument. Sure, you disagree with us, but we're not abusing anything. And anyway, the argument does not lean towards merge. To judge that, we need an independant Admin, someone not involved in the debate.

A Man In Black: Did you see my post above? That listed 6 points why merging isn't the thing to do, and it's supported by Wiki alf, Pschemp, etc. So, we have rational arguments, based in policy, and various experienced editors supporting their analysis. Whichever way you swing it, that's no consensus.

Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plusle

I merged it into a list, I didn't include any anime appearance since they weren't important enough in my opinion. Maybe the Deoxys movie is important, I just copied the biological section, if that's the wrong way to do it, please tell me the best way to merge, I need to know the best way to merge (if I didn't merge this right) because I'm going to merge Huntail tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should copy the nihongo template. Descriptions that can be found in the picture usually aren't necessary. You should remove any references to sites with 'dex information. We need to switch over to quotes and the Template:Cite video game (I guess you can replace them if you want). Then just clean them as you see fit. TTN 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are others too in my watchlist that haven't been merged yet, I decided to help on the merging instead of sitting on my ass doing nothing about it. Thanks for the info, I will try to keep that all in mind when I merge the Huntail article, and also when I merge Steelix. TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me I need to get to work on Pocket Monsters Special protagonists. Cheers. The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sitting on our asses doing nothing, I'm starting to think this page needs an archive and pronto. :P Okay, actually there's been a lot of great work put into creating the lists. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I'd merge Huntail today. But we still have a lot to merge. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnished merge

I finished the following merging today:

I will leave Raichu unmerged, since it's notable for being the evolution of the most notable pokémon. I think we need to discuss about Raichu before merging it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I finished the following:

and will do Gengar, after that I'm finished with all the pokémon on MY watchlist, but we still got long way to go. But we're almost there. TheBlazikenMaster 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Except Raichu, I'm not entirely sure if that one is notable or unnotable. TheBlazikenMaster 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it deserves a chance since it is evolved form of the most notable pokémon. TheBlazikenMaster 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, notable = sources. Where are the sources discussing Raichu? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal problems

Portal:Pokémon -- Poorly maintained, news hasn't been updated for centuries, the "Understanding Pokémon" subpage does not exist.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Navigation -- Sucks. If it's needed at all, it should be made horizontal.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species -- Defunct. Has only one member, and its objective is soon to be fulfilled.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/User Species -- Userbox of the above Project.

--The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should either commit to maintaining the Portal or kick it to MFD.
The nav is horribly ugly, but I don't see a problem with it being vertical.
If nobody wants to breathe some life into that project, we can kick its page and userbox to MFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That portal is butt-ugly, and nobody has touched it since D&P was released. Why do we even need a portal for one video game/anime anyway, we already have the main Pokemon article to explain everything! I'm going to re-list it on MFD.--_ZXCVBNM 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hold it... the portal is not just there for one video game/anime. It's there because pokemon is a huge franchise and there does exist enough info to give it's own portal... that's like trying to nominate Portal:Mario. However, there will need to be some work done to incorporate the changes resultant from the merge. And sorry if it hasn't been getting updated regularly, with the merge crap going on, me wanting to actually play my games, and oh... real life, i haven't had time... someone was supposed to be helping me with it. and zxcvbnm, you obviously don't use portals if you don't understand how portals are meant as a supplement to a topic. but if no one else is going to keep it up, then it might as well get deleted... i would urge you to wait and see if anyone comes up saying they'd like to take it over, but i don't think you'd listen. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated already. ~~Without informing any at the project as usual. ZXCVBNM, I've told you it appears backstabbish to do so.~~ The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well in all fairness he did inform the project, "I'm going to re-list it on MFD." Of course i don't know if anyone is going to be maintaining it because these images are seriously the last thing i'm doing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out to someone over Google Talk, I must stop skimming over comments and sart reading them. :( Sorry ZX. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get cracking

Basically, we should start actively focusing on getting certain articles unmerged from the list (like I am with Charizard) over getting them merged. The non-notable ones WILL get merged, so someone has to work against that with potentially notable ones. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...Whew. Sorry, been stuck in the real world for a few days without a computer, but I'm glad that we seem to have finally come to some sort of agreement. I would try to at least get the rest of the legendaries from the 4th generation and the Regis their own articles, but maybe we will get some more information on them when the next few movies and games come out. Until then, I look forward to seeing the articles mentioned saved from merging. Cheers. Leprechaun Gamer 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating The Lists In Order

I'm thinking we should all work on the lists in order so no images get missed. Anyone wanting to continue can start with List of Pokémon (61-80). Lets also try to stick with consistency. (Like first image, then pokemon template, paragraph description, then break.) Progress should probably be updated here so if any of us want to jump in, we know where to start from. -WarthogDemon 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Guide-ness

I was looking through many of the seperate pokemon articles. Wormadam-Buizel (not sure which other ones) have a LOT of game-guide stuff on them, like "____ has high (Attribute), but amazingly low (other attribute). It is hard to level up, due to its limited movepool. However, it can learn the powerful attack...". I assume people are too busy watching the lists, or merging, but can we keep an eyes out for this? Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right, there is too much game guide, which is exactly the reason why we are merging the articles into a list. TheBlazikenMaster 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, any guide-like material should be removed per WP:NOT. Content like that is not allowed. ;) -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know...that's why those seperate articles are being merged.--_ZXCVBNM 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question.

I posted a question here a couple of days ago and because individual Pokémon pages can go for a while without being checked, unless there is vandalism, I decided to bring it up here too. Rather than reposting the question, I'll just provide the link so this talk page won't get clogged up with what may be repeat answers if users see one page and not the other. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it being spelled "forme," might be a typo? The correct English spelling is "form" - it's the same as a verb and a noun. (e.g. "Deoxys's defense form" and "Deoxys separated to form clones.")--_ZXCVBNM 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might have been a typo, but it's spelled that way in almost every current player's guide. Even the ones from Nintendo Power. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to BabelFish, "forme" is the French word for "form". Six of one, half-dozen of another. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the official spelling, that's the one we have to use. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was explaining to the lower keyboard row that "forme" and "form" mean the same thing. I wasn't saying, "use 'form', not 'forme'." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied you were. Stupid online discussions. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! (Lists)

I'm very impressed that the huge amount of Pokémon articles is being converted to list format. I was wondering which ones are staying as individual articles, and how that's being determined. Obviously independently notable ones like Pikachu, but should Golduck really have its own article? Andre (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the main discussions up above, but only the ones capable of following the fiction guidelines are staying. The only definite is Pikachu at this point, and a few have been put on hold to see if they can obtain enough real world information. TTN 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was sort of a case of TLDR, I'll look more closely up above. Andre (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finish merging

Could someone please finish merging the necessary articles into List of Pokémon (241-260)? It is going to make you look bad if you only half-ass it, and someone on Talk:Mudkip just pointed that Marshtomp is still unmerged. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, Blaziken was merged, so should Torchic and Combusken, especially Combusken, as it isn't that notable. Blaziken is notable for being one of the first Hoenn pokémon to appear in the anime. Torchic is notable for being a starter Hoenn pokémon. The only thing Combusken is notable for is being one of May's pokémon. TheBlazikenMaster 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if Bulbasaur is any indication, we're going to be sitting here for a long time before we can merge Torchic (as it's a former FA). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with you merging Torchic, the current article makes no 'claim to fame' at all, apart from some marketing on the release of Ruby and Sapphie, which it first appeared in. It's not one of the first pokemon you play, it's not a pokemon 'held' by a major character for 'any length of time' and I don't rate just being 'a fictional chicken'.--Alf ^melmac 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Combusken. --RandomOrca2 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages of merged pages

In merging, do the talk pages have to redirect to the talk page of the new article, as well? I'm getting tired of replying to responses at Talk:Mudkip when the article it's a TP of no longer exists (except as a rd). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there's no text to the talk page. We can't delete talk page content, even if the talk page's article is merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't because sometimes you need old info of merged pages, that can only be reached by the talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once people stop putting messages on the mudkip talk page, then we can archive it, and then we can redirect it.

Name Origins

Not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but I think it would benefit these pages if the origins of the pokemon names were covered. This is as valuable to the average reader as the original Japanese language name, as many people don't know that Pikachu means electric mouse or that Ho-Oh is a pallindrome of the Japanese name for "phoenix" I think adding the name origins from the original pages, or something close to them, would help the average reader's understanding of the pokemon. 75.109.33.107 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Turk[reply]

WP:NOR. They are interesting, but they are original research. I believe GameFAQs has a wonderful name origins FAQ that would provide the same level of coverage. hbdragon88 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But for some things, wouldn't it be obvious enough to say without having to invoke that? Nosepass. Buoysel. Spoink. Slowpoke. The entire Chimchar line. I can see about something like Lugia, but come on. Toastypk 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's an obvious fact, it needs a citation. Also, see this. hbdragon88 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One also has to consider whether or not it's worth putting the purported origins down for all the transliterated Pokes as well (Pachirisu, Pikachu, Gyarados, etc.) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 23:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless an official source mentions it, even that is OR. TTN 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't advocating it; just saying that you'd need someone who knows how to read Japanese. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lugia

Has anyone noticed that our current focus specie article, Lugia, has been merged into List of Pokémon (241-260)? I thought that merging Lugia would be put on hold depending on wheather we decide to merge it or not.Leprechaun Gamer 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone redirected lugia to the page, revert it, but keep the blurb at the other page anyway.

