Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Merging Raichu and Pichu into Pikachu?

It seems like this would work well - expand the content of the Pikachu article, and have the article on Pikachu discuss his various stages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but somebody has to change the redirect Raichu then. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well first thing's first, how should it be done? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a tough one we can't just add a random section titled "Evolution and pre-evolution". We have to think of a way to make it look encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this idea. The article on Pikachu is only kept, not because it is one of 493 different Pokémon species, but because it is iconic to the Pokémon franchise. Both Raichu and Pichu are not iconic, the individual article of Pikachu is more about the reception of the character, not about what it evolves into. Artichoker[talk] 03:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. It's a species. There's nothing wrong in detailing the species' different forms and their histories in this article.
  2. Pichu has gotten plenty of exposure. A playable character in Super Smash Bros. Melee, TV specials, the cancelled game (not tech demo) Pichu Bros. Party Panic, etc.
  3. And besides, a subject does not have to be iconic to be a part of a larger subject.
  4. And the only reason it is what it is is because it was made to be what it is. It was not made to discuss the evolutions, and I see no good reason why. They're directly relevant. This article is about the species, not the individual Pokémon (even though it does cover him), and the different forms of the species is relevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we could simply give a small paragraph explaining the evolutionary tree for Pikachu then (although it already displays the information in its template)? The article Bulbasaur mentions Ivysaur once, and has no mention of Venesaur, the article Jigglypuff mentions its evolutions once, and Meowth mentions Persian zero times (except for the template.) Artichoker[talk] 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That's fairly irrelevant - "this article does this" or "this article doesn't do this" doesn't dictate what should be done with THIS article. For an icon, the article is fairly short, and the interest in the article would only go up if it covered more. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am just saying that none of the other articles deeply covered their evolutions. This article is about Pikachu, and we already have separate articles (actually just sections from one big article) to cover Raichu and Pichu. Artichoker[talk] 15:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
A paragraph of content, yes. Raichu and Pichu are much more well-known than most Pokémon in the series and warrant more content to say about them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright I agree with that. Artichoker[talk] 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that would end up as a well flowing article, and it certainly wouldn't add anything useful. Besides the few fairly minor things about Pichu you mentioned above, there is nothing that will be added that would balance out the amount of in-universe information added. It would be pretty much the same, though with two more paragraphs under "Characteristics" and around a paragraph under "Appearances". After that, you're going to have the "Cultural impact" section almost completely void of the other two. The list entries have the ability cover them just fine (definitely improve them if you wish). TTN (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. And that improvement would be reverted - it's become a "guideline" that the lists have to be just one paragraph per entry.
  2. How do you verify that there is no way it would end up as a well-flowing article? The article is short, how are you going to fix that? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what TTN said, and that is what I was saying in the beginning. Looking at the Pikachu article again, I see it already has a paragraph about its evolutions: Pikachu evolve into Raichu via the use of a Thunder Stone, however, it is somewhat common for trainers to choose not to evolve their Pikachu. For example, in Pokémon Yellow, using a Thunder Stone on a Pikachu makes it cry and refuse to evolve. From the second generation of the Pokémon games onward, Pikachu has an evolutionary predecessor, Pichu, which evolves into Pikachu after establishing a close friendship with its trainer. So I think we have covered that aspect enough. What we really need to do is focus on expanding and improving the cultural impact section of the article. Artichoker[talk] 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly did you get that idea? Is this from personal experience? Yes, most of the entries will only be one paragraph, but that's just because they don't have anything important outside of the video games. Any that are important in the anime or the real world should be fine with more than one. If you have a draft or something, feel free to present it. Just thinking over the organization, it's either going to be a mess or just be bloated with details that obviously look like they belong somewhere else. There is also the balance I mentioned. You'll have a few paragraphs from the Dex information and like three or four sentences on the Pichu stuff above. The rest will still be about Pikachu. I guess there might be some fluff here and there, but that doesn't really count. TTN (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It can also be said that Pichu and Raichu are a lot more noteworthy because of their relation to Pikachu. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I don't recall them ever being more popular than other regular Pokémon like Bulbasaur. Just because they are related to Pikachu does not mean they are more noteworthy. Artichoker[talk] 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Much of their notability IS from being related to Pikachu, and Nintendo's attempts to popularize Pichu have added to that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
They have their own articles (sections actually) which you can go ahead and expand if you want to. Although, as for Raichu, he is certainly much less notable than Pichu and Pikachu, as Nintendo has never tried to popularize him. Artichoker[talk] 15:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If Pichu is merged into Pikachu, Raichu should be for consistency.
And you have no way to judge such an action as poor, so how can you be "so certain" that such a merge would not work? We've merged individual game articles together, for Heaven's sakes, why are Pokémon different? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason Pikachu has an individual article is because it is iconic to the Pokémon franchise. Adding Raichu and Pichu would do nothing but add worthless in-universe information to the article. It seems the only reason you want to add this in is to expand the article; when a much better way of doing that would be to add to the cultural impact section. Artichoker[talk] 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm the only one that agrees with Link to the past. I hope I'm not an ignorant of the policies by doing so. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No, but it would help if you provided some reasons as to why you agree with him. Artichoker[talk] 16:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would merging Pichu and Raichu result in two gaps in the lists saying "Main article: Pikachu#some_anchor"? - Face 17:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Like I just said, why would this merge not work if it worked with various game merges?
  2. You say that as if it's one or the other.
  3. Of course not. It could be coered at both. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do think the information can fit in the article. We could change the header "Characteristics" to something like "Description", then make a subheader called "Pichu and Raichu", followed by two short paragraphs of information about them. It could work. But as I said, it would result in two list gaps. It's just more logical to have it the other way around: the article refers to the sections (which it does now). Another problem, albeit small, is the images. We can't have two images of Pichu and Raichu in one Pikachu article, as that would violate WP:NONFREE. We can, however, put those images in the two list articles. Cheers, Face 17:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, I just realized that you said: "You say that as if it's one or the other". So... what are you suggesting? Is there anything else to say about Pichu and Raichu then in-universe info? - Face 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just honestly think the Pikachu article would work better without Pichu or Raichu. Adding information about them is not going to improve the article's status. Artichoker[talk] 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
But like I said, you haven't even seen an example and you've already decided it wouldn't work. And I take offense to the claim that I'm just trying to "add information", as if all I actually care about is making it bigger, not making it more substantial and giving it a wider scope. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
An example? Okay give me one. And I am sorry if I accused you of just adding information without caring about the quality, that was not my intention. Artichoker[talk] 17:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to make it first, y'know. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum with their respective parent articles.

Simply put, none of them have enough content unique to their articles that would require them to have their own articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this. I do think they need to be merged, as they are very closely related, and can only improve their respective parent articles. Artichoker[talk] 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. While I'm here, there's something bugging me about the Pokémon Red and Blue article: shouldn't it mention Green up there in the intro, since said intro reads as though Blue preceded it in Japan?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, now that you mention it, it does come across as very misleading. It should be reworded. Artichoker[talk] 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. For example, Emerald has the Battle Frontier, it's a big place, and has a lot of stuff you can think of. The Battle Frontier isn't the only thing in Emerald that's new. I personally think Emerald has too much new stuff to be merged, but that's just me. If you're gonna merge Emerald, do it. I'm not stopping you, but I still disagree. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There may be a couple new features, but the game is still essentially the same. There will still be room to mention the Battle Frontier, etc. Artichoker[talk] 19:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No one's denying that the new features in Emerald are low quality (at least I'm not). But first, would you please give an example of the Emerald article, and how you would develop it without it repeating redundant content (content already mentioned in RuSa) or without going into "guide content" territory. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Huh? I'm supporting the merge. Artichoker[talk] 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't properly indent my statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

AttP, you mentioned that Pokémon could never be a featured topic since the "third games" could never reach GA. If we get to the point where 40% of all the Pokemon video game articles are FAs, adjusted so that the four extra articles are dragging it down, I'll wholehartedly have no qualms about the merger. That's when I know the merger is for the good of the Wikipedia. Until then, I have far too many sentimental bonds to my shaping of Emerald, but this is nonsense, so you're free to disgreard this comment. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge them, split if we can find sufficient sources to justify it. Same old same old. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate to admit it, but you managed to merge the Emerald details without cutting out the best details, great job guys. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Recently, the simple:Main Page Wikipedia nominated the Pokémon stubs for deletion. I know the debate to merge the articles into 25 large ones was acrimonious, so if anyone still here wants to resurrect the articles on an official Wikipedia that doesn't have the guidelines or policies FICT, GUIDE, or IINFO bearing down on every edit, let's do it. (Cassandra) 72.67.43.186 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#List_of_Pokémon is the relevant discussion. Register (if you've migrated to SUL all you need to do is to log in) and sign your name over at simple:User:Cassandra/WikiProject Pokémon if you want to work on them. 72.67.43.186 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two things

First off, did a little reference work here to fill some bits in on List of Pokémon (481-493). Other stuff there seems to reference bits from the D&P games...can anyone add in the game text references for the other bits? Given it's on the tail end seems the easiest of the mini-lists to clean up the rest of the way.

Secondly, proposing the move of Pokémon Red and Blue to Pokémon Red, Green and Blue: they were the first three games and identical enough to each other (the only odd one out was us never getting Green of course). Additionally it seems odd to list Green under versions alongside the different Yellow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I might support the move, but is it allowed, considering this is the English Wikipedia? Also I'll try to clean up List of Pokémon (481-493) if get some time. Artichoker[talk] 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it a bit silly to include the Japan-only version in the title. It also breaks the uniformity of the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if the merger you propsed go through, wouldn't the articles become Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal and Pokémon Ruby, Emerald and Sapphire? (Yellow even if merged is still much more different than R/B/G so it shouldn't affect the title on that front at least). Plus it'd make more sense given we have to mention the game in the introduction anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Yellow is very similar to R/B/G, as similar as Crystal is to G/S. In fact, basically the only difference is that you get Pikachu as a starter. Artichoker[talk] 19:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well they did shove anime Team Rocket in there, a mini-game with surfing Pikachu from Stadium, Pikachu acting more 'independently', many of the trainers had their pokemon modified too, not to mention the ability to get all 3 original starters...though I'm honestly not as familiar with Crystal or Emerald as I am compared to that. :\ Guess in that case Link's point about the uniformity being broken is true.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but those changes you mentioned were about as substantial as the changes made to Crystal and Emerald. Artichoker[talk] 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire to Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald

I think since this article covers all three games completely (as the Emerald article was turned into a redirect) that it should appropriately be named Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald. This honestly seems pretty straightforward to me. Besides, R/B's article does not FULLY cover Yellow and FR/LG, as those both have main articles, where as Emerald does not. Thoughts?

