Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Active members

The List of Active/Inactive members on the WikiProject is pretty outdated; if nobody has any objections, I'd like to send a message to all the members listed as Active to see if they would like to remain so. If not (or there's no response), they should probably be moved to Inactive. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, dude, you alreadyy know about me, right--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, sure. It would be sad to only have like 10 people on the list, but after the Pokemon got merged I guess alot of people left. I think a roll call is in order. --Blake (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, too. I suggest we send a notice to everyone listed (both "Active" and "Inactive"). Here's a draft with my proposed details:

IMPORTANT NOTICE to all members of WikiProject Pokémon:
Due to a decision reached on the Project's talk page, we will be updating WikiProject Pokémon's list of participants. To do this, all users listed as "Active" will be moved to the "Inactive" list sometime within the next few days. After this change has been made, anyone may add/re-add their name to the "Active" participants list. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

Well, what do you guys think? Anything we need to add or change? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 13:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I agree--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, should bring it to people's attention.

Now just don't put it on mine :P TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. I notice Useight sent out a similar message to several users in March 2008. Are you going to make this a regular thing? Perhaps annually or even quarterly, good idea for cleaning house. And I see no reason to send it to those of us on the “Inactive” list. If we were active again, we would most likely be following the Project page and particularly this discussion and already know what was going on. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone gonna act on this? --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite the bullet and hit up the talk pages later if the consensus is still there, although I'd like to hammer out some grammatical changes first: (italics are changes) ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

~~IMPORTANT~~ NOTICE to all members of WikiProject Pokémon:
Following a discussion ~~to a decision reached~~ on the Project's talk page, we will be updating WikiProject Pokémon's list of participants. To do this, all users currently listed as "Active" ~~will be~~ have been moved to the "Inactive" list; ~~sometime within the next few days. After~~after this change ~~has been made,~~ anyone may add/re-add their name to the "Active" participants list. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

Break

Done! I kept you lot off the Inactive list for obvious reasons. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Useight (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like old times - not...

By informing me of the WikiProject, MelicansMatkin drew my attention to the fact that several early members of the old Pokémon Collaborative Project who are now inactive have gone missing from the list of participants altogether.
I of all people don’t need to be informed of this Project - among other things, the current List of Pokémon is based on my work( building on table code by Smurrayinchester) following the Project’s decision to (re-)merge the lists by name and different numbering systems at the advent of sortable tables, and( with inspiration and input from other collaborators, of course) I created the system for sorting by evolution chains. I made the reference template we used on species articles pre-merge( which is archived so that you can pull individual references without having to write them out - provided you don’t abuse it by pulling, at random, titles which you have not actually used), and settled the debate on Blue’s name( at least until the English release of HG/SS, which I expect will either cement or change it permanently). If you go through the oldest archives of this discussion, you will also see plenty of input from me.
I have re-added myself and some of the notable users I remember, like Smurray, HC, Celestian, and ALttP, to the Inactive list, but it would be very nice if one of you newbies could honor the contributions of the old-timers by finding out where in the page’s history we went missing and putting us all in the list. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they themselves removed their own names from the list? Artichoker^[talk] 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't explain why WikidSmaht's name was removed. My gut feeling is that when the last message was sent out, those who didn't respond or who hadn't edited in several months were removed. Have to check to see what really happened. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that was the correct action. When the notice was sent out, those users who did not respond or who asked to be taken off the list should have been. This prevents the 'Inactive' list from becoming excessively long. Artichoker^[talk] 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don’t thinkthat is appropriate at all. What is ‘excessively long’? And what exactly is an ‘Inactive’ list FOR if not to denote members who don’t currently participate in the project but haven’t withdrawn from it? --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back, sort of. I just wanted to let you know that ALttP changed his name and is still active, just not very much in this project. --Blake (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really not back. This project is still working primarily in the direction that led to my drastically decreased activity, and my life offline is still busy. And yes, I noticed NARH. --20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Sinnoh gym leaders

I am about to do a overhaul of this list. Should I have the levels for their Pokémon? If so, how?

His Pokémon in the games are Pikachu (Lv. 20), Bulbasaur (Lv. 22)

Like that? (The current way they are listed.) Also, I am going to be at Summercamp next week, so I will be unavailable at that time. --Blake (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think including the Pokémons' levels violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just making sure. I will be sure to fix that. --Blake (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire article probably shouldn't exist. Everything is in-universe, with no third party sources to establish notability. A more appropriate venue for this article would probably be AfD. Artichoker^[talk] 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to merge all four articles into one and remove the infoboxes to make it look something like this... TheLeft orium 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's really nothing to salvage in the article. It's not bad, but without a support for notability you effectively have a list of barely present characters that amounts to squat. I agree with Artichoker, AfD may be a good option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is in-universe information bad? WP:in-universe just says dont tell things from a in-universe perspective. It doesnt nessesarily say that information is BAD. Gameguide information is bad. But articles have to be mostly in-universe information. Its almost impossible not to. Its a in-universe character. They wont have a Good Article with all in-universe information, but they can still be there. --Blake (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:FICT however state the necessity of third party material. The rules on Lists might be a little lax on that, but even lists need it to get anywhere on wikipedia. If the content's kept, it should be compiled into a larger list then. Otherwise just get rid of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does it need to "get anywhere on wikipedia"? That isnt the point of the article. The article's point is to tell people information about the character. In-universe information is what 95% of people are looking for. Anything extra is just trivia. I think the list should stay like it is, and maybe get to C-class at best. Wikipedia isnt about making all Featured articles. Its about giving information to readers. --Blake (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're not understanding. Wikipedia is not about "what 95% of the people are looking for". That's what wikias are for. The list couldn't get C-class because, up front, it fails notability and tells nothing about the character development or reception, just "this guy was here and here and here and NEXT!". Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic in tone regarding whatever subject they cover. As it stands you have a miscellaneous list that offers no real-world significance to readers and as a result would be deleted or merged if fed through a AfD. How do you think those massive pokemon lists came about in the first place? And even those are an eyesore!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia about then? Hmm? A research site for papers? Nobody wants to rely on wikipedia for anything like that. I dont get why we are putting this useless information nobody wants. What is the point? I think we have some very good articles on the characters in the making. Even better then Bulbapedia. I learn alot about the characters while I am making these pages. All you people want is useless triva. --Blake (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in response to your point a ways above, every article should theoretically have the potential to become featured. Even this can become something like this. It's the idea behind the Project, to make every page the best individual resource available on the subject. If C-class is the highest that can be aimed for, it probably doesn't deserve to be mentioned (and lets face it, C-class is really a pretty poor article state to begin with). I agree that the information on the list should remain in some mannor, but as it is it really can't remain. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