Sorry to say this, but I don't exactly know how to revert a merge.Leprechaun Gamer 11:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link checker

Just posting here for those who don't have the WP:VG on their watchlist. I'm running a script that will check all external links on articles, the results are available for viewing at -links:Template:Pokeproject. —Dispenser 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, it's unacceptable how many of those links didn't work. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-ran the scan back a few days ago. This time crawling through all the pages, the results are listed at WikiProject Video games. Overall fewer warning, but more bad. —Dispenser 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-Oh

After a ridiculous edit war, half of which I'm to blame for, a question has been raised with Ho-Oh. Apparently the name is similar/identical to the Japanese name of Fenghuang. Should Ho-Oh therefore be a disambig page? (And note that at this point I think it does; it just took me a while to completely understand what the user was talking about.) -WarthogDemon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is damn near identical (Hō'ō/Ho-Oh/Houou vs. Hō-ō), so a disambig or something similar is necessary due to confusion. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find at least four, a headnote is everything needed, and there is already one on the list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Wikia

Let's copy all of the individual Pokémon articles (the articles about each Pokémon as they were before being merged) and their images to the Pokémon Wikia so that people could still learn about Pokémon. As of now, that wiki barely has any information in it, and the easiest way to learn sourced and detailed information about Pokémon is to look in the article history pages, as I have been doing (people new to wikis won't know about this, however, so they miss out).--Qwetzalquoatal 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap I have an account there, and I don't even remember the site . . . sweet. Anyway, we'll first have to check if we have compatible liscences. We most likely can transfer information, but depending on the licenses they have, it'll affect how we do it. -WarthogDemon 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It uses the GNU license. There's also a Bulbapedia, which has about as much info as the Pokémon Wikia but has a much more active Special:Recentchanges.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The licenses at Bulbapedia aren't compatible and I'll have to see about the other site. (If the licenses aren't compatible that only means we have to significantly reword information we get from Wikipedia articles, instead of a lazy copy/paste.) -WarthogDemon 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've noticed that stuff from Wikipedia is copied onto Wikia all the time, including by Wikipedia admins and Wikia admins.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wiki seems pretty incomplete. Most pokémon don't have their articles there, I'd hardly call that a pokémon encyclopedia, Bulbapedia is perfectly fine. It's also easy to read, it's good it doesn't have same manual of styles since it's easier to read if you're a pokémon fan. TheBlazikenMaster 14:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is a hosting service for many different wikis, with different objectives and different licenses. If nobody really wants to revive the Pokémon Wikia wiki, then there's little need to transfer the old pages over. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if we do decide to move pages over, the news of "big bad Wikipedia" might encourage growth over there. -WarthogDemon 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Annex will probably be ready soon; that's a place to store Wikipedia articles without a Wikia. It might take a few more days to get everything established; I have to talk to Renmiri some more. — Deckill er 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torchic

I have re-created the Torchic article because it is a featured article, which means that it was once prominently displayed on the Main Page.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a featured article doesn't necessarily mean it's a keeper. This was already discussed (I believe) so I reverted it back. If you still want to bring it back up, I won't stop you though in this case. -WarthogDemon 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a featured article; it was defeatured several months ago, due largely because of the low quality of (and more or less lack of) sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former FAs don't get preferential treatment. Torchic wasn't even on the cusp for keeping standalone. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists

The lists of Pokemon are almost exclusively game guide material or in-universe information. They do a very poor job of asserting notability, and should probably be deleted.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lists is a lot better than article filled of stuff that has fansites as sources instead of what the fansite is about. Anyway, I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with the lists. TheBlazikenMaster 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to just get them merged right now. They will be worked on as time goes on. TTN 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the lists, then merge.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are in the exact same shape as the lists, so merging them doesn't reduce any quality. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining. If you have a problem with them, start fixing them. TTN 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have a higher signal to noise ratio than the lists, which are almost pure fancruft. It should be easy to just adapt the article intro for the list while merging them.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could have changed the source from fansites to the games or the anime episode. But it isn't easy to revert what we have done. Also a lot of the pokémon aren't notable enough for their own article. Fancruft? How exactly is it a fancruft? I can mainly see biological info about the pokémon, how is that a fancruft? TheBlazikenMaster 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in-universe, like having specifications for fictional machines.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? By that logic, everyone and everything from Jabba The Hutt to Betty Boop to Homer Simpson to Neelix to Edward Elric to Severus Snape to Odie to Jack Bauer is fancruft. We have to have at LEAST a basic decription of these people and Pokemon; otherwise all articles would just be lists of names or one sentence articles. -WarthogDemon 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fancruft if the number of Jabba's henchmen or his yearly income was listed. These are 'facts' which play no role in the plot. Similarly, we don't need to know that Ekans eats eggs or sheds its skin.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they'll be fixed up eventually. This is an ongoing process that we can't just "fix" quickly. I really don't even know how this is going to work in the long run. The first step is to just get them merged. Sourcing them, fixing them, and all that stuff can come afterwards. TTN 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nydas, I'm trying to tell you it's much better than the articles were, they were full of unneeded plot summary or game guide. TheBlazikenMaster 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attest to that. The fact that the articles were in that state was one of the factors I'd cite in the Serebii mess earlier this year and the just-recently-ended Mudkipz Madness. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the list List of Pokémon (241-260) is still being vandalized by this "So I herd you liek mudkipz" bullshit. TheBlazikenMaster 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the users who were/are defending it are no longer trolling Ksy, Ac1983fan, and myself. I consider that negligible so long as the article is semi'd, because consensus is no meme per WP:RS. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. We didn't have the stuff you want before, so why would spreading the in-universe information across 20 times more pages help? -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles differentiate between appearances in the games, the anime, the card game and the manga, creating the bare bones of an out-of-universe perspective. The lists don't do this. When they do have out-of-universe info, it's mostly game guide stuff.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with Nydas in this case. In order to avoid original research, game guide, fancruft etc, the list articles are based almost entirely on Pokedex information. However, Pokedex information is inherently in-universe. I can't see how we can fix this to make them out-of-universe, because we don't have enough out-of-universe sources. (Though, of course, I'll be very happy to be proven wrong) Bhamv 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-merging the lists creates another problem: hundreds of non-notable articles. Heck, the list articles fail to show notability either, but it is an improvement. I'd rather see the approach to the list articles change by following WP:WAF. This is one of those scenerios where there is a lot to mention, but not enough real-world information to show notability either way: I think lists in this scenerio is the best compromise available. — Deckill er 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm seeing this as being too simple, but what's wrong with the descriptions? For every notable character out there in any genre there HAS to be SOME in-world information. Otherwise we could only type, "Deanna Troi is a character on Star Trek: The Next Generation." and that's it. -WarthogDemon 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biological information (feeding strategies, etc) is just filler information which has almost no plot role. It's like listing Deanna Troi's dresses or the layout of her bedroom, rather than her role in the plot.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it. Nydas, you still haven't proved that independent articles are better than the lists. All you have stated is that the list has too much gamecruft(which is not true, since there is only one line of that), or too much in-universe info (which is not true either since it's short entries). However it used to have a lot of gamecruft in the past, Nydas, prove your points, prove that the big articles was better. Claiming it has too much in-universe info doesn't prove anything. TheBlazikenMaster 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the independent articles, there was a better opportunity to state card distribution, anime appearances, and in which games they can be found. These lists have not yet proven an ability to sufficiently relate to the real world. You're arguing that these articles don't have too much in-universe information because they're short articles, but in-universe information is still too much when that's all that's being said. The current 21-40 article says this of Clefable: Clefable are also extremely timid, and rarely seen in the wild. They avoid all contact with outsiders. Even sensing the presence of others in the area (which is fairly easy thanks to their prodigious hearing) will cause it to run and hide immediately. They will, however, come into the open on quiet, moonlit nights to take a stroll on a lake. We're treating Clefable as if it were a real species, as if it were something that existed with a necessary consistency between all of the games (there are differences between the trainer games, snap, and ranger) and the anime. Just because this matches up with the in-game "pokemon encyclopedia" data does not make in encyclopedic for a real world article. Competitive play is part of the real world, and detailing its in-game strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps the means by which one could obtain such a pokemon in the games (saying "In the trainer pokemon games, one can only get a clefable from a trade, or from evolving it into a clefairy" is far better than talking about how they are extremely timid, and are rarely seen in the wild), would relate to the real world far more than this. The lists need to improve dramatically, and quickly.--Kento 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list detailing how/when you can catch certain pokemon, along with it's stats, could be viewed as awfully game guidish. Spigot Map 11:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a problem? It's only one or two paragraphs. Believe me, the articles had A LOT more of in-universe info, a whole section. TheBlazikenMaster 11:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short description of the Pokemon in the lists would be more acceptable it seems. Lists of recurring characters don't have every episode they appeared in, what clothes they wear, their family tree, where they were born, etc. Spigot Map 11:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much the list of recurring characters really should be considered a model for these lists. These aren't recurring characters, they're supposed to be species. WIth recurring characters, there are personal histories, which we can't use, and there are individual personalities, which we can't use.--Kento 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that, the lists basically look like a list composed of several small articles. It seems to me that the template currently used and a brief description of the pokemon would be sufficient. As of now, many of the pokemon have descriptions several paragraphs long and that just seems way overkill to just give an idea of the pokemon. Spigot Map 12:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question, WarthogDemon, for fictional character descriptions there has to be SOME in-universe content, not ALL in-universe content. There has to be out-of-universe information, and at the moment the list entries (based on Pokedex info) is entirely in-universe. And before anyone asks, I'm afraid I don't have a better idea. Sorry. Bhamv 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it does. But still, some TV show characters that aren't notable enough for articles also have list of in-universe info only. Ever heard any of the List of recurring characters pages? They have no, or few out-of-universe info, this is similar to that. TheBlazikenMaster 09:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lugia again

I'd hate to bring this up again, but no one seems to be listening to my earlier comment. Lugia, our current focus specie article, has been merged into List of Pokémon (241-260) and I don't know how to fix that. For one thing it is our current focus article, and at least until such time that it isn't, it should stay as an article. Second, I thought we agreed to keep Lugia and a few other articles for the time being, so that we can discuss why they should or should not be merged. So, either we revert the merge and keep it its own article for a while, or we change the current focus article to something else, and either way, we talk about what we're doing.Leprechaun Gamer 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change the current focus article - we're not trying to fix individual articles anymore, but lists and other Pokemon pages. Why bother reverting the merge if it's going to be merged later? I don't think anyone pays attention to the focus articles.--_ZXCVBNM 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Mew's Article (Taken From Talk:List of Pokémon (141-160))

"I think it is unusual that Mew is not considered significant enough to be expanded currently, though Mewtwo is. Mew has had several notable things, such as being in Pokemon Snap, something not all Pokemon made it in, featured as a point bonus when found in a pokeball in Super Smash Bros, has had two strong movies, much like Mewtwo, actually is able to be captured by the Mew Glitch. It seems like it should receive a main article outlining these aspects. --Nerdzrool 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Mewtwo is only being considered due to a higher possibility of real world information. It may not even end up requiring an article. Mew hasn't really shown too much in that area. TTN 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mewtwo is an article because it has lots of information, but it appears much of it is plot summary. It depends on the information.--_ZXCVBNM 01:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Pokemon should only be given articles based on whether or not we can fill an entire article with information yet, as it stands after the merge, the information on Mew has became very vague on how it is obtained, the games it has been in, among many other things that are important that should be mentioned that were present before. I feel that the merge has removed background information about Mew. I don't think it is wise to remove and lower the quality of information in order to successfully merge articles.