Also, I know this doesn't matter, but I just painstakingly fixed like ten double redirects, all for naught now =P. Artichoker[talk] 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But the question is, what do we do if they are merged? At worst, it'd be "Pokémon Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, FireRed, and LeafGreen", at best, it would be "Pokémon Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow". While Emerald is covered, it doesn't have to be in the title - for instance, Kirby Super Star covers the DS remake, but is simply Kirby Super Star, not Kirby Super Star and Hoshi no Kirby Ultra Super Deluxe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It will most likely be Pokémon Red, Blue, and, Yellow; because Green is Japanese, and FR and LG are much too different. And still I see no reason why it shouldn't be Pokémon Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald; the Kirby article doesn't name both of the games because then the title would be extremely repetitive (Kirby Super Star and Hoshi no Kirby Ultra Super Deluxe.) But in this case, we are simply adding one more word. Artichoker[talk] 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But we don't need to add one more word. Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire are the original works, and Emerald is an additional work added on later. Emerald, unlike Ruby and Sapphire, is given its own section, making it more or less "unequal". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Please look at the article, as Emerald does not have its own section. And as this article covers all three games, so all three should be mentioned in the title. Artichoker[talk] 21:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it did, before you removed the heading. Is there any reason why Emerald can't be a sub-heading to the differences section? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't, they are grouped together (i.e. Reception of both games is in one section, plot of both games is in one section, etc.) Check and confirm if I am correct. Artichoker[talk] 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it doesn't now, which is why I used past tense. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, my point is, that the header was not the only thing that distinguished between whether they were separate or not (if that's what you meant.) Artichoker[talk] 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I get your point. But the differences section talks specificly about the changes in Emerald, so why not make a subsection called "Changes from older games" and "Changes from Emerald"? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Well they talk specifically about Emerald because Emerald is one of the games being covered in the article; as simple as that. Artichoker[talk] 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But again, I disagree with the title - Emerald should not be equal to Ruby and Sapphire. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But why not? Emerald is a game too, is it not?? Artichoker[talk] 00:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I know exactly what this discussion needs, more people. I agree with the title change too, but there aren't enough people here currently to discuss this. And it's hard to tell which Wikipedians are Pokémon fans since most Wikipedians edit all sorts of articles.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No one said it's not a game. But similarly, Kirby Super Star DS is a game, but isn't equal. Like Emerald, it's a game whose existence relies on RuSa's. It's basically a remake of RuSa. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, and remember, before it had its own article. Now it has been merged so there is even less coverage it in. And it needs to have its name in article name. Artichoker[talk] 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It was merged because there was very little aside from speculation to say about it. It could be significant enough to warrant an article later, but isn't now.
And simply put, like I said, a remake of RuSa is not equal to RuSa. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be true that Emerald was added later. But I still think it should be renamed. It talks about Emerald also, and not just in one particular section. If there was a section called "remake" then maybe I'd agree with Link, but as of now information about Emerald is on more than one place. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just Ruby and Sapphire is fine. They're the original games; just have a section titled "Pokemon Emerald" and have a redirect to there. "Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald" is unnecessary and wordy. Same with the rest. For instance, just "Red, Blue, and Green" (or then even just "Red and Blue" given that Green is practically unknown to English speakers, was never released here, etc. but that's another argument) with Yellow, FireRed, and FireGreen in their own section. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Emerald with Green isn't really a good idea since Emerald was released and is still being sold in the United States. Which is the exact opposite of Green. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
But the article is on all three of the games and seeing as there is no article on Emerald any more, wouldn't it make more sense to be Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald? Artichoker[talk] 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a version of the game - it is mentioned alongside the RuSa content because A. It's mostly the same, and B. for a better flow. But like I said, in all cases, it's "Ruby and Sapphire, and Emerald", not "Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald", if you understand what I mean. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You convey to me that Ruby and Sapphire are a pair, which, of course, I agree with; but Emerald should still be included in the article name is it is one of the games covered in the article. Artichoker[talk]
But like I said, other articles cover multiple games. Emerald has a different development history, different (significant) gameplay changes and features, and different reception. While Ruby and Sapphire basically got the exact same treatment, Emerald did not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to illustrate, calling it "Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald" would mean combining the gameplay and development sections for Ruby and Sapphire and Emerald; ergo, you get a very confusing flow as versus just "Ruby and Sapphire" wherein Emerald has its own section near the bottom titled "Pokemon Emerald" where the differences between the two are discussed along with appropriate level three headings for gameplay and development if necessary. This makes the article flow much better and makes it easier on the reader. By combining the three in the title, you're giving the impression Emerald is as analagous to either Ruby or Sapphire as Ruby and Sapphire are to each other, which is not true. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You got a point there, but Emerald is so not unrelated to R/S, yes it is a lot different, maybe we should make a section called something like "remake". TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, however, I think the structuring of the article as it is now is not difficult to read, and Emerald does not have its own section. Artichoker[talk] 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It used to have a section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Voice acting information

Over the past weeks months, someone is constantly adding voice acting information to Pokémon lists and actor articles. He or she uses dynamic addresses in the 90.202.89.* series, and has also used 90.211.190.146. Here are the edits of the known addresses (listed in order of usage):

Because voice acting appearances are not sourced often on WP, I'm having a hard time checking the correctness of the things he adds. A few random examples:

I discussed this with BlazikenMaster a few days ago. He suggested a hidden comment, but I'm uncertain where we should put that. On the top of every Pokémon list? Cheers, Face 13:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more example edits:
I browsed through the first 85 addresses out of this series, and only found three edits which might not have been from the Charizard fan, of which one was vandalism. Judging from the edits of 90.211.190.146, this person has access to at least one other internet connection. But the frequency of use suggests that the 90.202.89.1/255 range is his/her primary connection. Should we block this range?
Cheers, Face 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Request semi-protection of all the articles he's targeting; that would be preferable. if he moves on, I'll contact a user better versed in rangeblocks than I am. I'll hit the articles you've listed above. -Jéské (v^_^v Trump XXI) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Got everything you missed above and reverted them per WP:BLP as unsourced (and possibly flat-out incorrect) information. If there's any you missed before, contact me. Unfortunately, I do not see any cases for semi-protection on any of the articles above (at least not yet); another admin may differ. -Jéské (v^_^v Trump XXI) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jéské, but semi-protecting all the articles this guy or gal is targeting will do more collateral damage then blocking the range. As I said, I've manually inspected the first 85 addresses of that range, and this person has been busy as early as December last year. Also, he/she seems to be the only one who really uses the range. I already suspected that this user has also access to another connection. But hard-blocking his primary range for about 6 months will very likely discourage him/her greatly.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm acting too tensed. After all, his/her edits aren't doing much damage neither, as they are easy to spot and revert. Perhaps this isn't worth it...
I'm gonna aks advice about this at the helpdesk. Cheers, Face 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. - Face 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Calvin 1998 replied. He wouldn't oppose a range block. - Face 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute at Kanto (Pokémon)

Another editor and I are having a dispute at the article Kanto (Pokémon) about whether or not this should be added to the article. Basically, the other editor wants to add information about a truck that appeared once in the game, while I believe this is entirely nonnotable and does not warrant inclusion in the article. We are trying to reach consensus on Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)#S.S. Anne Port Easter Egg and User talk:Artichoker#I never said it did held one, i said that was the old rumor. However, whenever I try to revert back to the original version while we are discussing the matter, the other editor reverts back. I posted this here in order to get a third opinion. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. Artichoker[talk] 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not notable enough to really be included. It was just a rumour and it's false, so why should it be included? Is this other editor violating WP:3RR? TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those are my views as well. The other editor has reverted my edits three times, so no, he hasn't technically violated 3RR. Artichoker[talk] 21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a new discussion going on at Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)#My side on why i think the truck is notable about the content dispute. Any opinions would be appreciated. Artichoker[talk] 22:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another content dispute at Kanto (Pokémon)

The same editor as above and I are having another content dispute on Kanto (Pokémon). The editor once again broke consensus and tried to add some unnecessary non-free images to the article, which violate WP:FUC. The discussion is still going on at Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)#Compromise, however, we are not making much progress. A few more opinions of this matter would help greatly. Any thoughts? Thank you. Artichoker[talk] 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Pokémon and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Working on Pokémon Adventures

I'm taken on the challenge of expanding, and sorta re-writing the Pokémon Adventures article. My main focus is to expand the synopsis on each chapter (referred to as "distinct parts" currently). I was wondering if anyone else thinks this is a good idea? And if you want to help out, I'm currently working on it on my sandbox, if anyone wants to have a peek and give me a few pointers. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sounds like a great idea. I hope you are planning on adding some references, because that article really needs them. I would help, but I don't know squat about Pokémon manga. Good luck! Artichoker[talk] 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I got all 27 currently-released English language volumes. I got plenty of references :D TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Charizard Fan (update)

For a moment, I thought s/he had backed of: I didn't spot him/her for a few days after I wrote this. But on July 8, he/she was on it again, editing via 90.211.190.187, and once again adding one of his/her favorite movie/game titles: "Power Eons: Super Legends", which very likely does not exist. The use of this address confirms what I already suspected: this user can use two dynamic internet connections. 90.202.89.x is his/her primary range, but he/she has also access to 90.211.190.x (see also 90.211.190.146). My guess is that this is a person with some kind of mental disorder. He/She adds made up titles of movies/games, and false voice acting information about Pokémon he likes, and is apparently unable to understand that it is unwanted. He/she is persistent: this has been going on since at least December last year.

A few hours ago, user 90.202.89.53 vandalized Pokémon Platinum. The time might be right for an abuse report. A possible remedy is hard-blocking the two ranges, or at least the primary range, for about six months, which will most likely discourage him/her greatly. But as I said above, it may not be worth it. He/She is being disruptive, but is doing relatively little damage, and is easy to spot. I also wonder to what extend such a block might affect innocent users. A soft block is another possibility. Perhaps the Charizard fan will create an account then, allowing us to contact him/her directly.

What do you guys think? - Face 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen these Charizard themed posts on a few Pokemon pages...and they amount to what they vandalized the Platinum page with. It looks like a fanfic they want to be treated as the real deal or something. It's annoying. I'll go along with whatever you dcide to do. I'm not sure what we can do since it's an anon. I do apologize for the edit summary. I was a little pissed that this stuff was added again. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute on Pokémon Red and Blue (about Glitch City, etc. again)

Hello again. Some of you may remember that there was a previous content dispute about the now deleted article Glitch City initiated by User:MKULTRA333. Now the editor has come back and is trying to insert unverified, nonnotable, original research about glitches into the Pokémon Red and Blue. He refuses to listen and claims his sources are reliable. However, I think you will agree with me that they absolutely are not. These are his sources: [1], [2], [3]. Opinions on this matter would help greatly. Discussion is (sort of) going on Talk:Pokémon Red and Blue, but the user continues to edit war on the article. Thank you. Artichoker[talk] 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I jumped in there and undid his edit. If he repeats it just slap him with 3RR. While here though, I still do think "MissingNO." should have a mention on one or both of the pokemon lists with an explanation, preferably the more detailed listings, since Nintendo themselves do discuss it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, but would his first edit, adding back the glitch section be considered a revert? Also, Missingno. is mentioned in the article: The game features various glitches, including 'M and MissingNo., two glitched Pokémon that, if captured, can cause the game to not function properly or scramble the graphics. in the gameplay section. Artichoker[talk] 19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, missed that line. Guess I'm more used to seeing them regarded as "pokemon" by incorrectly informed people and a slightly more detailed description would be beneficial (especially since the main reason booklets even mention it is because of the item-duplication and themselves call it a "pokemon" when Nintendo contends it isn't). I can cite the sources for such a bit if it's alright with everyone for me to do such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, it's not a Pokémon, it's a game glitch. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You misread his comment. He said Guess I'm more used to seeing them regarded as "pokemon" by incorrectly informed people. Artichoker[talk] 19:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I believe he has violated 3RR, I think we should report him. Artichoker[talk] 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a warning on his page, let's see how he reacts and if he continues then move with a report.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, warning seems useless. He removed the 3RR note from his page and argued Nintendo wasn't a valid source to boot? O_o--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He is allowed to remove warnings from his talk page if he wants to. That being said, his arguments are quite weak. The information cannot be added to the article until he finds some reliable sources. Artichoker[talk] 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If he has broken the WP:3RR he should be blocked. But what do you mean he can remove warnings if he wants to? I have noticed some vandals removing warnings from their talk pages, but that didn't prevent them from being blocked. I took a look at the revision history, and he is in fact violating 3RR. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, although the report was placed after the violation. Of course, if he adds back the glitch section one more time, I will file a report. Also you are allowed to remove warnings from your talk page, but it will always stay in the revision history so users can still get blocked for vandalism, etc. Artichoker[talk] 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in lists.

I really have something to say about images not in the lists. I admit I was part of the work in merging, but what annoys me about the lists is there are no images. That really sucks, sorry about ranting I can accept the consequences of being blocked, but I know this has to be said. Something has to be done about this, I mean look at the lists, can you say it's encyclopedic to have lists without images? I object that, and lists should be treated like articles since they still are part of the mainspace, and deleted lists go to AfD not LfD(Lists for deletion), there is something to do about this. We have to find a way, everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be useful for people that don't know a thing about the subject, right? Well, without images the information is nearly useless to those that know nothing about Pokémon, think about that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Four hundred ninety-three copyrighted images is not ideal. I don't understand why the content can still be encyclopedic without images, the paragraphs describe the Pokémon, don't they? Artichoker[talk] 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted? I really need a better reason why the images can't be there. Nintendo or the Pokémon company isn't suing Bulbapedia or other sites that use their sprites, now are they? Yes, they do, but words can't describe exact looks. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't the guides contain stickers or something? They may be small, but some scans of those would be your best bet if you want images. TTN (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet another rant about those images, Blaze? You have mentioned many, many times now how much the lists suck without images, but you never come with any actual ideas. I do understand your frustration about it, though. After all, no matter how many words you use, Pokémon just can't be accurately pictured without an image. An image says more than thousand words, after all. As I'm sure you know however, 20 copyrighted images in an article (or list) is not possible. Rules are rules. We could use about 4 images per list, but I don't like that idea.
Something I've been thinking about for some time is to add a link to the Bulbapedia entry of every Pokémon to pokeinfoboxsmall. For example something like this:
Number: 025 Type: Electric Evolves from: Pichu Evolves into: Raichu BP article
That way, an image of the Pokémon, among with all the in-universe you could think of, is just one click away. Now, if all project members could just donate 10 bucks, perhaps they'll kick those ads too. Cheers, Face 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Why is this archived? Don't you guys like my idea? It could be even more prettier, if Bulbapedia was on this list, so that we also have an interwiki link to our disposal (like this). This template could be an excellent excuse for such a link, but we need consensus about that first. Cheers, Face 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, sorry about ending this discussion, I didn't read your idea. I love that idea, hope it will be put to action. That would slow down all the complains we get every week on the list talk pages by a lot. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 272 articles are assigned to this project, of which 103, or 37.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Pokeproject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing proposals

I have noticed that a lot of this project's problems come from lack of outside sources. I propose that we:

  • request that anyone who has any such sources to please provide a reference to them on some sort of sub-page of the project page--in other words, keep a list of all reliable sources pertaining to Pokémon.
  • post a request on the project page for anyone who is willing to do a deep, serious dig (libraries, Hidden Web, archives, etc.) for reliable sources to please do so and report any findings.
  • Ask Japanese-speaking members/Wikipedians to search the Japanese Wikipedia and Japanese publications, broadcasts, and news archives. There must be sources from Japanese publishers and newsgroups, and on the Japanese Wikipedia, that we are missing.

I hope I can be of help. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lack of sources, yes I agree. However, that's mainly because most of the places where we get news are mostly fan sites, and thus don't fall under the category of WP:RS. I myself read Serebii.net for my latest news. I would like to use his site as a source for new information, but since it's a fan site, doesn't meet eligibility. If he were to post the sources of his information, then we could likely us those as reliable sources. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 08:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Pokémon participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Pokémon participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this should become a task force.

Why? Because Nintendo (which is bigger than Pokémon since Pokémon along with other things are included in there) has become a task force.

Oh and before waving the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS flag, read further, as I have more reasons than just that. Besides the games and movies, what else is there to work on? By that I mean what other articles of Pokémon are we going to work on? By working on I mean on the actual article, not the attempt to merge.

Let's face it, this WikiProject was created because the species was too much to handle for few people, which is why we created this WikiProject to begin with. But now that characters, places, the species and other stuff have been merged to lists I believe this doesn't have the requirements to be a whole WikiProject anymore.

Ok, now discuss. You can disagree, but I'd like to see some real argument, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since it was only part of my suggestion. Thank you very much. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually. Pretty much all I have to say on the matter too, as I was thinking about suggesting this myself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose, I think there's still too many articles in the spectrum of this project. Over 200, at least. There's a Legend of Zelda project. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think Blaze is right, this should become a taskforce. It's too inactive to remain a full project. Artichoker[talk] 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are still over two hundred articles in the project. Why don't we have a Collaboration of the Week, if the project is so inactive. It would help us actually collectively improve the articles. Tezkag72 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The Legend of Zelda project was actually merged into the Nintendo task force. I think this project could do nicely as a task force, with full support of WP:VG. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually there was an objection during the suggestion over at WP:VG on this becoming a task force. The issue comes up that a large number of articles covered by this project are not related to the video game project.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That's true. Like the anime or the trading card game. There's a bit of overlap, but... Tezkag72 21:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoenn&diff=prev&oldid=237689806

In this revision I clearly said that I see no merge discussion, therefore removed the tag, but I was being reverted. And I'd like to be proven wrong please. As far as I know discussion is needed somewhere in order for a merge tag to be at the top of the article. I am not going to a revert war, but I'm asking to be proven wrong.

I was reverted for this reason: "People are allowed to put merge tags on."

Does this statement prove me wrong in any way? No, it doesn't. I'm not denying that people are allowed to put merge tags, but why do you think (Discuss) is part of the template? Don't you find it a little mysterious that it would be there if discussions aren't required?

Again, I'd like to be proven wrong. And I checked the contr. and the one that put the tag there did in not start a discussion by the time I reverted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All a merge tag is is a proposal. It doesn't mean an article absolutely will be merged. It got brought up here, with the reason for concern being the lack of covering notability, which is true at the moment: none of the regions are discussed due to reception and whatnot. If their combined into one article, at least that will allow for it to be list-type and what applied reception is found used to keep it afloat.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I will just lead the tags to that discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
But I don't agree with the merge suggestion though, at all. After seeing how crappy the lists of Pokémon have turned out, I'm losing my trust in this WikiProject. I know merging is the best thing to do, but I somehow feel like Wikipedia is going down the drain. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well then the best bet is to object to the merge on Hoenn and to find things by third parties that discuss the region in significant notability. That'll probably be pretty difficult though. But the pokemon lists are in themselves a royal messup of a degree that shouldn't be as extreme as it is: a lot of the characters could find notability to discuss about them, people just aren't. So if you want action, put things into motion. All Wikipedia's doing in the end is cleaning out things that were set up that people just didn't write with an encyclopedia in mind, but more a directory of misc info. I'm running up against this a lot with my work on the SC character articles, and them volume of them that end up merged...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's best if I just quit the WikiProject. I have other things to do than googling for reliable sources. I will officially leave this project tomorrow. It doesn't need me, I'm useless. And what am I learning from this project? Nothing but guidelines I didn't came to Wikipedia to learn about. I will stay for one more day to see how others feel about me leaving this project. But by the end of the day tomorrow, I will officially leave the project and get the WikiProject page out of my watchlist. Besides, Bulbapedia already has all the information I need, since everything left in the end will be the video games, I will leave this project tomorrow, since I no longer support what it has become. I can be glad about one thing, movie articles aren't being merged, so I can still be part of WP:FILM. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well like I said, if you want something done you have to do something about it :\ I'm still working on reviving Mewtwo's article, and I'll probably go after Gastly/Haunter/Gengar as a trio article when that time comes too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
TheBlazikenMaster, what would you like to see done with the Pokémon articles? How are they crappy? I know that many of them need to be copyedited, but what else do you think needs to be done to improve them? SunDragon34 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Do whatever you want, I've completely lost my trust in this WikiProject. I'm probably gonna be blocked for saying this (It wouldn't bother me, after all I'm mostly on Wikipedia to revert vandalism, and learn useful information.) but I don't find merge helping at all, I just find merging making things worse. Yeah, I know you will lead me to a guideline or a policy, that is the problem, this site only allows stuff that are part of this world. I also was disappointed to see the Chamred episodes being merged. The good encylopedia this used to be is dead. I'm officially leaving this WikiProject, good bye. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Pokémon

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Pokedex

I made a small-time project. Please include it into the site. Link:Project pokedex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portalcake (talk • contribs) 11:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon and their rightful place

In an essay I wrote, I said that the merging of all the Pokémon articles was a very poor decision:

The deletion of all the Pokémon articles was a particularly disappointing time on Wikipedia. Pokémon characters have lots of media and sources associated with them, have a lot of fans who would be interested in reading these articles and editing them, and are "notable." They are also a great way to get people involved in Wikipedia: They come to the site, see how good our coverage of that subject is, and begin contributing and getting interested in the project. Pokémon characters are "notable," verifiable, have the potential to become Featured articles, have a lot of users to support them, and may get people interested in Wikipedia. The only reason to oppose articles on Pokémon characters is that a traditional encyclopedia would not have these articles; however, these kinds of articles are precisely what we can and positively should preserve.