I would also like to comment on the notion that there needs to be real world information. I don't think that is the way to look at this. I don't feel there is a difference between the "real world" information and the in-universe information needed. Having real world information, such as being featured in Macy's Thanksgiving Parades or having controversy due to links with racism or things of this nature, is not a warrant for having an exclusive article. In the same way, not having this information should not bar the exclusive article. The key factor that should determine whether or not a Pokemon has an exclusive article is the amount of information, the sum of both universes, that exists for the Pokemon. Mewtwo, for example, has many in-universe reasons to have an exclusive article due to the amount of information Nintendo and other sources have given about his past, his personality, his complete dominance of the earlier generations, as well as out of universe reasons such as being a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Melee.

Back to the case with Mew, I think, too much information was lost in the transition. For some Pokemon that are just part of evolution chains, this makes sense. For certain legendary Pokemon, in particular Mew and Mewtwo (who have been the only legendary Pokemon other than Ho-oh to be featured in more than one movie) this is not the case. --Nerdzrool 05:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that it was advertised in that old Nintendo Power magazine, with the 151 of them thing. That should be reliable out-of-universe info, since it doesn't claim that Mew is real or anything.KrytenKoro 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Movie Articles

There is an editor in the Pokemon Movie Articles which insists on keeping the trivia and adding "Pikachu the Movie" logos to EVERY pokemon movie article. He also insists on adding a Japanese poster to every article. This, to me, seems out of manual of style, as "Pikachu the Movie" is not mentioned in any of the articles, and there is already an English poster in the article. Every movie has posters/dubs in other languages, that's no reason to add an image of every cover of every movie. Anyone agree/disagree with adding these things? What about trivia? see WP:Trivia regarding trivia in articles. Spigot Map 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and SpigotMap have already discussed this. Even a admin Angus Lepper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angus_Lepper#Pokemon_Articles) has intervinded. He is just causing trouble. The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie, the logo for the third movie has the release date for japan ex: Pikachu the Movie 2000, and the fourth logo has 2001 the year the fourth movie was released, and the fifth one has Pikachu the Movie 5th which is the fifth movie, and the tenth movie has Pikachu the Movie 10th which is the tenth movie. Workadded

I did not ask for your opinion or your generic reply to every comment I post. Your comment adds NO insight on to the reason for adding the images, they are not important, they do not show any difference, and Pikachu the Movie is not mentioned anywhere in the articles. If you would, kindly, stop stalking me. Spigot Map 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one stalking me.. You started this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Workadded (talk • contribs){{#if:| {{{2}}}} }.

Sign your posts. Spigot Map 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell... Ok, I agree with SpigotMap in this case. The Japanese movie posters aren't necessary on the English Wikipedia; the differences between the posters is at best trivial, and the Japanese release dates can be inserted into the text of the article itself if deemed necessary. The Pikachu movie logos are also unnecessary because they add no new information to the article. Additionally, according to Wikipedia's guidelines trivia sections should be minimized, with the relevant parts integrated into the main article text if possible, and the trivial parts removed.

Are these images related to the articles? Undoubtedly. But are they relevant to the articles, do they improve the articles? No and no. As such, they become extraneous and unnecessary. Also, too many non-free images might stretch the Wikipedia Fair Use rationales.

Finally, maybe you two should try to cool down and, for lack of a more elegant phrase, get off your high horses. I notice from your user contribution pages that you never tried to talk things out on a talk page, either a Pokemon movie talk page or each other's talk page. You just started edit warring, warning each other, and reporting each other to administrators. That doesn't work, it just gets you both blocked. Talk things out, discuss your differences in a rational and civil manner, reach a consensus. The administrator Angus Lepper did not intervene in the content dispute itself, he told you to calm down and stop edit warring. Bhamv 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images aren't relevant, and Workadded seems like he's just trying to cause trouble. End this, or I recommend a block.--_ZXCVBNM 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already been blocked and unfortunately the articles are now full protected thanks to him having sleeper socks. He looked like a new editor but to have sleeper sockpuppets he was most likely here to cause trouble. Spigot Map 10:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sucks. I just hope the full protection won't last forever. TheBlazikenMaster 12:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workadded is at it again. I removed all the images he added and also most of the trivia sections, only for him to revert it again with no reason listed. In his reverting, he removed trivia tags and added his japanese posters and pikachu the movie images back to the articles. Anyone have any ideas on this? Spigot Map 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he apparently has not learned how to discuss conflicts such as these, I gave him a test4im warning. If he persists I'll contact the admin who blocked him. If not possible, another admin then. -WarthogDemon 22:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, discussion has not been his strong point. I know he reads this page as he replied to the last time I talked about this. Spigot Map 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as expected he will not listen. I've taken the action of reporting. -WarthogDemon 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably just a troll. We should ban all sockpuppets as well, and anything that continues to vandalize.--_ZXCVBNM 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he is. I'm almost finding his edit warring hilarious. Why get so worked up over posters? -WarthogDemon 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because The images are important...The images are releated to the article. The japanese poster shows the difference with the american poster, and the pikachu the movie logo show the changes throughout each movie. ^{that was a joke} Spigot Map 22:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

omg man, you can see into the FUTURE. :o—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was blocked? What gives? But seriously, this is hilarious that someone gets into an edit war for adding a Pokemon trivia section.--_ZXCVBNM 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<de-indent>Heh amazing! On another note, I'd just leave the articles alone until an admin reviews it, this guy will just keep going until he gets blocked again, which I'm sure he will. I think it's still viewed as a content dispute and he's broken the 3RR, don't break it with him. Spigot Map 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There he goes again with a sockpuppet, this is the second time he's used a sockpuppet to try and get around the 3RR. Spigot Map 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else noticed that this movie crap is the only thing in Workadded's contribs?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets is it now? Three or four?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped counting at 5. Though an admin has now semi-protected the pages from socks so things should calm down. -WarthogDemon 22:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this sockpuppet dude is getting worse than bobob(don't remember his full name) was with his sockpuppery? TheBlazikenMaster 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what he was talking about when he was screaming "BABOBABOBABOBABO"? o.o;—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. TheBlazikenMaster 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At one point he was accusing another editor of being this Bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo person. -WarthogDemon 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was me he was accusing of that. The problem is he's obviously registered several names before, known as sleeper socks. So when an article gets semi protected, he still has names to use. The only kind of person to have these is someone that plans on getting blocked, as if he plans on starting trouble. Spigot Map 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbpedia

I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor but I am a pokemon fan. I was a little upset recently about the article merges. However, a lot of people have been improving Bulbpedia quite a bit. I remember a couple of months ago it was worse than the Wikpedia's article. Check it out now. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bulbasaur_(Pokémon) That's convincing evidence that all individual pokemon pages, INCLUDING legendaries and starters should be merged. Bulbpedia has vastly improved. Stop complaining and head to Bulbpedia and improve it if you don't like what's going on. I can rest easy knowing there's no good arguement against this. If bulbpedia is laggy? Try improving your internet connection or computer, or just deal with it. Feel free to yell at me now. 70.104.16.118 22:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I can't agree more. People are complaining here every day, and give no proof how the pokémon are notable. They only give invalid reasons. I hope people will stop complaining, I made a redirect page, Bulbapedia so it would be easier to lead people to it. TheBlazikenMaster 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do not understand the concept of an encyclopedia and/or are partial to certain items/articles. The game is notable, certain Pokemon such as Pikachu, whom have been in the spotlight, are notable, but just as un-notable bands, people, groups, companies, etc, don't get articles, nor should the average pokemon. Spigot Map 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, HOW does Bulbapedia lag? I have many friends who go there and it's never lagged for them. (And some of them have awfully slow computers.) -WarthogDemon 02:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Using Wikia appropriately is a great idea, and a good compromise; those who want a comprehensive pokemon encyclopedia can edit there, and those who want to work on a general scholarly overview can edit here. External links can be provided to Bulbapedia for "further reading". That's what Final Fantasy has done. — Deckill er 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to make a template, like, say, "Bulbapedia has more detailed content on ____," or is it not allowed because Bulbapedia isn't part of Wikimedia?--_ZXCVBNM 03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a little tricky since Wikia isn't part of Wikimedia. The most common method is "<url and title> at the Pokemon Wikia." — Deckill er 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about making a template for bulbapedia, I'd stick with external links. Spigot Map 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point people to this if they have questions. I've been thinking. Does Charizard really need it's own article? Most of the stuff in it is strained at best. Gonna go round to the unmerged articles and ask supporters why it needs it's own article, point them to bulbapedia and say get cracking. It's probably been done before but I can try right? Pine27 22:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason why we are keeping Charizard unmerged is because there simply can't be agreement on Bulbasaur, and it is arguable that Charizard isn't any less notable. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Charizard merits its own article, since it's been removed from FA and still UE. I mean, it's the most famous starter, but...--_ZXCVBNM 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really so sure that Bulbapedia is within Wikia's domain? AFAIK, it's not. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more. But if we do, we would have to merge Bulbsaur as well since Bulbasaur isn't any more notable. But how can we do it without wiki elf complaining about it? That's what I'm worrying about. TheBlazikenMaster 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't do it because there's no consensus to do so. Not because we'd "complain". Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I spoke with the sysops over there. We can still use the information we have and put it over there though. Only thing is that we're not allowed to simply cut/paste. -WarthogDemon 21:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to c/p to Bulbapedia preserve an article's text, while you're working on incorporating it, do it in the format http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Article/WP_Article