I know that this project has begun to falter, but I would like to begin an open-ended discussion to see what consensus would be like on returning all Pokémon articles to their pre-merge state. Another possibility would be to expand the ones that have been featured in movies (Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Darkrai, etc etc), version mascots (Kyogre, Groudon, Dialga, Palkia, etc), ones that have appeared in video games (Pichu, Lucario), ones that have spawned Internet memes (Mudkip), or other particularly famous ones (Charmander, Squirtle, etc); however, I personally feel that all Pokémon deserve their own article, and would very much enjoy discussing this with members of this project. I feel that enough time has gone by that consensus may have changed. Hell, Bulbasaur used to be FA quality! I really think this idea has merit, and I eagerly look forward to any and all responses on this important issue. GlassCobra 22:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of what you say, I agree with. "Important" Pokémon such as the legendaries and ones featured extensively in the anime could very well warrant their own article. However, the majority of Pokémon (ones like Girafarig) are simply too obscure to have individual articles as there are not a lot of verifiable sources for them. However, I believe a compromise can be worked out, and maybe fifty new Pokémon articles could see creation. Mew and Mewtwo have already been created and are doing quite well. So I'm willing to be flexible and would support the creation of articles such as Moltres, Entei, Lugia, Lucario, etc. Artichoker[talk] 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Every single relevant detail that can be written about any single Pokemon besides Pikachu easily fits in the list entries. The only way to have more than that is by violating WP:PLOT and WP:NOTGUIDE and including other unnecessary details. If people were to actually expand upon the lists instead of whining about it all of the time, I'm sure they could see that they are quite adequate for an encyclopedia. Those looking for specific strategies on how to use them within the games or plot summaries describing their every appearance in the anime or manga should already be over at Bulbapedia. TTN (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Why only Pikachu? What about all the other particularly important Pokémon, like Darkrai, which you and I conflicted over just today? I'm sure there are plenty of independent sources for it; it was the subject of a movie, after all. Further, per WP:NOTPAPER, why should we be limited on the information that we can keep here? This topic conforms to (as a recently departed user frequently stated) "notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a "specialized encyclopedia" concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world." Each of the Pokémon that I've listed above should easily be able to find as much sourced material as the ones that currently have standalone articles.
However, TTN, I'm curious to know a little more about your particular viewpoint. Why is it exactly that you feel that information must be condensed into as little space as possible? What would be wrong in having just the information that we have about each Pokémon in its own separate article? GlassCobra 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Reverting everything to July 2007 would undoubtedly improve the utility and entertainment value of the pokemon articles. Contrast Old Wailordwith the current Wailord, remember there were illustrations and stats tables for most that also fell foul of guidelines and were deleted. It is not "encyclopedia" content, and not written as such rather written for a particular audience. It was much better content, better organised and targeted. Wikipedia guidelines and licensing need to change so this kind of loss is minimised. Should be a spectra of article and media licensing? Per article, per illustration. Corella (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The Pokémon that play major roles in the non-video game media (anime, comics, movies, etc.) should have their own articles, yes. When it comes to Pokémon that have not made an appearance in said media (or Pokémon that have made few or insignificant appearances), however, I think that because the only reliable sources would be from video-game-related materials (such as guide books), it would be a violation of Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE. Ink Runner (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

We can't do write anything useful until we have some decent sources, and to date nobody has unearthed any. You can argue up and down and left and right that such-and-such Pokémon is important but until you can come up with some sources to make some sourced factual claims, it comes to nothing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you're missing my point. As per WP:NOTPAPER, we don't need to condense all these potential articles into a list. The format at present is likely discouraging the addition of content; as tightly packed and filled with WikiCode as they are, I'm sure plenty of people simply don't know where to put things. As I asked TTN, so shall I ask you, AMIB: what, precisely, is wrong about giving each Pokémon their own article, even if the content was merely what we have at the moment? It would allow for more flexibility with adding content and sources, and could be organized in a more efficient manner, with links pointing for evolutionary changes and such. GlassCobra 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
What content? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer constructive discussion rather than snarky comments. Each Pokémon has some content devoted to it in the lists. GlassCobra 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(←)There are plenty of reliable sources for individual Pokémon, as evidenced by the Mewtwo article. So I believe it would be possible for other Pokémon to have well-sourced articles. Artichoker[talk] 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I noticed something while researching that article that would play into here. A good chunk of the original 151 and to a lesser extent Togepi and the glitch MissingNo. go coverage in various media, such as character reception to studies on how children reacted to the and so forth. With the second and later generation games though there wasn't as much: the fad died out and how they affected culture wasn't as important. Mewtwo had a lot of material made for just him, such as manga bits, an audio drama, and the first film. But there was more a lot of reactions to his role in said media and so forth that is more important to the article.
Darkrai was in a film, but do reviews of the film talk about him as a character? That's the point you need to look for. The cultural impact of a character, even if it's just a bunch of people stating their reactions to it. Not saying TTN's right by far, but am saying that if work is done to revive articles, the lens scope should be kept realistic and with sources emphasized to back things up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the following Pokémon articles should be discussed and should have sources looked for for them:
  1. Pichu
  2. Jigglypuff
  3. Mewtwo
  4. Mew
  5. Legendary Birds (separately or together)
  6. Bulbasaur (which would cover all lines of Bulbasaur)
  7. Charmander (^)
  8. Squirtle (^)
  9. Togepi
  10. Meowth
  11. Poliwag (due to the development information we have about it) - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
JigglypuffMewtwo, Mew, Bulbasaur, and Meowth are all already standalones (as well as Pikachu, not on your list). Why would Bulbasaur's article also cover Charmander and Squirtle? GlassCobra 01:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC) (note to A Link to the Past: I refactored your comment a bit, I hope you don't mind. The list seemed a bit unnecessary)
Jigglypuff's really needs an overhaul to be honest. And I would suggest Snorlax, Alakazam and the original ghost trio for that list (recognizability with the first, controversies with the latter two as well as recognizability). I don't think the legendary birds are a good idea though, even as a joint article: it could be done, but reception would be the biggest issue. Also what's the dev info with poliwag? o_O This is the first I've heard of such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It adds readability, and your modifications altered my comments. And that they have articles does not mean that they have adequate sourcing, so we should discuss and work on these articles.
And the dev info is of the creator mentioning how he created Poliwag, that the swirl comes from how a tadpole looks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I seriously don't think a whole article should be made about Poliwag if that's all we got...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, every Pokémon is going to be important enough or interesting enough or whatever enough for someone to think it needs its own article. The standard is sources, and we have for pretty much all of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


I believe each pokemon could have their own articles especially the legendaries and those featured in the movies. As with the rest, they may not be as popular as Pikachu but still they deserve their own articles. Everyone has their own favorite. With regards to the sources--I think we have plenty of them. Drakesketchit (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Let's talk about sources

Someone brought up Mewtwo as an example of a well-sourced article. Let's talk about the sources in this version.

  1. Primary source.
  2. Primary source.
  3. An interview that doesn't actually back the claim that Mewtwo was designed by Ken Sugimori. Indeed, the interview doesn't even mention Mewtwo.
  4. IMDB, an unreliable source.
  5. (Unsourced!) translation of a Japanese-language primary source.
  6. A source I don't recognize? Apparently Japanese-language?
  7. A Time Magazine article that mentions Mew (but not Mewtwo).
  8. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie
  9. Primary.
  10. Primary.
  11. Primary.
  12. Primary.
  13. Primary.
  14. Primary.
  15. Primary.
  16. Primary.
  17. Primary.
  18. Primary.
  19. Primary. No evidence that this is licensed merchandise.
  20. Primary. No evidence that this is licensed merchandise.
  21. Primary. No evidence that this is licensed merchandise.
  22. Primary. No evidence that this is licensed merchandise.
  23. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie
  24. Apparently secondary, don't have access to the source to verify claims. Guessing it's commentary on Pokémon: the First Movie
  25. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie
  26. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie
  27. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie
  28. Review of Pokémon: the First Movie - cited quote misses the point of review, however
  29. Secondary source, IIRC cited source does not mention Mewtwo as a character that appeals to boys, making claim OR
  30. Non-reliable source that does not back the claim it's attached to.
  31. Game guide, no cited author, possibly fan-written?
  32. Game guide
  33. Game guide
  34. Three sentences as part of a list, but secondary
  35. Forum topic

According to the reliable sources that actually talk about Mewtwo instead of Pokémon in general, Mewtwo appears in Pokémon: The First Movie, critics felt such-and-such way about said movie, the end. And this is supposedly one of the better-sourced articles.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that there's no content to put into standalone articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seem a bit aggressive over this, AMiB. This is a discussion about finding sources and discussing potentially noteworthy Pokémon. Can't see why you'd be so against that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
People are arguing that demerging would help get these articles sourced. No evidence exists to support that claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion right now has nothing to do with demerging, but whether or not they should be demerged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Huh? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Simply put, I made a list of what should be researched/discussed to see if they have enough reliable sources and useful content to warrant their own pages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I, too, support the unmerging of some of these more notable Pokémon. Useight (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It's comments like that that make the people who do the work look bad. We're trying to establish whether or not they should be split, while you just support it without asking whether there's reason to do so, and just make a general "notable Pokémon" description. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making anyone look bad and I don't see why I'm required to "ask whether there's a reason to do so". Who am I going to ask? There's no authority on the matter. As for my "notable Pokémon", I didn't list any in particular because I'm not familiar with a whole lot of them, I was just agreeing that some are notable enough to warrant their own article. If I was going to list some, I'd say (on top of the few we have): Legendary Birds, Lucario, Pichu (maybe), Charmander and/or Charizard, Mudkip (due to the Internet meme), maybe Treecko. Those are the ones that come to mind. Useight (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I also think Team Rocket should be a separate article. Useight (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If Team Rocket did come back as an article merging Meowth into it might be a better option than a stand alone article for him: there's Meowth, and then there's Rocket's Meowth even in some of the games, and the character is more recognizable in that format than the general one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Secondary source, IIRC cited source does not mention Mewtwo as a character that appeals to boys, making claim OR" It actually mentioned him in the same context as Gengar as one popular for boys. Check google books. The others are on context (i.e. the forum topic cited for the poll itself, and made by IGN's site staff, so how does that differ from a poll on a website?) which I don't think you checked for each given the oh-so-colorful list, though if IMDB and TV.com are unreliable I'll get replacements if you can point out alternatives. Also weren't statements on a character in commentary about the whole of a fictional work considered citable for the character via (the still disputed) WP:FICT? The reviewers are commenting directly on the character in question, even if the whole of the review is about the film.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Though I will add quite bluntly that you are right on one thing: there isn't really anything for any of them. Mewtwo, Pikachu, and Jigglypuff are probably the only ones when the dust settles that could even survive as articles and have enough to go with for them. We've barely got development information for any of them in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Talking about Mewtwo, did you guys read the Literary analysis part? It's interesting in a... comical way. It's almost like the text wants to convince the reader that there is a philosophical depth in Mewtwo (while there isn't). It highlights very specific opinions, and it makes me think of forum shopping really. Cheers, Face 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It highlighted opinions on both sides though. It didn't help that the Japanese version of the film was rather different than the American version (in more than one source cited in there that's mentioned as being done to make him more a recognizable villain...I can dig up that quote if you want). But the opinions cited there were all the citable ones tossed out, good or bad. So fi you want to complain that I must be engaging in one opinion over another, present sources. Also I don't think forum shopping means exactly what you think it does given the text...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Forum shopping is highlighting specific opinions, in order to proof that many people have that opinion. The part reminded me of it because it gives very specific quotes, in order to proof that many people think there is a philosophical depth. But I think there isn't any, and I think most people think that. I believe that most people see Mewtwo as just another villian, and the movie as just another anime. There isn't really anything to analyse.
By the way, you are right about the American Mewtwo being different than the Japanese Mewtwo. That adaption was part of the 'localisation' proces in which they adapted the movie to the culture of America. Information about that would fit better in the First Movie article however. Cheers, Face 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That sounds a lot more like you're after WP:UNDUE, but I digress. Anyway the quotes were not taken for any preference or attempt to push a minority opinion: the section points out that he was compared readily to a cliche anime villain and even a Bond villain. The people that said contrary just did so more eloquently and concisely. Saying "But I think there isn't any, and I think most people think that. I believe that most people see Mewtwo as just another villian, and the movie as just another anime" is just your opinion. There's no fact to substantiate any of that; it's not any better than TTN coming in here and saying "I don't think any of these characters can be notable". So if people think others are overthinking the subject point me at sources and I'll work it in. Also localization issues have as much bearing on a character as they do in the related media article, especially when other related media to the character abandons said alterations in their own localizations.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about Bulbasaur are quickly becoming legendary, and those feelings are based on the fact that its sourcing looks about the same as Mewtwo's ... it just doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:N. There aren't multiple, independent, third-party sources that address Bulbasaur directly and in detail. If articles are resurrected before sources are found, they won't be any better. I think approaching this problem from the perspective of This is the list of Pokemon I'd like to resurrect is backwards. There's nothing wrong with resurrecting any of the individual articles if there are independent third-party sources that address that particular Pokemon directly and in detail. I think a more fruitful strategy would be to start from sourcing: find any third-party sources (not Nintendo licensed or published, not fan-sites) that deal directly with any specific Pokemon. Take note of which ones they discuss. Once you find a good group of sources, any and all Pokemon that are addressed in multiple sources can be resurrected. Please don't resurrect articles before finding sources.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As we all know, all of these articles were once above stub class, and were generally fairly well written. I don't think that merging all of them into giant lists was such a good idea in the first place, because it removes content, and is harder on some browsers/connections to load all of it. Additionally all of that content is still on the wikimedia servers, and can easily be restored, instead of having 500 or so links to several long and not very high quality articles. It was kind of silly to take one or two Featured Articles, and dump their contents into part of a list Yamakiri TC § 10-5-2008 • 18:47:42
They weren't featured articles. They got essentially the same examination I just gave to Mewtwo and everyone realized how poor the sourcing really was.
What was "lost" wasn't in any sense useful content. It was speculation, conjecture, and just plain nonsense. The lists suck, but the lists suck not because they are missing something that can be added but because there is little to say. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment that Bulbasaur and Torchic were in fact featured articles. Artichoker[talk] 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
But again you didn't even bother to check the context of it: you just went "this sucks for so and so" and wrote it off (no offense meant by that, and I really hope you don't mean "everyone" in the context to that given Face seems to like trouble and Kww's stance is pretty well known (no offense to him either)). Additionally nobody every said the article was done, I'm still digging around for sources and things; I just want to get Mewtwo to A class and move onto Jigglypuff (also while I'm here gotta repeat: do you have anything I can cite as an alt to TV.com and IMDB? I'd rather nip those now).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
To end this discussion, let's just start working on pages on user pages. No Pokémon sans Pikachu has enough reliable sourcing to warrant an article, so we shouldn't make the articles then establish notability - however, nothing wrong with putting it on your user page. So I reckon Mewtwo should be userfied to Kung Fu Man's user page, and I'll take Bulbasaur and work on that, and whatever others want to work on, and we'll try to form a consensus once users agree that certain articles have succeeded in warranting an article and has enough sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems pointless unless its to fix the formatting of what is in the pages (which really should be done). Incubating them on userpages only prevents fire from guys who scream to merge anything, and I'm pretty sure three of the four people here that had criticisms will no matter what even if the Pope gave some statement saying he loved Bulbasaur. TTN will want to merge everything, Face represented the "it's just pokemon so it's not important" argument, and Kww's got an extremely high standard for notability. Out of all that AMiB pointed out some flaws in the sourcing that are easy to fix (excluding what he didn't check regarding the context). So to end this, duck and run just doesn't look like it'll cut it. If the project has articles that needs improving, using this page to build things up would be a good idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The flaws I see with the sourcing is that the sources seem to say that we should restructure this article to be about Mewtwo, the antagonist of Pokémon: the First Movie, and possibly merge it to that film's article. Other than that, he's a minor optional boss in two (or three, depending on how you count) games and an unlockable character in another. The sources are often used out of context, are concentrated heavily in one single section, and much of the article is nonsense.
Mewtwo illustrates the problems with these articles, in the same way the Torchic and Bulbasaur FARs did. Nobody is talking about these characters the way we're talking about them, and this is a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Rocket (specifically Jesse, James and Meowth)