Just to clarify and confirm also...Bulbapedia is most certainly not a part of Wikia. We never have been, and unless the money runs out (unlikely, since google ads recently added to Bulbapedia have made the Bulbagarden server self-supporting), never will be. --Archaic, Bulbagarden Network Webmaster - a.k.a. Mukashi 00:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poliwhirl

I know this is kind of weird, but is there any thought of Poliwhirl having its own article. I, doing research on charizard, have now hit 2 full references to Poliwhirl, one noting that "For example, the Pokemon named Poliwhirl has a belly decorated with a little whirl--Tajiri's memory of the transparent skin of a tadpole with its coiled innards visible beneath." (Time magazine), and a second noting it as a Popular Pokemon (with Pikachu no less) "Pokemon creatures such as Pikachu (a yellow catlike mite) and Poliwhirl (a disk with bulging eyes) were soon presiding over a media juggernaut, including an animated TV show and trading cards, and appearing on everything from cell phones to hot-dog packages." I believe it is said somewhere that Poliwhirl was one of the first Pokemon created, and the creator of Pokemon's favorite, or maybe that is fan speculation? Either way, it is something to consider, given the huge number of places Poliwhirl used to featured, and the possibility of being Tajiri's favorite Pokemon. Heck, Poliwhirl is larger than Pikachu and centered on time magazine at one point,http://www.dogasu.bulbagarden.net/features/time01.jpg Balladofwindfishes 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources you found are obvious. Poliwhirl still isn't notable, since it's only a small character in a fictional universe. Possibly more famous than others since it was one of the originals, but still not notable. You could always add to Bulbapedia though. I doubt that Poliwhirl is more famous just because it's on the cover of Time. --_ZXCVBNM 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you find some sources, and out-of-universe info, it's probably best to include it in our list. It can have its own article if and ONLY if it gets a lot of real life info. Otherwise the list is the right place. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Travel site for Japan, Poliwhirl (Along with Pikachu and Charmander, both are also up for articles more or less, with charizard instead of charmander) were the mascots for the Pokemon center in Japan back in the day http://web-japan.org/trends00/honbun/tj000118.html

Also noted is that Red from the Manga started with a Poliwhirl and it plays a large role in that. Poliwhirl was included in the first set of Pokemon plush toys, which included Pikachu, Eevee, Charizard, and Snorlax. another TIME (Asian Branch) interview which shows some favoritism to the little guy- TIME: Are the Pokémon names related to those insects? Tajiri: Yeah. Like Nyoromo [Poliwhirl in the U.S.]. It looks like a tadpole. There's little whirls on it because I remembered that when you pick up a tadpole, you can see its intestines because it's transparent.

It also seems to be noted elsewhere that Poliwhirl is infact Tajiri's favorite Pokemon, and the Pokemon he wanted to represent the series, rather than Pikachu, but I havn't been able to find sources other than a good dozen forums.Balladofwindfishes 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperChencho got an idea to get rid of this "DON'T MERGE THE ARTICLES!!!!" madness.

Here is a direct quote from Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20):

This is just a suggestion. Many people seem to be overly upset over the loss of individual articles for each Pokemon. If all the extra information is being put in Bulbapedia anyway, why not put an External Link section at the bottom of every article that is a List of Pokemon and list Bulbapedia as an external source?

And, if you really don't like Bulbapedia that much, then help make Bulbapedia a better place. Every Pokemon discussion article has at least one complainer over this matter. I wasn't on board with this decision either, but it really defeats the purpose of having Bulbapedia if you are going to repeat that stuff here.SuperChencho 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it myself. You can always delete it if anyone thinks it's not a good idea.SuperChencho 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So how do you like the sound of this guys? I think this dude deserves some respect for getting this idea. In fact I think we should help him making the idea come true, what do you think? TheBlazikenMaster 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him that we should move our stuff to Bulbapedia and reword it to fit CC-By-NC-SA stipulations, but I am unfamiliar with Bulbapedia and, again, this comes into conflict with my work off-Wiki, so I can't do much. So, to make it seem a bit official Support the endeavor. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a great idea, and i'm sure the fellows over at Bulbapedia would enjoy the help improving thier articles. Ageofe 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is just the thing that would be done in the ideal world. We should just make sure to pay heed to the different licenses behind Wikipedia and Bulbapedia, which disallows us to copy and paste content between wikis. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki (or a variation thereof) is always a preferable alternative to deletion. WP:FICT even recommends it. — Deckill er 19:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for establishing that, that'll be a big help too. Only question: Would it be better to have a link to the individual Bulbapedia Pokemon specie article in each individual Pokemon section on these lists? Like having the Bulbasaur section have a link to Bulbapedia's Bulbasaur page, Drowzee's section links to the Drowee Bulbapedia article, and so on... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that would be considered link spam. Spigot Map 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. These links are to calm down all the complaining. External links are useful, they are supposed to link to other useful encyclopedias, that's what Bulbapedia link does. So no, in my opinion it's not linkspam, instead it's helpful. TheBlazikenMaster 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having one bulbapedia link on all the list pages is okay. However, having 20 bulbapedia links on every list page? That's going a little overboard and I'm willing to bet it could infact be used as link spam. Spigot Map 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell the guys that add links to other encyclopedia links (a lot of articles have links to other encyclopedias related to the subject) too. TheBlazikenMaster 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam it might be, but it's useful one. It's much less spammy than "DON'T MERGE, THE POKÉMON DESERVE THEIR OWN ARTICLE, YOU ARE RUINING WIKIPEDIA SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!". My point is it's the best solution for all the complaints. Of course it also invites vandals, but so what? Most good things encourages bad things as well. Believe me, I know what's best. TheBlazikenMaster 20:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add them then, but they will be removed. There is no need for 20 links to bulbapedia in every list. Spigot Map 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, I already explained to you why we need it, so prove me wrong before saying it's unnecessary. TheBlazikenMaster 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, a more important question about links in all the Pokemon sections is how the links themselves should look. Regardless of how it might be considered "linkspam", it may not be disruptive or ugly if the links themselves look like [1] somewhere in Bulbasaur's section, [2] in Ivysaur, [3] in Venusaur, and so on. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice. A link stating "Bulbasaur's entry on Bulbapedia" and so on for every pokemon would not. Spigot Map 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists, again

Hate to bring up an old topic again. I'm mainly watching/cleaning up the movie articles, but I'd like to get involved with the merging or at least know what the current plan is on merging. Is there a list of the pokemon planned to have their own articles? Is the plans for having evolutionary line articles still in effect or are they all going to the merge lists? It seems to me some people are too partial to certain pokemon even if they aren't notable. I'd think it to be much cleaner to just put most of the pokemon in the lists, and a few notable pokemon have their own articles. Notable being Pokemon that the general public might have heard of, and pokemon that have been featured a lot outside of the game. Even if the Pokemon had a large role in the games/anime, if it had no effect outside of the game, I wouldn't think it to be notable to the average person. Some pokemon have full articles, sure, but that still doesn't make them notable enough to not merge them, it just means someone spent a lot of time to write a long article. Just my thoughts and questions. Spigot Map 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a list of keepers per se. Pikachu has already been given the green light for keeping; Bulbasaur is being considered but will probably be merged. Mostly we're just finishing up everything and then discussing that. I'm actually wondering about a legendary pokemon and if it should be kept but I'm going to hunt around first because it might not have enough to merit unmergedness. -WarthogDemon 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of new versions of Pokémon Red and Blue

I have proposed that the expanded versions of Pokémon Red and Blue (Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen) be merged into the main article. Please discuss on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green (Pokémon)

Is the FR/LG girl really based on the design of Green, or is this flat-out WP:NOR that needs to go? Requesting here for wider input, as the talk page is rather dead. hbdragon88 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is official proof that the female in FR/LG is based on Green AND it's cited as such, it's on borrowed time. As the article notes, some official sources name her "Mariah", and it uses weasel words (...may be based on...) in regards to what the female sprite in FR/LG is based off of. Besides, she killed Boddy with the Candlestick in the Conservatory. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I argued, but TheUltimate3 objected and presumably restored the content. hbdragon88 03:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give him the {{unsourced1}} warning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you wanna look the template up on WP:WARN? The template you gave out is nonexistence. TheBlazikenMaster 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, must have been a while since I last used it in the midst of the Serebii crap. Try {{subst:uw-unsor1}} then - that will work. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who made those claims, a long time ago when I didn't know better. They need to die, die, die. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna don an Olaf mask and meet me there with the gasoline? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT) User:TheUltimate3 has popped up with a Japanese source. Could someone familiar with the language read it and see if it's credible? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now he's fine, though. What he added is an image from the manga, definitely of the character Green.

And yeah, Netkun's reliable. I'm pretty sure it's an official site.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. Does the page in question actually specify that the character in the game is based off the character in the manga? From what I've seen, the manga came after the game art or even the game was released. While I have no dates to keep that backed up, I daresay looking at the picture at that site and saying that Blue in FRLG is "based off the manga character" is original research itself. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's completely about the character herself. Nothing about video games.

One thing most people assume is that Green is based on that infamous "third character" than Sugimori deisgned. I let most people believe that, but I don't find any reason to assume the FRLG player character is based on our manga character here. It's more likely the author decided to copy over the girl player's outfit for posterity.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which means we can't have an unsourced line like that, can we? - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 12:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Page

Guys, is it just me, or is our project page seriously out of date? I am new here and am still trying to figure out the way things work, but I think it's important that we establish what needs to be done around here. There is no mention of the multiple mergers that we got going on among Pokemon articles. The project's focus still lists Lugia and Pokemon Evolution as our subjects of focus.

Just a thoughtSuperChencho 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the entire page is pretty much out of date. Nothing is even said about the mergers. A good section needs to be written about what we are doing with the lists and what to do with the articles after a list entry is finished, etc. What is and isn't appropriate for list entries. Spigot Map 06:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would volunteer to write it, but I don't know any of the requirments myself. I've just been writing the summaries based off the type of information found in the compleated ones. Ageofe 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've added an "article of the week" section in place of the Focus articles. I'm afraid to make it a subpage since it won't get any visibility. However, the winner will be added to the top of the project page.--_ZXCVBNM 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Line articles instead/complementary to List of articles

Hi guys, I'm just an observer to this project, haven't really contributed anything, but some time ago I remember browsing through the pokemon articles and got very excited when I saw the "evolutionary line" series of articles. They were less cluttered than the list articles and can be organized with bigger pictures, etc. What happened to this concept, and why were they all merged with the cluttered lists?

I propose that the list articles be the "hub" articles to the evolutionary line articles, or scrapped and reorganized together.. all those Pokemon crushed up against each other looks a little.. I don't know, strange. Whose idea was that, and who got rid of the evolutionary lines?

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents... DeusExMachina 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new as well, but I can tell you that the guys in the PokeProject have discussed their heads out about this, and it was decided to merge the articles. You see, there are two factions in the Pokemon universe. They are the fanboys and the haters. The fanboys want each and every Pokemon to have their own article. Now, that would be all fine and dandy if each Pokemon had their own sufficient verifiable information to warrant an article without becoming a game guide or manual (some of them do, like Pikachu or Jynx). They are then thus treated as minor videogame characters and lumped together. The other faction, haters, take it upon themselves to disfigure the articles because of their unwarranted, unbridled hatred toward Pokemon, and it is easier to protect 25 articles from vandalism than it is for 500. Believe me, I have the 25 pages in my watchlist, and there is always some social outcast with nothing else to do than to type cuss words in these articles ~ SuperChencho 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolutionary lines were decided against because that would lead to more vandal targets and simply rehashing the unneeded information, at least from what I saw of them. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're not needed. That would just lead to the same problem as before, and the list format is fine.--_ZXCVBNM 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Event Information

I just want to double check myself. Information regarding Nintendo events do not belong in these lists, correct? -WarthogDemon 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I did some merging...

To help out in List of Pokémon (301-320) and this project page (I read that non-notable Pokemon are to be merged), I'm new here, but I'd like to help, so I thought I would you let all know in advance. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the info on the each Pokemon are still empty. Sorry about that. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 01:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team. As far as notable goes, nothing in that particular list is even up for debate on being notable, the whole list should be merged. After the information is moved and is pretty complete, the separate articles can be put up for deletion. Spigot Map 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks, I'll also put up Categories for Deletion with the Pokemon types and Trainer's Pokemon (seeing as how there will be very few left or none articles on the particular Pokemon). magiciandude (Talk) (review) 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have got all the Pokemon in List of Pokémon (21-40) except for Pikachu and Jigglypuff (with the latter, I'm not sure it's been agreed to merge). I wasn't sure about Raichu but seeing as Pichu has been merged, I decied to merge Raichu as well. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I've got List of Pokémon (41-60), the only ones I kept are Golduck becausde it's GA status and Meowth, because I'm not sure. It may look like filling too space with these comments, but I thought everyone should just know. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 03:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the items that get merged into the list should consist mainly of Pokedex entry material, rather than acquisition methods and the like. The only other information should be that which is unique to the particular monster.

Heh, I really shouldn't be complaining, since I haven't been active with the merges since the tarrget became lists rather than evo-lines, but I'll get back in the game soon. Welcome to the team, Borincano. You Can 't See Me! 04:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unown Image

This might be a crazy idea but just in case, I'll throw it out on the table. An IP suggested perhaps an image of all types of Unown. Not 28 images, obviously, but how would all in one image look? Good or bad? I'm thinking it would look a little smushed but I don't think it's an absurd suggestion per se. What does everyone think? -WarthogDemon 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother if they're just shaped like the letters of the alphabet? How about putting the "A,B,C" Unowns in one picture, and a reader can infer the rest.--_ZXCVBNM 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A, B, C, !, and ? perhaps? That does sound better than squeezing them all in. -WarthogDemon 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that its best with just one unown, otherwise the image would look too crowded. -ERAGON 20:58, 27 August 2007 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.44.84 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. Would just five still be too much? -WarthogDemon 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think the only official artwork we have on most Unowns is sprites taken from the games. I think staying with official artwork of just one would be best. Joiz ^A. Shmo 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ALL Pokémon articles

Any individual page on a Pokémon will fail WP:NOTE. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 14:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke right? The few Pokemon such as Pikachu clearly have enough real world information. -WarthogDemon 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag on Pikachu, stop beating a dead horse. Spigot Map 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you hate an article doesn't mean it should be merged. Pikachu is clearly more famous than all the other Pokemon, so don't try to merge it.--_ZXCVBNM 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

As it stands, all of the images on the List of Pokémon (1-20) etc articles do not have fair use rationales. They have a random rationale that ZapperNapper made when he started uploading them last month, and they are not qualified as fair use rationales. Unless there's some reason that he went about doing this, I suggest that anyone who's actually active and gives a shit here go through the 500 images and fix the 500 fair use rationales.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the four letter word really necessary in this case? :/ Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just now I see that User:Durin has removed all the images from the first five list pages because of their un-updated rationales. While I'm tempted to say that that's probably an abrasive way of handling the image situation, I'll just say that I would be willing to fix all the rationales myself if I had the time, but someone else will have to do it. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over everything here, I think that the reason this is happening is because of the request by Water Pokemon Master (talk · contribs) a month or so back to update the images - and to note on the tags that the updated images were used with his permission only. Someone needs to contact him and discuss this BEFORE we start reverting to the old FU tags. Since diplomacy isn't my alley, someone more eloquent should deal with this. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Durin is removing them per his own view of the fair use policy. While overuse is never good, he seems to have the idea that lists will never require images. Though, I won't really comment on this case. TTN 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really am of the opinion that the Pokemon franchise and its eponymous creatures is internationally famous enough that each of the Pokemon should have their own image... It's honestly starting to seem overkill, the process editors are using to tone down Pokemon cruft on Wikipedia. With extremely basic overviews for each of the Pokemon without any accompanying images, the lists might start seeming to be lacking in content. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck trying to get the images back on the page. One user Durin may be, but he's not bending at all against the dozen users complaining at him from the Naruto articles alone. Unfortunately for us, he does have Wiki policy on his side, along with several dozen administrators who see eye to eye with him; the best we can do here is attempt to describe our monsters in prose and be done with it. You Can 't Review Me!!! 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well for that. Funny thing, though; in the past I remember it was A Man In Black who was the heavy advocate of taking out overt fair-use violations from articles like logo galleries from TV station articles. I'd be interested in whatever opinions he might have on this matter. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm*

I forgot the most important part, though. I asked Durin about the removals on the Naruto articles, and he provided me with this link: foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy. According to the link, WikiProjects (not unlike this one) may request help from the Wikimedia foundation in order to attain EDP licences for their images if they are used properly. How to request this is beyond me, but for now, let's see how much support this recieves. I'll ask Durin about this promptly. You Can 't Review Me!!! 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit complicated, but if it's a potential help then it should be considered. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EDP is already written for this project. It is located at WP:NFCC. It's not something written case-by-case for each set of uses on local projects. The EDP is a global (at least in so far as the local project) exemption doctrine. Note that Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy says in defining an EDP "a project-specific policy". It is not and can not be a Pokémon specific policy. I'm sorry if people feel I am acting capriciously, using my own interpretation of policy. I assure you I am not, never have, and never would. --Durin 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I trust you all the way through on this; If this is an issue that is at the very core of Wikipedia's essence and existence, it definitely should be considered and taken seriously by everyone in all senses of the word. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the catalysts behind this was that the use of fair use images was becoming seriously out of hand. Some months ago, we had in excess of 450 thousand fair use images on the project. We've managed to drop that by about 100 thousand. Still, we have 20% of our articles hosting a fair use image on them. It's hard to reconcile that with our m:Mission, which is to create an encyclopedia under a free content license. Combine this with the Foundation's insistence that we use fair use minimally, it energized a number of people into taking action to stem the flow and get us back on course. Removing fair use images from "List of ..." type articles is actually just one small element of this effort. There's big efforts under way with respect to discographies and fair use images of living people to name a couple of others. It is a lot of work. Yes, it is upsetting a lot of people and those of us doing this work recognize that. Yet, the mission of Wikipedia remains. --Durin 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the reason why it's a good thing to have all the Pokemon images removed; if it's truly the truth that that's the way Wikipedia is supposed to be, then I'm cool with that. What becomes a potential issue in my mind's eye, then, is the question of which Pokemon should have their fair-use image on Pokemon articles in general. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This'll probably sound insane. What about 10 per article then? -WarthogDemon 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the cite that Eric was so kind to link to in the beginning of his comment. It's not the number of images. It's the nature of use. --Durin 04:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I'm actually considering just avoiding touching images altogether as earlier today I seem to have gotten clonked on the head over something I don't know about. -WarthogDemon 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Well, it only sounds insane at first, because anything like that would require all sorts of other titanic discussions. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all the Pokemon images that were carefully uploaded over a fair use dispute sounds pretty bad to me. Each Pokemon is unique enough, and the franchise is notable enough, that there should be pictures for every Pokemon. Someone should program a bot to add the rationales to every image in that category.--_ZXCVBNM 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the rationales that are the problem. Please see this. --Durin 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, I don't think there's any denying that there WILL be a large amount of ugly disputes occuring all across Wikipedia over this, between users who know what Wikipedia policy says and users who would assert that all the fair use images were just fine before. For us, this seems to be the big question then: Do we delete all the Pokemon species images that aren't species with their own articles, like Pikachu and Mewtwo? Deleting them all and claiming that that's our method of improving Wikipedia's state of affairs for its Pokemon-related articles would be QUITE a response to Ryulong's first post at the start of this thread if I do say so myself! I shudder to think what controversy will be coming up. O_o Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been massive arguments. Believe me, it's not fun. --Durin 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could always try prose. Granted, it will push article size to its limits, and cetain monsters are nigh-impossible to describe (Gengar, Lugia, Lickilicky, among hundreds of others), but I don't see any other option at this point. You Can 't Review Me!!! 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having to resort to text descriptions because pictures aren't available is not an improvement. Anyway, it's not like Nintendo has sent a cease-and-desist order to Wikipedia, so why are you so stringent about these (necessary) images?--_ZXCVBNM 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't wait for companies to send us legal threats. We're a free content encyclopedia. Our policies are deliberately a superset of fair use law, and keeps us well clear of such copyright concerns. --Durin 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, from what I've gathered, the only way to save the images is to ask for permission from the copyright holder. I'm too lazy to contact Pokemon Inc., or Ken Sugimori, or whoever holds the copyright, but if anyone wants to, they should definitely do it...otherwise, the images are gone.--_ZXCVBNM 18:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I probably would not be able to make it as professional as need be... I suppose if no one else will, I'll give it a shot. *Looks around.* Anyone? o_O -WarthogDemon 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually why don't I direct A Man In Black here? -WarthogDemon 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll definitely need AMIB's input now, as Durin has just left Wikipedia in response to potential legal action. Whoa. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A legal threat was hard to avoid, considering that he's raising so much ire over the huge amount of image deletion. However, this looks like an unbased claim to me - that someone was stealing their work. Maybe Durin got a little too excited.--_ZXCVBNM 20:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legal threat was because Durin thought the one who threatened him was uploading pics under an incorrect license. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB has stated above that Sugimori is reclusive. I also looked at the relevant ANI thread; the truth is he was invited to present evidence in a pending court case, but the way it was worded sounded like a legal threat. The person who wrote that message was blocked for violating WP:NLT. Reading that user's talk page, Durin is also a person-of-interest in said court case. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else we can contact other than him then? -WarthogDemon 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember AMIB had said it in the past that Ken is reclusive, but the issue back then was about the sourcing behind the fair-use images (I think). But the current issue here, as stated above, is not how well-sourced and rationaled all the Pokemon images are, it's how they are used and how having 20 in a List page is apparently decried by the Foundation. That's the issue we'll be needing feedback on, and we're just as open to what AMIB might have to say as any other user who knows a lot about Fair Use and Wikipedia's mission. That said, aside from Jimbo Wales, I can't think of anyone else to contact at the moment. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, and/or until someone contacts the copyright holder, people will just have to go to Bulbapedia for the pictures. Anyway, there were a few problems with the drawings, most particularly the lack of a standardized image size. Some were much longer than others, causing lots of whitespace in the list.--_ZXCVBNM 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMiB is on Wikibreak, according to his TP. Also, if you contact Wales, use his e-mail - his talkpage is edited more by the admins than by Wales himself. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been wondering what Jimbo would say about these mass deletions.--_ZXCVBNM 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we have two issues, but I can only really help with one.