This one might be tricky: While I do strongly think the characters should get their own article, and there are some sources to support such, just where would it point to? Team Rocket is the current target and really the "iconic" name for the trio, so reviving it there with a disambig link to the crime syndicates article if the subject is revived may be the best bet. Keep in mind while tags are up, this is entirely hypothetical and to promote discussion on the subject.

So...thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I think Jessie, James, Butch, Cassidy, etc. should be merged in the Team Rocket article. But Meowth should have its own article because it's notable outside Team Rocket. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Not really. There are a few sources, but the majority are discussing him directly in the context of Team Rocket. Additionally the generic pokemon Meowth isn't very important like I said earlier, just the one with Jessie and James. Also going to bring up Butch and Cassidy are too minor and "secondary" to really warrant anything, as they're more foils for the series's foils than full characters with reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Similarily, the generic Pokémon Pikachu isn't very important, it's just Ash's Pikachu. Because it's Ash who made Pikachu the image that represents Pokémon. But Pikachu still has its own article (last time I checked), and with this logic, it seems that Meowth should have its own page, too. In fact, it's Ash's encounters with any Pokémon that makes them popular. So every Pokémon should have its own page, in my opinion. ★ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ★ 21:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was definitely not Ash who made Pikachu as possible as it is. Ash doesn't even really exist. Pikachu is such an icon now because of how the world took to it. Ash was just a vehicle to this end. Therefore, your logic falls apart. Tempest115 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, what you said about Ash and Pikachu is true; but the same could be said for Team Rocket and Meowth, right? And, yes, Ash doesn't exist, but neither do Pokémon or Team Rocket or Sinnoh or Kanto or Pokéballs or any of the things in the Pokémon universe. ★ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ★ 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that "Team Rocket" would be the best title we could refer to. In the series they are also known by that name. For example no one in the series says "Jessie took Pikachu", they always say "Team Rocket" and also outside the pokemon world the are mainly known by that name so it's best and appropriate to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DasallmächtigeJ (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Explain.Negabandit86 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

its best for you to not even comment if you don't bother reading the rest of it./--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deoxys

Hi, I created a Deoxys article, and it just got deleted. I know it's more notable than, say, Lombre or Magcargo. TTN told me to come here and state my place. So, WTF?!? Tezkag72 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well was going to tell you on your talk page, but been busy. Either way, the Deoxys article isn't a great idea. It's got the anime movie, a brawl cameo and the NASA bit, but discussion about it in published sources is extremely low. It's more notable than the others, just there doesn't look like there'd be enough for an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Human Characters

does this discussion include un-merging the human characters from "list of pokemon anime characters" back to individual articles? Brendankm (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Most likely no. Artichoker[talk] 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmerging ALL characters could be unreasonable

Some notable stuff (such as legendaries or Mudkip) may deserve their own articles, but unmerging unimportant stuff (such as Orre) may be a waste of space. Mydoctor93 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SIHULM regardless, Mudkip doesn't have anything in the way of WP:RS - no reception to the character, no brainstorming ditty, nada. Just Anonymous, who is as reliable a source as the Onion. I do agree, however, that unmerging the fancruft is only going to cause more problems which Wikipedia, as a whole, doesn't need (especially as it's still trying to deal with the ongoing inclusionist/deletionist wars from the E&C arbcom case, which affects us as well). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on two articles

I know next to nothing about Pokemon, so I'm hoping someone here can look at a couple of new articles and weigh in. This is how the Gary oaks arcanine article looked before I changed it to a redirect to Arcanine. My question on this article is was this a legitimate attempt to write an article about Arcanine (involving a fictional character named Gary Oaks), or is this someone writing about his own pokemon (from a game perhaps?), in which case this should be deleted, not redirected.

Also Gary oak's cheerleaders has similar issues. Is this a legitimate fictional concept in pokemon, or someone writing about their own play experience (perhaps with a bit of wishful thinking...).

See, I told you all I know nothing about Pokemon. Once you can catch your breath from laughing at how little I know, please take a look and help out. Thanks! :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your redirect of Gary oaks arcanine (which isn't even spelled correctly) was absolutely correct. I have nominated Gary oak's cheerleaders for deletion. Artichoker[talk] 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!

Is there any need for this anymore?

With Bulbapedia I think it's like milking a dead cow----Ultamatecharizard (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are still articles, and Bulbapedia is hardly encyclopedic, it's more of a game guide.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Though, Bulbapedia is more of an encyclopedic game guide than just an encyclopedia or just a game guide.★ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ★ 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no proof that the site is a game guide it's better then the info wikipedia has.--CoolPikachu! 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Bulbapedia has 9,001x more information on Pokemon then Wikipedia does. lol --Blake (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon is a Good Article nominee

Just thought I'd let you know that I have nominated Dennō Senshi Porygon for GA. =) TheLeftorium 15:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And it just passed. ;) TheLeftorium 14:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Kudos on that! It's a really good article. Artichoker[talk] 21:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a touchy subject, but: merging Bulbasaur's article into the list?

The article hasn't seen improvement in some time over the issues it has, and new information doesn't seem to be turning up to buffer it further. Merging it at least for now may be a good option. Any thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid if it got merged for now, we'd never get around to bringing it back. Should we just work on it instead? It is a B, at least, not a stub or anything. Tezkag72 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it's really closer to C to be honest, given that there isn't that much info for the sections necessary for B-class. The thing with Bulbasaur is he's faded a bit more into obscurity compared to Pikachu/Jigglypuff/Mewtwo/Mew, and I'm just not sure if there are any more sources really coming to the article. If it does get merged and sources do turn up, it can be revived as needed easily. Anyone gives hassle we can point out readily this project was the one to merge it and choose to instead unmerge it due to new material.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with attempting to merge it is the small number of people that won't let go of the fact that it was once a featured article under quite lax standards. I certainly tried it a number of times with very little luck. I would suggest getting people from the video game project to comment because you'll probably need some numbers behind the consensus, though people may have stopped caring at this point. TTN (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep this in this project anyway, cleaner to handle if things do turn up like source books and whatnot (one for example was released for Disgaea 2 just recently) so restoration is a hassle free process or in the case of opposing one the issue can be handled easier.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
So what exactly are the issues with the Bulbasaur article? I'd like to know so I can maybe help fix them. I would rather avoid merging right now. Artichoker[talk] 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well there isn't much in the way of stand alone development or reception. There's sufficient info to show that the character is important in the material related to it, but in a real-world sense it's different from, say, Pikachu. There's not enough to really show that by itself there's a cultural impact with the info at hand.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a fairly good article to me, plus it has a lot of sources.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

PTCG

Well the wiki coverage of PTCG was pretty small and broad. So much stuff, sets, cards and very few articles. So i started an article: List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set Sets have so much information about them and all they had in wiki was a small paragraph. So i was going to add more, with proper sorces n everything, starting with the base set. Like Card list, with rarity and all that punk. Booster pack and theme decks information.

What you think?...IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If everything is sourced, then I think it's a good idea. Artichoker[talk] 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it is a great idea.... although i can see some pro-deleter wiki user nominating it just cause thats what those annoying ppl do..... IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It does violate a few grounds, namely Wikipedia:NOT#INFO. It's just not something that's really needed for an encyclopedia, to the point there's a full discussion about why on the Video game project's talk page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well its up for deletion now....