As for a non-free image of Ken Sugimori, I think that that would be perfectly appropriate. He is a reclusive person, and does not make public appearances. Acquiring a free image of him is basically impossible unless Nintendo is willing to release such an image (as all of his press contact goes through Nintendo).

As for the images in lists, I have no idea. They're illustrating specific sections of the article in a way that text cannot, and the appearances are frequently a subject of discussion in each section, but it is an awful lot of non-free images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a more moral note, I wouldn't feel right about re-adding every image now that Durin cannot defend his point. Perhaps we ought to only re-add images that are necessary; if a pokemon can be described using less than perhaps one kilobyte (a small red fox with six tails; a blue, anthromorphic crocodile; a goldfish with a horn on its forhead), don't bother with the image. That is, if we decide to re-add the images at all; Durin has thought his arguments through very thoroughly and rationally, and that's now causing me to rethink my own arguments. Joy... You Can 't Review Me!!! 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE) There's an AN/I thread on the Durin situation. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel better with all the images removed than with keeping some and deleting others - who decides whether something can't be described in one sentence? I feel sorry for Durin being targeted just for doing his job, but as he said himself, each instance should be seperately reviewed.--_ZXCVBNM 02:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the reason for the initial removal was that the images lack proper fair-use rationales for this specific page. If these rationales can be added, I see no reason as to why the list should not include images. Morgan695 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the fair-use rationale for Bulbasaur (Image:1bulbasaur.png) in relation to List of Pokémon (1-20). Morgan695 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with fair-use rationale, actually. Please read the explanation that Durin provided. You Can 't Review Me!!! 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

74.67.159.96

Resolved

Real members of this project, this is an IP, most of the times IPs are people that don't know crap about Wikipedia. I really believe the IP didn't mean to vandalize (just look carefully at the summaries), so instead of only having warnings, you should try to explain to whoever reverted the images why the images disappeared, believe me, you hate to get into trouble without knowing why you are in trouble. TheBlazikenMaster 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that IP might have been used for a real long time, but I still think somebody needs to clear things up for this IP, I would do it myself, but as you could see in my profile, I'm taking vocation from stuff like that. TheBlazikenMaster 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, WD is already giving friendly edit summaries, that should take care of it. TheBlazikenMaster 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone have the Yellow Instruction Booklet?

Hi, I'm trying to clean up and source Pokemon Yellow, unfortunately I don't have the instruction booklet for any of the version anymore... does someone have them, scanned or something, so that I could finish up my sourcing? David Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow's instruction booklet is almost exactly the same as Red and Blue's booklets. The only real difference is the Pokedex in back. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess Red and Blue would be fine- but I still don't have those versions either... (blast the yard sales!) David Fuchs^(talk) 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series

NOTE: This discussion was moved due for ease of use.--_ZXCVBNM 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin removed fair use images from this article, as well as from all of the "List of Pokémon" series up to #200. This was justified under Wikipedia:Non-free content items numbers 3a (Minimal use, as little non-free content as possible) and 8 (Significance, non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic), as well as the user's own guideline for fair use overuse.

However, I do believe that the inclusion of images does not violate fair use law, as the images in question are in low resolution, is depicting one of the subjects in the article for description and critical commentary, and by no means limit the copyright holder's rights to market and distribute their products. In addition, no free alternative to these images exist. This is further explained in the non-free character image rationalization template.

But even if the images are indeed protected under fair use, is this negated due to their inclusion being "excessive" (as per 3a)? As it is stated in Durin's own fair use guidelines, section 6.12, "It's not the quantity but the nature of use that counts as excessive. One image can be excessive in some cases while ten in other cases might not be...How an image is used is the salient point on this aspect, not how many are used." Though there are a large number of fair-use images, a variety of species of Pokemon need an image for description. It is also stated in this section that fair use guidlines are used more on "articles pertaining to the particular thing being depicted, not superset articles such as discographies, list of characters, artist pages, etc." I would agree that if Pokemon characters had their own personal page in addition to this list than yes, the inclusion of images for each would be excessive. However, as this is no longer the case for all Pokemon, the images are needed.

As per section #8, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." Yes, one could say that "Pikachu are short, stocky mouse Pokémon that possess short, yellow fur with brown markings covering their backs and parts of their tails...", but an image serves this purpose much better. Obviously no free alternative exists, so we are forced to use the copyrighted material.

I would post a notification about this discussion on Durin's talkpage, but as he has recently left Wikipedia for legal reasons, I doubt that he will return for this discussion. I will, however, notify the various Pokemon Wikiprojects about this discussion. Morgan695 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a bit excessive to delete all of them, so your argument makes sense. Since each Pokemon is a completely different species, they might warrant pictures more than just a list of characters. BTW, I moved this to the discussion on the matter.--_ZXCVBNM 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where, Z? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, here. It was originally at one of the list talk pages, and linked from here.--_ZXCVBNM 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with Morgan and personally would support bringing all the images back to where they were, my main reason being that having images to illustrate each distinctive creature (each of which is an important player of the one-and-only world famous Pokemon franchise itself, mind you) would discourage an increase in text-based cruft and unverifiable claims on Pokemon appearance and cultural connotations that would likely be posted even by good-faith users. Gengar's picture would keep away such text like, say, "Gengar is a squat purple ghost-like entity with a complexion practically being an example of rictus, with two short arms, two short legs, two ears on its head, a pair of sinister red eyes, and a backside with an array of hair-like spikes." That sort of material was once in all of the old separate Pokemon pages in separate "appearance" sections, and those were parts of the bad content with the pages in general that eventually prompted consensus to perform a mega-merger into lists, with the idea that in the short sections for each Pokemon we let the images do the talking for how that Pokemon appears. So, the images are too deeply connected with the coverage of the Pokemon to think that removing the images will leave the coverage of the Pokemon species remotely unscathed. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 00:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, although the images might be many, they are still significant, being as Pokemon is a huge franchise, just like Star Wars and all that other stuff. It's not unwarranted to use that many (low resolution) images.--_ZXCVBNM 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we semi-protect the pages so we don't have to constantly revert back and forth between the images? Image warring won't help us reach a consensus. -WarthogDemon 02:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...this has gone to hell...I think we should just put the images *back* until a consensus can be reached. Durin went ahead and deleted everything without a proper consensus, and it's causing all this image warring. Plus, we don't even know if deleting them is a good idea - it leads to needless cruft and a confusing article.--_ZXCVBNM 04:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pokemon images are just being used as an illustration of the characters in question. Can that honestly be worth legal trouble? And what about all the Digimon images? Does that matter too? They're needed for articles that talk about the characters in question. If by the slim to none chance that Nintendo writes a legal complaint about the images, which I severely doubt they're going to do to a reference tool, then maybe this can be brought up. But right now, this whole wondering about images vs no images is really just a waste of time. Toastypk 02:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text descriptions do not have to be extremely detailed

I really hate to sound like the bad guy here, but I think Durin was right at some points. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, yet here we are with over 500 non-free images under WPP's umbrella alone. I don't think he's right, though, that we cannot compromise, since that is the entire reason we have Fair-Use rationales.

To get to the point, I think we ought to decide now not whether or not we should keep the images, but rather which images to keep and which ones to delete. Hopefully, we'll be cutting down to at least under 100 images which are absolutely needed, not down to 400 if 350 of them are just there for the sake of it.

This might also be a good time to figure out what "absolutely needed" means. To quote from Morgan695 above:

Yes, one could say that "Pikachu are short, stocky mouse Pokémon that possess short, yellow fur with brown markings covering their backs and parts of their tails...", but an image serves this purpose much better. Obviously no free alternative exists, so we are forced to use the copyrighted material.

That is true, it would be difficult to describe Pikachu in that much detail. But is it necessary to describe Pikachu in that much detail? Would a casual reader want Pikachu described (in text) in that much detail, or would they be satisfied with "a stocky mouse covered in yellow fur and brown stripes"? I'm not saying to get rid of Pikachu's image; quite the contrary, since Pikachu is a notable pokemon. But would "Vulpix is a red fox with six tails" not suffice? And wouldn't "Voltorb looks like a large Poke Ball with eyes" be enough? Granted, some are indescribable, such as Gengar and Lugia, but the vast majority of pocket monsters are based on identifiable animals, plants, and inanimate objects and are describable as such.

To summarize, I think it is indeed excessive to delete all of the images, but at the same time it is also excessive to keep all of the images as well. In order to find the balance, we have to figure out how much detail is really needed in describing a monster, and in turn figure out how many images really are necessary and can honestly be rationalized. Regards, You Can 't Review Me!!! 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that borderline original research? Honestly, the articles were merged for sections Identical to what you are proposing, and blutly, it isn't needed at all. If anything, for the first 150, use the Red/Blue art as Nintendo no longer uses it in any official manner. Other than that, I see no reason the articles can't have a picture for each Pokemon, and if anything, it strips almost all relative facts about the Pokemon. These are FICTIONAL creatures, and have an official depiction by their author. We are not talking about placing 300 images of Kafka's vermin, rather, we are showing people what these creatures really look like, that words cannot describe. You mention some simple Pokemon, but what about odd ones like Loudred, Aron, Sableye, etc? To "identify" with words what each one looks like is OR, whichever way you put it. Unless you can give me a reason to believe a sentence without ANY OR at all can describe what Sableye can clearly describe what it is better than an image, I see no reason to do this mass deletion. Without the images, the articles themselves are one step above stubs. Yes, each article without the images of the Pokemon are looking like a collection of 20 stubs. And by the look of the previous argument, all Wikipedia rules seem to point to allowing the pictures. Bare minimum without any original research at all would read- Smeargle is a white creature with a paint brush for a tail, and even that is debatable. Lets say we say, "Smeargle is a white Beagle like creature with a pain brush for a tail" Right of the bat we are claiming it is a beagle, which it is not. This is already original research. Than to more even more vague, "Smeargle is a white mammal like creature with a paint brush on its tail" There we also have OR. Who said Smeargle is based on a mammal. Its OR, as far as Wiki policies go.Balladofwindfishes 01:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes... User:Durin/Departure is rather humbling, though. It's like Fair Use images are poison according to this subpage, and that Wikipedia will experience its inevitable downfall from this and other issues unless the Foundation starts caring about actually making a free-content encyclopedia and bans all fair use from the site. Well, at least that's what I read out of it... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One policy should not account for another policy having to be broken. There is no easy way to put this, but if the images MUST be deleted (even though I disagree with it) according to other rules of Wikipedia, the descriptions will have to sit out, because they were one of the main reasons the whole lists were created. This is like a circle, the lists were created because of the info you want to add now, yet without the lists the images would not be deleted, yet without being deleted we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. It's a frustrating circle, and I don't think there will be a clear cut easy answer to it. Also in a reply to an above statement, just because someone quits an argument (or a site) doesn't meant the argument has to end with them as a victor, that would be a lame excuse to win an argument. If you leave and can't defend your stand, oh well, your loss. Balladofwindfishes 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to use in-text citations to link to pictures elsewhere or add the url to a site at the bottom of the page? If we can't include pictures here, we can at least direct people to a website that does have the pictures. Besides that, since we probably can't use all the images and shoulden't even really be using any that could get us into trouble unless its absolutly necissary, lets just try and make the articles as good as possible without breaking rules. I admit it would have been a lot easier to handle this once we were done compleatly merging everything, though. Ageofe 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reviewed the exact rules regarding the use of the images, my results 1. No free equivalent. Easily we have this. There is no free use images of Pokemon, so check for this one.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. We arn't taking away from Nintendo at all. If anything we are advertising for them.

3. (a) Minimal number of uses. One per Pokemon isn't too many. If we included the pictures and the sprites, that would be too many, but one or the other seems fine

(b) Minimal extent of use. I wouldn't personally use any of those images for graphical uses. They are clearly lowest possible quality.

4. Previous publication. Nintendo Power's National Pokedex, check done

5. Content. The only other way is by using Original Research descriptions. Images are the best way to stay like an encyclopedia.

6. Media-specific policy We had this, we can just restore it

7. One-article minimum. Easily have this also "For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished" Which applies to us... ummm there was no warrant at all to delete them, and I question the user's interpretation of the rules.

8. Significance. it is the ONLY way to describe the Pokemon. They are fictional beasts, any decriptions worth reading would be OR and were erased when the articles were being merged anyway.

9. Restrictions on location. It's an article, not anything banned. "They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes), portals, user pages, categories, Help, MediaWiki, or the Project namespace" Our articles do not fall into any of those. Lists are not on that list, despite what some people say.

10. Image description page. We had that, we can bring it back also noted is the final area,

"Enforcement", An image that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." I request, no I demand that the images be brought back until we get a "fair" 48 hours to debate this, since I have yet to see 48 hours of debate BEFORE they were deleted. Balladofwindfishes 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another way, though, aside from the images and the supposed OR descriptions: to not describe the Pokemon at all. Per item 8, Significance, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." As far as I can understand, the Pokemon's appearance is only important to the readers' understanding in a select few pokemon. Otherwise, the monster just looks the way it does in order to give it some individuality rather than being a pile of stats and moves. Omission of the image will not damage the reader's comprehension of the monsters' mannerisms, and those behaviors are the point of the monsters' sections, not their appearances.

This is not to say that I personally think it's pointless to have images. I'm just pointing out that the third option does exist, and that we need to find some way around that if we want the images back.

As a side note, I don't think that describing briefly in prose would be OR. Original Research involves drawing a conclusion through use of logic, wheras describing is simply pointing out what is there without hypothesizing. As for those that cannot be described, I mentioned above that we ought to try to save those images. If not, then again: Is Sableye's appearance really that important to the readers' understanding of its behavior and abilities? You Can 't Review Me!!! 00:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the removed fair use images are going to be deleted in less than a week. FunPika 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is still a lot of argument on this ordeal, I recomend reverting them for now, and THAN discussing this, rather than making hasty decisions. Balladofwindfishes 19:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that with the one condition that the readdition of these images is only temporary until a better solution is found. You Can 't Review Me!!! 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what else we can do. The main debate at this point is whether the images are important to the overall resource of the article. That is the only reason at the current, that needs to be debated. It should be made into a seperate deabate soon, if not within the next few days Balladofwindfishes 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

241-260 and Mudskipper

To all those of this WikiProject, I'm reporting that the articles above have been fully-protected. I'm also asking that you watchlist BOTH of them (even though Mudskipper isn't a Pokémon), because both, prior to protection, were being attacked by the "So i herd you liek Mudkipz" (sic) meme, and I don't doubt they'll be attacked again when the protection is downgraded (both were semi'd) in two weeks.

If you want more information on what's been going on, see Talk:Mudkip/Archive02, talk to me, talk to User:Ksy92003, or talk with User:Alison. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd history

Does this project have any use for User:Jayvdb/List_of_Pokemon_Afd ? If so, go for it. John Vandenberg 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated it with recent AFDs within the past few months, as well as the lost Serebii.net one. I find it an interesting record of how things have chagned – how we used to have articles on every individual city, for instance, and for each Pokémon; minor characters. I didn't know that Palkia, Dialga, and Bellsprout had been nominated before. hbdragon88 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Yea, it was the way that consensus had "changed" that intrigued me sufficiently to do some digging. Feel free to move the page under this project. John Vandenberg 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also updated the page with the Porygon line, D&P, 21-40 II, and Chaos Black. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the flurry of activity on that page by members of this project, I have moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/AFD history. Enjoy, and please don't let it be deleted; that would be too ironic :-) John Vandenberg 02:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard

...hasn't been edited for two months now. Is it safe to remove it from my watchlist? TheBlazikenMaster 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this

Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)#Merger proposal. I have already rebutted; thoughts? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poké Ball

Hey guys!

Could the Poké Ball article be sourced more thouroughly? Like with in-text citations and stuff? Thanks in advance! Zouavman Le Zouave 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore some of the "merged" articles.

I'm talking about those that aren't merged. Redirecting isn't enough, those with blank entry should have "Main article:", if someone wanted to merged, they'd have problems having to put the Pokémon's name to the search box, finding the Pokémon, going to that article's history and having to see the last unredirected article. This is NOT what merging means, Remember this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia has no deadline, so don't speed up too much. Redirecting to blank sections is like a motorbiker in so much hurry that he just rides his motorbike to a rock, seriously. I had to bring this to attention because List of Pokémon (301-320) suffers from this. TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem hasn't been resolved.

Sharpedo still redirects to an empty section, along with other pokémon on that page, please fix it. TheBlazikenMaster 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common I really need you guys

This article is having the same problem, you clearly paid no attention to what I said. There is a difference between merging and redirecting to blank section. Until there is actually content, there should be {{main}} tag and a full article. We are trying to merge, not redirect as much as we can. This is really important, merging is harder, a lot harder if you just redirect to a blank section. You guys seriously need to read about merging articles, and please reply and face your opinion on this, I did make this section for a reason, because I know what merging is and I know that the articles have been merged improperly. TheBlazikenMaster 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem that you don't know how to undo them or that you just haven't bothered to undo them? TTN 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I will undo them. I shouldn't have been so damn lazy. TheBlazikenMaster 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with List of Pokémon (301-320)‎, if nobody else will, I will find more of these tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Solution?

How about 4 pictures of five pokemon each? We could have one picture, the list of the five right below. And then the second picture, the list of the five below, and so on. Would that work? -WarthogDemon 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to do that would be to combine the images, which would still be against the policy. TTN 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twas what I was suggesting and damn. Worth a shot asking at any rate. I suppose descrips will be the only way to go then. -WarthogDemon 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. One question I would be concerned about though: If we're having main article images for Pikachu and Mewtwo, would their images be put independently in their shortened list entries as well? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried looking in the game guides for suitable scans at all? I imagine that they may have suitable "group shots" if they detail the stats of each single one. TTN 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers of individual Pokemon articles into lists of Pokemon...