List of Cards in Pokémon Trading Card Game Set Base Set so um.... didnt get to add the theme decks indepth bit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs) 09:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the issue is you apparently wrote the article like a guide instead of, well, an article. That violates quite a few policies all around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's probably going to fail. And it really deosn't fit the notability guidelines. Why would the average reader care what cards are in the set when they can just go look it up on a Pokémon site like [4]? Tezkag72 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Bug with Template:Pokeproject

Just a shout, C-class articles are being counted in the unassessed category as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I fixed it, as well as fixed the List category.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates..

What is the point of having Template:Pokémon films, Template:Pokémon games and Template:Pokemon media? Films template has the same or mostly similar information, as well as the games template, as the media template. Having two templates on game related, or film related article would be absolutely useless. --staka (T) 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think they should be merged. --TheLeftorium 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone merge? --staka (T) 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, nothing needs to be merged. Template:Pokemon media already contains everything of Template:Pokémon games and Template:Pokémon films. The only two things {{Pokemon media}} lacks is that it does not contain years, and the films are not grouped by 'generation' ("Original series", "Advanced Generation", and "Diamond and Pearl"). If no one complains, I will replace all {{Pokémon games}} and {{Pokémon films}} with {{Pokemon media}}. After that, I will take the two superseded templates to TfD. Is that ok? Cheers, Face 13:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, why not rename {{Pokemon media}} to {{Pokemon}}, or {{Pokémon}}? Cheers, Face 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That is okay with me. Another user did the fix up with years and such.. I think (according to bottom discussion). So we could just move Pokemon media to just Pokémon. --staka (T) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. MelicansMatkin also seems to agree with it. I've asked Jéské Couriano (who is an admin). Cheers, Face 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Done as regards the deletions, moving it as we speak. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, all Done. Note that I had to delete "Template:Pokemon" first because it was a redirect to one of the deleted templates, and that I used the version sans diacritics (i.e. the "e" is not accented) for easier use. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My thanks to you for doing that, Jéské. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Null persp, chummer. (still holding out for the Scout pack) -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we title it {{Pokémon}} instead of {{Pokemon}}? It's the spelling we use most, and it's also the title of the article. Cheers, Face 11:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well as Jeske said, spelling it simply as "Pokemon" is simpler for many people (myself included), and I don't think it's really necessary to rename it so soon. Besides, I believe Template:Pokemon redirects to Template:Pokémon, so in either case the same result would show. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Not everyone knows how to type in diacritics (I cheat and use Firefox and abcTajpu to do this). In fact, User:Jeske Couriano redirs to my userpage (after I jacked the SUL from Jarlaxle) because it's not likely a layman would know how to type in the "é"s. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, one more thing: do you think the template should be collapsed by default? I made it like that, but Ryulong thought it "doesn't help". Afaik, all big templates are by default collapsed, so why shouldn't this one be? Cheers, theFace 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Just collapse it.. --staka (T) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Or you could incorporate something that's in Template:Carnivora where there are multiple collapsible sections of which one is open on the article you are looking at.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed a cool template. But Template:Pokemon is too small to have such collapsible sections, and at the same time too big to be uncollapsed. I think it's more neat if it's collapsed by default. Cheers, theFace 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this Pokemon template is even smaller than most of the collapsed sections in that template. --staka (T) 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon, I Choose You!

Just thought I'd let you know that I have recreated the "Pokémon, I Choose You!" article with a production and a reception section. I hope everyone is okay with this, because in my opinion the episode is notable. Also, I'm planning on getting it to GA status, so I'll be working more on it in the next couple of days. —TheLeftorium 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this episode more notable than any other episode? Just because it's the first episode? As far as I'm aware, it has very little (if any) third-party sources that would classify it as being notable. (Though I must admit that you did a very good job of writing the article; I'm not sure that all the information on the Porygon episode is necessarily relevant, however.) MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely trim down that info about the Porygon episode: it's enough just to say that it came up before the anime hit stateside and the effects of it, and doesn't need to be drawn in full detail into the article to that degree. Regardless I think you have a decent start. I would check some bits of your reception though (Why is Ho-oh's appearance relative on the whole and not just to the individual episode?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have trimmed down the Porygon information. Kung Fu Man, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the reception section and Ho-Oh's appearance, can you explain a bit more? —TheLeftorium 10:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, meant this line to be more exact: "X-Entertainment considered the best part of the episode to be the moment when Ash spots the mysterious Ho-Oh, a Pokémon whose data was not included in the Pokédex." It feels oddly out of place. Probably better too to not cite that statement, as looking at the site it doesn't look like all that hot of a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me, and X-Entertainment seems to be a reliable source. By the way, if this article becomes a GA and if List of Pokémon episodes (season 1) ever becomes an FL, we would have a nice Featured topic. Future goal maybe? ;) —TheLeftorium 19:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, thanks for the copyedits Artichoker and MelicansMatkin. —TheLeftorium 19:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Film template

I posted this over at Template talk:Pokémon films, but figured I'd get a faster response if I posted here. It's just a general query as it is something I am unfamiliar with, but is it policy for the title of each movie to be in italics in the template, or just how it was edited? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Movies should always be in italics, right? Artichoker[talk] 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, movies should be in italics. But I Templates..|suggested yesterday to delete Template:Pokémon films (as well as Template:Pokémon games) because it is superseded by Template:Pokemon media. What do you guys think of that? - Face 15:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no objection to that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and added in the years for the films in Template:Pokemon media, as well as the generation splits for those films. I also went ahead and substituted the dividing dots with ones that can be seen more clearly. Hope it looks good with everyone. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Template (again)

Looking over Template:Pokemon, it strikes me that all of the emphasis here is on the games and anime. But I know that there are articles on at least the various manga and the TCG - possibly even on the TFG, though I'm not sure on that last one. I'm not knowledgeable on any of those aspects of the franchise, but would somebody who is be able to add them to the template? Should they be added? Your thoughts?

In addition, I'd also recommend deletion of Template:Pokémon anime characters and Template:Pokémon Gym Leaders, as these are now entirely superceded by Template:Pokemon. Your thoughts on this? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and added the manga and TCG to Template:Pokemon; it wasn't as difficult as I'd first thought to find the articles. However, I'd still like to discuss deletion of Template:Pokémon anime characters and Template:Pokémon Gym Leaders; any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelicansMatkin (talk • contribs) at 15:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Both templates can go. Unless someone protests, I'll leave Jeske another plea tomorrow. - theFace 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother. Nuking now. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 10:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
*kaboom* Thank you! - theFace 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

Gary King just retitled all the Pokémon lists, changing the dashes from - to –. I found this odd, and left him a message about it. Cheers, theFace 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He contacted me, it's ok. Cheers, theFace 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Get an FA

I think this project should focus some of its attention on one of its good articles and try to improve it to featured status. It wouldn't take very long, and it's a big milestone for any WikiProject that hasn't done it already, and it will help this project get more respect. What say you to this idea? (I would suggest Pokémon Diamond and Pearl as it seems the closest already.) Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Type matchups

Hello. I have a posted a type-matchups table on my userpage. I hope it is of use.--O'DELAQUATIQUE (talk) (contributions) (e-mail) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we just agree that there is no consensus?

Over the year or two that these articles have been merged there have been repeated arguments that there is something patently wrong with the system we have in place now. Many early attempts to find a compromise (or new consensus) were met with responses like, "We've already decided on this, so stop whining." The list articles are actually worse than the originals in most cases because generally they (1) are in-universe, (2) subsequently derive all info from primary sources, and (3) inherently work against the expansion of subject.

  • (1) was a problem that many of the old articles had, specifically in the Pokedex-copied section... so we improved wikipedia by reducing most of the articles to just this info?
  • (2) because these entries are all almost completely comprised of 'dex info they solely rely on primary sources, and yet i see criticisms all the time where later-merged articles don't have "good enough" secondary sources, specifically from reviews or gameguides (which endorsed or not, are not products of nintendo)
  • (3) despite some problems with Mewtwo, a majority of the information in the Critical reception section is exactly the kind of info these characters need in order to remain articles. However the current format forces one user to build up a whole article first and then suddenly make it live - counter to the idea of having something communally worked upon. I mean, how dare someone try to split the article unless it's perfect.

The simple fact is that many people, wikipedia editors and readers, feel that we are failing the first pillar of wikipedia by not incorporating elements of specialized encyclopedias. Rather than fighting for one way or the other on this, we should be looking for compromises, that's what consensus really is, and these lists are no compromise.

I am recommending we take another stab at WP:POKE/Layout, something that actually had relative support on both sides of the camp, and something that can really improve the encyclopedia, because let's face it, these lists are not an improvement - they're an eyesore. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V.
This is the problem. Setting up a layout that assumes that there's more verifiable info than there actually is only begs that the space be filled with crap. Mewtwo is not a shining example; we've had this discussion a couple of times, where the sources in Mewtwo are in that article instead of other articles only so that the Mewtwo article can be propped up.
That both solutions are bad doesn't mean that shuffling from one bad solution to another helps anything or anyone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
well at least you agree the current solution is bad... i didn't think we ever agreed on anything :) you know these evo-line articles are basically just lists without the word list in their titles and the current lists could largely be deleted for WP:V if you feel that the evo-lines could be. but i can list you several third-party sources that have "featur[ed] significant coverage of" a random pokemon like Gyarados. True they're gameguides, but to dismiss them because of the nature of the content is to dismiss sources like news articles because that is something else Wikipedia is not - it's a bad arguement. WP:V was never really an issue, people just ignore the sources provided (gameguides, reviews, and interviews) as somehow "not good enough". -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 10:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
and in direct response to Mewtwo, i fail to see how four reviews and a book fail to provide enough verifiability for an article. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 10:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Mewtwo is the best and that's awful. These works are substantially about larger subjects of which Mewtwo is a part. It's not a failure of verifiability, it's a failure of emphasis. It is true, however, that Mewtwo has some of the best sourcing of the various Pokémon species articles. This is not endorsement; this is damnation. The best we can do are sometimes-sketchy sources that aren't substantially about individual characters or species. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
you know, first you say it's WP:V period. Then when I show how WP:V is satisfied you claim it's not verifiability, but something else. we're getting off on a tangent, you've admitted urself that the current setup is crap, and that Mewtwo meets WP:V - u've even demonstrated my claim that the same people who support mass merging go around nit-picking over the reliable sources that would justify an article. The "emphasis" argument is also flawed, at least one review spends a considerable portion on describing and analyzing Mewtwo and to characterize that as "sketchy" is misguided. you might cite WP:UNDUE but i could easily argue that the weight of cultural impact in respect to the overall article is about even to the weight of the relevant prose in the sources. I'm well aware of your viewpoint on the matter and am more than willing to let you have the last word right here. But as neither you nor I have final say over what consensus actually is, after your response let's agree not to edit this section for 2-3 days to allow a more open dialogue. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

to reiterate, i feel there is no real consensus for the current crappy setup and have proposed revisiting discussion on WP:POKE/Layout. AMIB appears to agree the lists are a bad solution, but opposes that plan for reasons stated above. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Pokémon test. The majority of the Pokemon have little to no content to begin with, and game guides are usually ineligible to be used as sources. Try and find some other third-party sources. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
why? did i miss that in some policy or guideline somewhere? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:VG/S, WP:RS, WP:SPS; depending on what the third party source is and where it comes from, it may or may not be able to be used as a source (though it is usually the latter). Gaming sites such as IGN are usually admissible, although certain features (such as blogs and message boards) are not. Game guides usually fail WP:SPS. To quote: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. And I have yet to see what would qualify most Pokemon as being notable. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the lists are very poor and will never be anything more than in-universe gamecruft. I'm more for outright deletion of them than anything. Artichoker[talk] 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon coverage will never work under Wikipedian Bureaucracy. Letting the lists die would be kinder than leaving them in their shriveled state. --Sonic Mew (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Artichoker, please don't use "cruft" as an arguement for deletion, it could be inflammatory to others (although i obviously understand your distaste for the quality of these lists). I would suggest that you not focus on getting your own way, but rather think about ways we could all compromise in order to arrive at a WP:consensus. I don't link that page for my health, i feel that too often people act in ways contrary to it's guidelines and that they should be rereading it to refocus their thoughts.
Melicans, please do not substantively change your edits after someone has responded to them, it changes the way the conversation is read and could be seen as misleading. I've noted the change for other readers. due to that change, it would appear that you reviewed those guidelines and noted that they do not prohibit gameguides as you originally tried to suggest. Your arguement that gameguides somehow would usually fail as a RS because they are self-published is erroneous. A large majority of guides are published by well-established companies with teams of editors, not some 13-year old in his basement, to classify something like this as self-published source takes a serious misunderstanding of what self-published means and we may as well classify any content created by a company as such (e.g., news). Go look back at WP:VG/S and do a Crtl+F for guide, and you'll see how many have already been accepted by consensus of—not your own opinion of—what constitutes a reliable source. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The comment I changed was after reviewing and confirming that a select few gaming sites can be used as a reliable citation; IGN being one notable example, and GameFAQs (though the latter only for release dates. What I edited in also had no consequence on what you were saying. In numerous discussions in the past it has been established that using game guides as citations is inadmissible; take a look around and you'll see what I'm saying. The recently failed/withdrawn Pokémon Red and Blue FAC candidate for one.
From VG/S: "It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself. In many of these sections, the game itself is used as a source, but make sure that it is not the only source. Furthermore, the kind of statements that can be backed up with a reference to the game itself is limited. For example, it is impossible to use the game itself to back up that it "... takes place in a high fantasy setting". In this case, using game guides to detail the plot of a game is acceptable, but even then they have to be checked carefully because of several instances where they have contained inaccurate information.
However, individual Pokemon are not games and the only information that can be gleaned from game guides about them would be in-universe information regarding which Pokemon are best to use in battle, where they can be found in the game, and everything else that fails WP:NOT, particularly WP:GAMEGUIDE. We've seen it happen before; any information that game guides could provide would be removed under that policy. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
the difference between saying "gameguides are inelible" and "gameguides are usually ineligble" is substantive, but at any rate i suppose my arguement still stands, that while you cited three guidelines none of them actually say what you are inferring. your claim now seems to be based on AFD and FA/GA noms, but your example failed FA for a plethora of reasons beyond sources. and while when even guidelines allow for the occasional exception, i'm hard pressed to find a convincing arguement from supposed anecdotal support.

... any information that game guides could provide would be removed under [ WP:GAMEGUIDE ]

our current lists provide podex numbers, type, evolution chains, and significant moves/abilities, all info that really should be cited to a gameguide in the first place. And I'm not here to make a case that gameguides be used for a large percentage of prose, i'm making the case that a given pokemon's substantial, non-trivial inclusion in a guide published by a third party qualifies it under WP:V and WP:NPOV. But I'm not going to say we should bring back the single article pages. I want to work out a compromise - so please stop going off on these tangents, and let's focus on what we can do to fix the current problem. We have these crappy lists that are worse than the articles ever were. Either read WP:POKE/Layout and comment on whether you think that's a possible direction, or propose an another possible solution. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Recap

I'd just like to summarize this discussion so far as I see it:

    • The current lists are not any more of an improvement to the encyclopedia than the single articles were because a majority of the entries are written in-universe with just copied Pokedex info and game stats. I feel that we should allow expansion in the format originally proposed at WP:POKE/Layout, essentially several shorter list articles generally grouped by evolutionary line (exceptions and specifics at the proposal page), but also welcome other suggestions.
      • Editors opposed to this format feel that WP:V is violated.
    • I have argued that certain gameguides sufficiently satisfy the substantial third-party requirement of WP:V, at least in terms of creating more comprehensive list articles, and that the parent wikiproject has already identified several gameguides as reliable sources by consensus, so gameguides are not inherently prohibited.
      • Opponents have responded that most of the content from gameguides would be unusable because it would violate WP:NOT.
    • I have stated that most entries are already just gameguide info, and that the argument is irrelevant as I'm not trying to say we should use all of that information, but only that it satisfies our Verifiability policies - as such, a compromise of creating expanded entries in a different format would be reasonable.

I would be interested to hear a response to this, some way that a third-party gameguide's coverage (such as Prima's) of Eevee is below the bar set by WP:V so that we should not have more than a few paragraphs on the subject. I would like to hear an argument for why we should take one extreme view over another, instead of trying to achieve a consensus, a not-perfect agreement that the greatest number of people can live with. This project used to have several dedicated contibutors (actual contributions beyond adding their name to the participants list) who decided they were done arguing with a group of people they felt acted unilaterally, and quit. If 50% of the people prefer option A and 50% prefer option C, then why shouldn't we go with option B which 75% of the people can be okay with if all three options are equally not-perfect? - ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting the list articles? Artichoker[talk] 15:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
well when i was talking about some sort of compromise i had meant both sides giving in a little... that's generally what that means - not taking an extreme measure either way. I, personally, find that avoiding any mention of the specific elements conflicts with wikiepdia's first pillar in attempting to be both a general and specialized encyclopedia. and given the repeated resistance this project has had with these lists, it would seem other editors and readers agree. we're all working here to try and make the encyclopedia better, and we all have our own interprations of what that means, so why don't we try to find something that the most number of people can be hasppy with. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 09:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but what needs to be done to the lists is provide real-world information. Almost all of the text in the lists is currently just in-universe information. The problem is, most Pokémon don't have any real-world info to use. What do you propose we do? Artichoker[talk] 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we allow more room for these articles in order to facilitate real-world information appearing. That we still keep most pokemon wrapped up in some type of list, but with a more comprehensive look covering their presence in the games, anime, manga, tcg, books, and non-pokemon media. At the very least we would be able to connect each pokemon to an actual date and time in the real world that they were introduced in each medium. Many, not all, pokemon have been featured heavily in the anime, and deserve at least a paragraph or two of plot description. By grouping the pokemon into evolutionary lines we can cover the real-world development of that line in a descriptive fashion (see an old lead to Eevee evolutionary line). I would love each and every pokemon to recieve enough attention that somoene out there says more about them than basic game info, but it's unlikely for most. That's why i don't think they deserve seperate articles, but as of now there is no context in these short list articles. - ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds interesting, and could possibly work. I'm up for giving it a shot. Artichoker[talk] 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm up for it too. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
as i suggested below, i think we should try an article (or two) in our project space, as a sandbox test. This will help to cement what should, and shouldn't, be included in these articles. We could go two ways with this, pick an example which we think will contain the least amount of encycolpedic information, or one we think could contain the most. IMO Shroomish would fit the former, and Jynx would fit the latter. More pages will look like the Shroomish article, and few will have the reception info of Jynx, but there should also be a few that will end up fitting in the middle. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Template?

OLD

NEW

Then we could revive Template:Pokemon media with this.

The old one is much too big. I have no idea why they merged it in the first place. Who thinks we should split them? --Blake (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree to splitting them. The old one does appear to be extremely cluttered. Artichoker[talk] 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It was originally merged because there were several templates that all repeated the same information. That said, I like the way you have split them up so I support it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
As I stated at Template talk:Pokémon#New template?, there is no good reason to re-split the navbox like that. It needs some further cleanup, which I will eventually do after some thought (in order to figure out the best way to compress the entries into a shorter box), but splitting the navbox would only hurt it in terms of its purpose - as an interarticle navigational aid. In cases where there are several navboxes, they default to collapsed, which takes care of any percieved length issue, and I can quite easily set it up so that it can be collapsed on a case-by-case basis, or even default to collapsed, regardless of the number of other navboxes on the page. Splitting the template will only result in it being re-merged. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it will result in the templates being remerged, as do three others apparently. The problem before was that there were three or four different templates that contained all of the same information, just in a slightly different order. There was no reason for that, and since it was all the same content we merged the templates together. That isn't the case with this proposal. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Three others? Besides you and myself, only Blake (who proposed this split in the first place) and Artichoker have commented at all. There are no problems with the current template that some cleanup wouldn't fix (which, as I already stated, I intend to do), and the proposed split only creates new ones. It is a step backwards, for more reasons than just adding another template (for instance, section links, of which there are several in the proposed templates, are generally discouraged in navboxes for a variety of reasons). I'm not commenting on the original merge (I don't have the faintest clue what bearing it has on this discussion), but for the record, that merge was fine, and personally, merging navboxes for the same series/franchise is one of the first things I do when cleaning them up. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters

Who agrees with me here in saying that Red from the Games and Manga are the same person; Blue from the Games, Manga, and Gary from the anime are the same person; and so on, that they are just in different universes so they are somewhat different? They should all be in the same article, right? Red and Gold have their articles merged. Shouldnt Gary? --Blake (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree per my comments on the linked page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Revive some Pokemon articles?

Some of the articles were really good, including Torchic, which was once a Featured Article. [5]