What's with that? I'd like to understand why this is being done.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's information in the two most recent archives, but the largest thing is WP:WAF. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged articles

Someone needs to keep an eye on the list redirects, at least until the request for protection goes through. I just spent a half-hour reverting edits that ILikePikachu used to negate the redirects. Secondly, I note that said user has a beef against the merging. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Locations and Anime Appearances.

It seems that with the massive amounts of edits a day across all the lists that this cruft is working its way in. Just to clarify, I think general consensus is no game locations and only Anime appearances which are a major role in the plot of the series. Information on evolution also seems to be overkill as evolutions are listed on the template for each pokemon. Also the {{-}}s are either getting worked out/deleted or text is being placed below them. Just some things to look for I guess while editing/watching the lists. Spigot Map 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if its a location for Red Gyarados, or a special Pokemon that can only be obtained one way? I mean, assuming the information wasn't speculation for one of the newer legandaries- would it still be Game Guide? Ageofe 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Ageofe. If a monster does something significant (Snorlax blocking your path, Poochyena chasing Birch around, Red Gyarados) or has some significance tied to an area (Unowns and their ruins, Whismur blocking construction in the Verdanturf tunnel), that ought to at least be given a passing mention. I don't necessarily agree, however, that this should apply to every monster that can only be obtained one way; giveaways (Lapras in RBYFL, Beldum in RSE) don't really bear much significance. Perhaps the issue then is not game locations, but rather game event influence. For the record, although I support the merge, I feel that a bit too much is being taken out of some profiles. You Can 't See Me! 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I completely agree with leaving things like that in. But, for instance, I removed a snorlax section that went something like "Snorlax is found blocking path XXX south of XXXtown, awaken it by using pokeflute and it will attack you after which you can capture it." When "Snorlax is often seen blocking roads" would do just fine. Spigot Map 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more specific than that. Just say that it blocks two roads, unless in the anime it's an even greater pain to deal with. hbdragon88 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason for mentioning what roads it blocks would be if it was a notable event in the series. As far as anime appearances, unless it played a major role in the plot, I don't see any reasoning for mentioning. Spigot Map 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VG Sources Guideline Proposal

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there is a proposed guideline on sources in articles in the scope of WP:VG. For example, all Pokémon are in this scope. Your edits and comments are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many templates

Hi all, I just thought that it's possible & would be a good idea if we use just one template to cover everything Pokémon-related. With so many templates, all of them being relatively small, it would be great for easy navigation. I'm thinking on putting this on all the articles, but I'd love your feedback first.

Thanks, ætərnal ðrAعon → 10:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great! Strange that nobody has thought of this before. I think the tv series, films and video games section are accurate, but the character section could use some tweaking. Take a look at the article List of Pokémon characters. Also, I think the Handheld video games and Console video games should be on the top of the list (below creators), not as one of the last. Again, great template! I say we use it. - Face 10:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's too big, but what the hell! I like it, especially since it has hide option. TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. TRA proposed something similar, but it failed to catch enough support. Anyways, yeah; I support either of the two gigantic navboxes. You Can 't See Me! 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite big though understandably so. I like it. -WarthogDemon 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I must vocally oppose this mega merger of Pokémon templates. it is huge, unwiedly, along with font that is too small – and if made bigger, the box becomes too huge and overpowers the page. I don't mind characters + organizations together, but the species template is long enough to desrve its own template. As an example, {{Yu-Gi-Oh! Directory}} was similarly huge before I suggested splitting and three users agreed with me. And this isn't new: TRA and I had a long argument over this up above, see #Final draft of consolidated navbar. hbdragon88 05:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe under the category of species, I just put a link to the central page of List of Pokémon. The lists of species are too bulky, so I guess that I'll keep the Pokémon list template and redirect it to the smaller lists. ætərnal ðrAعon → 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing I forgot: I designed it so it would be much more sleek and less bulky, keeping only the necessary things. I noticed that the first proposition mentioned by "You Can't See Me" was way too big and bulky and pretty much had everything down to the last detail. I noticed that there were also a few articles on individual Pokémon such as Pikachu still roaming around so I put them there too. For now, looks like HBdragon is kinda outnumbered in opinion so unless there's some big reason soon, I might as well put it in. ætərnal ðrAعon → 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, WP:PNSD. Everybody else is all "I like it" but no-one has given a reason why the templates should be merged, or even why it's better to have them all merged together when their current apart-ness is just fine. hbdragon88 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read the first reason I put up? Anyways, this is the third time I've had a run-in with HBdragon because you've disagreed with an idea I've had, but anyway, the reasons were that a)navigation is a pain, b)all the templates fall under the single category, c) the TV series, video games and films all share the same concept, and d) this is just a base template which can use the species template as an offshoot. If you like, take a look at the EVA template which basically does the same thing as what I intended with this template: focuses on the media as a whole rather than the in-series universe. ætərnal ðrAعon → 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third time? Are you counting the Battle Frontier thing as two encounters? My reason is that I agree with the concept of centralizing navigation, but there comes a point where it gets to be too large and it simply overwhelms the user and destroys the usefulness of the template. The solution is the link the most strongly-linked articles together, such as the core handheld RPG series instead of every spinoff imaginable. Most video game templates follow this philiosophy; they simply provide links to the big list pages. {{Silent Hill series}} for instance lists Characters, Creatures, and Locations in one row instead of every article possible. The Metal Gear series templates links "characters" in the main {{Metal Gear series}} template and has a separate {{Metal Gear characters}} template for the character pages. I much prefer this solution over this huge mega template. hbdragon88 04:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Pokemon

Do we really need the Legendary Pokemon template anymore? I mean, the only ones that still have pages are Mewtwo, Deoxys, and (for some strange reason) the Regis.Leprechaun Gamer 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's time that that template gets shot in the brain. It's clearly not needed anymore. That template would be too messy while on the list pages, and it would also have something that we don't want, redirects to the same page. Plus the text won't turn bold when we're in the section of that particular legend. TheBlazikenMaster 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the template if its usefulness has ended. If it means a TfD debate, so be it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Not needed at all, I guess we can put the "List of Pokémon" template into those articles on Mewtwo and others even though they're not lists. It won't make much sense, but then again species with individual articles are part of the lists anyway. ætərnal ðrAعon → 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are useless without the images.

Common, I'm very disappointed that the images had to go, I bet there is a good reason for that, but there must be a solution to add images. Believe it or not, there is nothing uncylopedic about them, nothing. They describe the creatures like they're supposed to. I have been trying to think, but I can't think of anything, so please help me find a solution. TheBlazikenMaster 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages

This new version of the Pokedex really isn't something I like. It's short, uninformative, and doesn't even let know the user about what it looks like or anything. It's lousy. Like before, we should have them on seperate pages. PRhyu 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to watchlist almost 500 pages and revert every incident of vandalism on them, as well as find reliable sources, cut down on fancruft, and substantially rewrite each article to fit WP:WAF? If you aren't, then don't complain. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon episodes

If anyone wishes to help make a consensus on the numbering of the episodes, please voice on the talk page. Going by air date has been the standard, but apparently, someone wants to make wikipedia official, he states "we most do this". Also, input is needed on the lettering of the episodes. Thanks! Spigot Map 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images

what's with the lack of images for the pokemon?DSDark 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go up the page and read the relevant sections. It's explained (though not quite solved yet). -WarthogDemon 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried looking in the game guides for suitable scans at all? I imagine that they may have suitable "group shots" if they detail the stats of each single one. TTN 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, those would be fair use as well. As it stands, anything more then one fair use image per list would probably be removed. Spigot Map 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just Pokemon, Naruto is pretty hard pressed also, and i'm suprised that Digimon haven't had thier images deleted yet. I don't really think there is a way around this one- its probably best just to try and do as much with the articles as they are. We'll just end up argueing over which Pokemon deserve images or how they images look. Ageofe 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is a way around this one. We just have to find a solution. Remember: Nothing's impossible. We just gotta keep trying. TheBlazikenMaster 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, the Pokemon images are just being used as an illustration of the characters in question. Can that honestly be worth legal trouble? They're needed for articles that talk about the characters in question. If Nintendo were to make a legal threat about the images, which I severely doubt they're going to do to something like a reference tool, then maybe this can be brought up. But right now, this whole wondering about images vs no images is really just a waste. Toastypk 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's pure bullshit to me. But what can we do? We should contact an admin and ask him/her to change the policy. Without the images people can get all the wrong ideas. TheBlazikenMaster 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging a bit too quickly...

I know that the merge has been going rather slowly; that's not what I mean. I noticed that in an effort to speed up the merge, focus has gone from salvaging and refining the more important information (namely Dex info) into just getting down whatever is possible so that one can proceed with the redirect. Take Slowbro for example:

Slowbro (ヤドラン, Yadoran in original Japanese language versions) are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise – a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. They are #80 in the National Pokédex.
Slowbro's name is a portmanteau of slow (as in "slow-witted") and bro (as in "brother", probably relating to the fraternal relationship it shares with the Shellder on its tail). Its Japanese name is most likely derived from 宿借り yadokari (hermit crab). The Shellder which bites on its tail sucks on the aforementioned syrup, and so it is hard to remove. Also toxins which leak from the bite pass into Slowbro, which numbs its immunity to pain even more.

Of all that, only the last two sentences are what we intended to keep while everything else is what we intended to get rid of - Name origin and templated paragraph. I haven't been personally involved in the merge for quite a while now, but for those of you who are, please don't rush. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline; take your time and put quality over quantity. You Can 't See Me! 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

movesets.

I have noticed that in past several days unregistered users used the lists to make a good moveset, but that's not encyclopedic at all. Can we do something about this? TheBlazikenMaster 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and warn with the uw-trivia template; then start going to vandalism warnings if those are ignored. We are NOT a game guide. If need be, link them to Bulbapedia in the trivia warning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]