I think we should consider reverting some of the articles back. --Blake (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the only information that anybody has found for the vast majority of these articles is in-universe information. We need far more than that. The old Bulbasaur and Torchic FAs were travesties. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read Wikipedia:Featured article review/Torchic/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bulbasaur/archive2, and consider how you woudl deal with the problems discussed there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess you have a point. But how are they going to be improved if they dont exist in the first place? Hmm?? --Blake (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You have to find real world out-of-universe information about them from reliable sources. We've all looked, trust me. The trouble is, the majority of anything that's found only ever seems to deal with Pikachu, though we've had a little bit of luck with Mewtwo and Mew in the past (though not enough, IMO). MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The current solution sucks. Right now, we're patiently waiting for someone to come up with some new solution, that solves the problems discussed there in an elegant way.
It's not a new problem, or one limited to Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This kind of goes back to my above suggestion of revisiting a merge-by-evolution track. This format would provide that needed starting off point for articles to be improved upon. blake, take a look at WP:POKE/Layout and an example to see if this is something you feel could provide enough space in order to start an article that could later be improved. It seems that artichoker and melicans are warming up to the idea, so why don't we pick an example line to build and play with here in the project space. That way when we go "live" with the idea, there won't be the confusion and stuttering that there was last time. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How would merging the info from the old Ivysaur and Venusaur article into Bulbasaur meaningfully improve that article?
We already have exceptional cases to try and improve into excellent articles to show that something can be done with the others: Bulbasaur and Mewtwo. To date, such improvement has yet to happen. I don't see how shifting the rocks into different-sized piles is going to make it easier to grow flowers in rubble. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
in response to your third statement, and to play along with your metaphor, it's foolish to think that anything will grow without enough room in the first place - what we've done instead is say that one must pull a sapling out of their ass before we deem it worthy to be planted in the yard. instead we should be allowing some way for editors to grow it from a seed in the first place, you shove it in a box and you won't get anywhere. wikipedia is not done, and inclusion is merited on the potential for sources along with actual current sources. Take, for example, the obviously contentious interview conducted by a main contributor to pokebeach. In it he asked Masamitsu Hidaka about why the GS ball was dropped from the anime.[6] the simple fact that an actual person asked this question and got the info means there is definitly the potential for that information being found, one day, in a reliable source which in turn means it is not unreasonable to at the very least describe the GS ball's role in the anime and games. apply that to individual pokemon. Currently there really does not exist a reliable-source equivalent to the strategy books employed at game-related articles like Poker strategy and Chess opening, but that doesn't mean there never will be. The level of complexity is arguably similar, or at least somewhere between the two, again the potential for these sources exists and (slowly, rudimentally) game strategy has begun to be introduced in the guidebooks. AMIB, you're in a hurry and you don't need to be. - ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
oops, forgot to reply to your first question (i happened to find your second statement hard to follow, perhaps u could rephrase it?). I am not suggesting we merge the old info from Ivysaur and Venusaur into Bulbasaur in order to improve it, i am suggesting we merge some info from those two into Bulbasaur evolutionary line along with an approximate copy/paste of the lead from Bulbasaur as a summary per WP:SS. The aim is to improve Ivysaur and Venusaur. refresh yourself with WP:POKE/Layout and i'll try to clear up any other questions. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Shifting Bulbasaur to Bulbasaur evolutionary line wouldn't improve it. You want to turn about 5 bad articles into about 150-ish bad articles. I'm familiar with the old layout proposal, and it was a bad idea then. Time has not improved it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
i did not propose to shift the Bulbasaur article to Bulbasaur evolutionary line, unless it was deemed to not deserve it's own article - which is another discussion, and your continued misunderstandings lead me to beleive that you are not still familiar with the old proposal. Let's hypothesize, though, that we do agree Bulbasaur should not have it's own article. Under the current system it would be merged back into the list, cut down to a paragraph of Dex info and, in this rare case, a paragraph of reception info. How this is to grow into anything resembling a good article is beyond anyone's guess - again we are forcing editors to dump a load of information all at once into the pot in order to produce an article. Instead, we could merge it into a list that firstly is not grouped based on an arbitrary number, but on demonstratable and verifiable connnections (which i think if you took only that under consideration, you would find it is a better solution), and secondly offers enough breathing room to include encyclopedic info like the pokemon's roles in the four different medium it's presented in. To be fair, the Bulbasaur in Pokemon Red is not the same Bulbasaur in the anime, and it is not the same Bulbasaur in the manga, nor the TCG - we don't need pages of prose, but a few sentences on each is really required in order to give the reader an accurate impression of what a Baulbasaur is. I know you've never liked these types of lists, but if you feel they are equally-bad and we are just rearranging the same stock of crap, then I don't see how, in the spirit of compromise, you can seriously object to trying it out as we are not making wikipedia any worse, and there are people now, and in the past, who think it just might make wikipedia better. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. You're proposing we leave Bulbasaur alone and also create Bulbasaur evolutionary line. Okay. If you can't improve Bulbasaur, what makes you think Bulbasaur evolutionary line is going to be any easier? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
i think that the merging of Bulbasaur is a seperate discussion, and I've already stated what i think the merits are of this approach. however, you have failed to respond to my question of if you don't feel one is inherently worse than the other why you cannot compromise on trying this strategy out, if not for the sake of at least grouping the "main articles" into a less arbitrary format. you and i have different predictions on how this will ultimately play out - we could argue till the cows come home but we won't have any proof unless we at least give it a shot, can't i at the very least appeal to the idea of proving me wrong? -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why would Bulbasaur evolutionary line be more likely to be improved than Bulbasaur? (This is the argument that scuttled the evo line proposal way back when, and it's still unanswered.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised Brawl hasn't been mentioned. Regardless, Bulbasaur could just be expanded to include any reliable secondary sources which discuss Ivysaur and Venusaur, the former which likely has something (I was able to find some discussion of Lucas in Brawl, though he actually had a major role in the SSE, and as such, has more to comment on). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
retro hippie - i'll cut amib to the punch and respond that if you have a reliable secondary source which discusses Ivysaur and venusaur, then go ahead and add it (the fact is that there really does not exist much - but my arguement has always been that there is potential).
re to amib - I am saying that Bulbasaur evolutionary line#Venusaur is more likely to get improved than List of Pokémon (1–20)#Venusaur. I believe that these lists are too restrictive and prevent editors from being able to provide adequate description fitting to a character that is represented differently in each of it's four main medium and the relavant context to have it make sense to laypeople and be described out of universe. heck, in over a year no one has been able to add an image of Jynx to her list entry - and if any pokemon image could be used under fair-use it would be that one. This is an example of what i'm talking about when i say that the space we've given these subjects is too small to be expected to actually grow into anything decent. We are either stuck with a short crappy entry or one has to magically jump to a full article - there is no ability to have something in between. Another point for you would be that these articles would potentially provide a space that major contributors to articles like Bulbasaur and Mewtwo]] could put their articles if it was agreed that they don't quite meet justification for full-article status. There is so much resistance because, very likely, a lot of verifiable relevant information would be deleted to make it "fit" back in the old list. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Having read all of the comments and responses so far, it seems to me that the issue is one of which format is more likely to provide the potential for improvement in the articles. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck in discussion over this, with neither side seemingly explaining their rationale adequately enough to convince the other. So I have to ask straight: without getting bogged down by unclear responses, which format (List of 20 species or evolutionary line) do you feel would best encourage editing and improvement?
My concerns are that with the former it may seem too bothersome to edit, and with the latter what do we do for species like Tauros, Lapras, and Smeargle? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
like i've offered before, we could go smallscale and experimental with this, i already created two pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Jynx evolutionary line and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Shroomish evolutionary line one has a subject which has been the subject of multiple third-party criticisms, and the other would be representative of a large portion of the articles created. for non-evolving pokemon, the short answer is: they are left in lists. Other options have been presented and you can view the discussions at WT:POKE/Layout#About those Pokemon that don't evolve... and the older discussions on the main proposal page. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
For one, I think we should avoid making extra articles - if we do evolutionary lines, it'll just be many articles lacking in notability. We should just make articles about stuff like Jynx and Abra, and discuss all their forms. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
sorry, what do you mean by "extra articles"? -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm a little sick, so I may not be clear - is your proposal that we should make species article for every species? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
have you read WP:POKE/Layout? the details are extensive and i don't want to sidetrack this discussion. if you have any specific questions b/c things are unclear, put them in a new topic here, at WT:POKE/Layout, or on my talk page. If you have suggestions for improvements other than rewordings, we should discuss them in this thread. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"what we've done instead is say that one must pull a sapling out of their ass before we deem it worthy to be planted in the yard. instead we should be allowing some way for editors to grow it from a seed in the first place, you shove it in a box and you won't get anywhere. wikipedia is not done"

WOW. That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Nobody is going to go and research info for hours just to make one page. The point of Wikipedia is that everybody adds a little to the article and eventualy it becomes very complete. Removing the pages just because its "Not good enough" is blocking us from making a great article. --Blake (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Should I upload pics of all the pokemon and give them all theyre own pages,showing theyre place in the anime, gamesetc.I have the time PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, definitely not. Not every Pokémon is notable enough to warrant its own article. I recommend you scroll up a bit and read the "Revive some Pokemon articles?" section of this talk page. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
also, if it is ever decided to upload a large number of pokemon pictures, i would suggest contacting me on my talk page first as i already have them all saved on my computer at the proper resolution, with transparency, and appropriate filenames - additionally, i have a program which facilitates uploading a large number of images at once with completed descriptions and unless someone is already in the same state of readiness i would hate for anyone to spend such a large amount of wasted time on perfoming these tasks manually. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Forget it.

All you people wanting Pokemon to have separate aricles, just forget it. The people of Wikipedia are too stubborn to let Wikipedia have any decent arcitles on Pokemon. You will never change their minds. If you want Pokemon info, go to Bulbapedia. Working on Pokemon articles here is a waste of time. --Blake (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! They just keep merging and merging articles. If there was no refute they'd be like 6 articles total. All the video games as one on the basis that 'they're not different enough to merit their own articles', all the characters as one 'they're not different enough nor popular enough to merit their own articles', and well.... i think you get where i'm going. I just think it's a horrible idea that platinum and stuff havn't even got there own article. As a wikiproject we need to protect these articles. Some deserved to be merged, but merging are occuring when they shouldn't be. This needs to be stopped. Plus bulbapedia annoys me sometimes. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That is true - the notion that articles with no assertion of notability getting merged means that notable games will be merged by the "stubborn people". Hard work = results. I made an article about the SMB theme that worked out just fine because I did the work, and no one merged it! Whodathunkit? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Pokémon_Diamond_and_Pearl#Why_am_I_being_redirected.3F—Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it turns out, that's not an individual game, it's another version of DP. Way to link to a discussion that involves you never saying why it needs to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, Bulbapedia has lots of information that will never be on Wikipedia. It just doesnt make sence to do anything over here, since that information is "not needed" in Wikipedia, and Bulbapedia is more like a "Game guide" which is EXACTLY what people will be looking for. They want in depth information about the Pokemon, like when it learns moves and when it evolves. Not just a summary of what it looks like, and how it acts. I dont think 1% of people will find what there are looking for here, no offence. It cant be helped at all. --Blake (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're commenting on this talk page as opposed to editing your lauded Bulbapedia? Not to be rude, but since a Bulbapediaesque format is what "people will be looking for" why aren't you contributing over there as opposed to arguing over here. If people want in-depth information on Pokémon, then of course they should consult that niche-wiki. Artichoker[talk] 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

I've nominated it for FA.You can support it here. Come on guys, lets get this enough support to make this FA,then it will make making other pokemon articles a lot easier because people we'll see what we are doing and understnd it. TO FA! -Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya know .It seems that leftorium hates pokemon and is coming here to ruin our articles and project.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Now that you mention it, I really hate Pokémon. Stupid me, I shouldn't have brought "Dennō Senshi Porygon" and "Pokémon, I Choose You!" up to Good Article status! (Oh, and by the way, I was being sarcastic!) TheLeftorium 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, im just saying, you not a part of this project and, every picture i upload u delete (or try).Earlier today, I uploaded a torchic pic from somebody who released it into public domain and you tryed to delete it!I even mentioned that in the desscription.-Plus, whos cares about the anime anyway!?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me.. Not part of the project? I've been a member of the project for twice as long as you have. That image is clearly not in the public domain as it is owned by Nintendo or whoever makes the anime (read more about copyrighted images here). —TheLeftorium 15:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ive never seen you in the active participants list? If I could see that that wouldnt be a problem.Also soryy I lashed out at you I got angry and took it out on you excuse watever i said please,except for the fact that i HAVE helped with bulbasaur.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not on that list because I forgot to add myself ages ago. Anyway, I think its great that you're editing Pokémon articles, and I hope you understand that I'm not trying to "be mean" to you. I'm just following what the policies says. —TheLeftorium 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok guys, im taking the nomination off-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeath 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yah, Bulbasaur was nowhere near being FA status. Im not even sure it could be a Good article yet. --Blake (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_22&oldid=1249259055"