again, please point to me the guideline/policy that states, "the threshold for inclusion is whether the article has the potential to become featured" - this is a high bar that has no consensus support. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo.

Great job on that, KungFuMan. It's exactly the kind of article we should be looking to be build on and emulate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks great! Nice work! :) TheLeft orium 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice job. Its nice to have annother Pokémon article out there. I dont belive this was covered anywhere exept that small "glitches" section in one of the pages. --Blake (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo.'s passed GAN, giving us now ten good articles!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! TheLeft orium 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jynx (Pokémon)

Finished rewriting and expanding the critical reception section for Jynx. The entire three paragraphs under the first could fit under that section, with the rest of the article discussing the character's appearances and design, though the whole previous article that was used before should probably be mostly thrown out and started anew with this as the base. Any thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been noted many times that Jynx and Porygon are probably the only two Pokémon that don't currently have articles but could with the amount of press they've received in the past (I suppose Kadabra too, to a much lesser extent though). I like the information you've found and placed in Jynx, and I think your edits have ascertained its notability. I would like to see a preliminary draft in a subpage first, but I don't think I'd have any problems with it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work (again)! :) I agree with MelicansMatkin, the information you added makes it notable enough to have its own page. TheLeft orium 13:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started constructing a page at User:Bws2cool/Jynx. Feel free to tweek it some more. I am going to add Anime and Manga episode/chapter references later. So dont worry about those sections unless you want to make them. I havent done anything there yet. I will also find some game information. *goes back to researching Igor Stravinsky* --Blake (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference stating the episode "Kōri no Dōkutsu!"/"The Ice Cave!" was not shown as a result of Jynx? The article on episodes removed from circulation states this, but there's no reference. Could be helpful regarding Jynx's article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, but there's quite a bit of in-universe detail that probably could be done with cutting down on. Mostly in the "Appearances" section. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on that right now. By the way, nice job on the FR&LG article's development section!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I still need to rewrite and reference alot of the appearances section. I most of it from the old article and Bulbapedia. Bear with me. --Blake (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some goofball created a Mewthree page

Yet another non-notable Pokémon (is it even a Pokémon?) stub. I nominated it for deletion. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a Pokémon, it's a fan-made creation that has existed since the relationship between Mew and Mewtwo was established, and has appeared in hacked/fan-created games in numerous different iterations. The kind of articles some people make... MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone also made a A (Pokemon) page. *sigh* Its already been dealt with though. --Blake (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to the deletion page. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, this is an interesting one. Melee! Pokémon Scramble. Should we fix it up or throw it out? --Blake (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well given Scramble is legit, it should be worth fixing. Although I don't think it's ever going to graduate from being a stub until if an English version comes out. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 01:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Patroler's best friend?

I would like to introduce you to this. The "Related changes" page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/index. It tells you every edit made to an article linked from that page. I am 99% sure every important page is on there. It is very useful if you dont feel like watching every single Pokémon page. --Blake (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling a meeting, several suggestions on the table

Alright, going to brings these up to the table for all to see and discuss:

At the moment, proposing the merge of Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen into Pokémon Red and Blue. The reason I'm suggesting this is all the other game articles are at GA, and let's face it, FR&LG were not that far from R&B, about the same as The Final Fantasy Legend compared to it's WonderSwan facelift. With this done, once HeartGold and it's counterpart are covered in Pokémon Gold and Silver we can make an active push for them to become a Good Topic.
Suggesting the merge of Pokémon Pinball: Ruby and Sapphire into Pokémon Pinball. The resultant subject would be easier to cover, and be able to fall back on the references of both games. Since the second is more of a direct sequel to the first with only some changes, this would avoid repeating any development information found.
I don't know how well this would fly, but given Nintendo's tech support and automated tip line both refer to MissingNo. as a pokemon (the latter of which specifically stating it as "Pokemon #000") and we have an article now, would there be any objection to adding it to the related lists? Someone looking for information on it may hit those first, and we can easily emphasize it's appearance is exclusive to just the one game.

So...thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm for a merge of FireRed and LeafGreen into Red and Blue. The only major differences between the two are a slightly expanded plot, which could easily fit into a section, and other minute details (I assume the music has been remixed slightly?) I'll need to take a closer look at your second suggestion (been a while since I browsed those articles), but I have the feeling I'll support the Pinball: Ruby and Sapphire merge into Pinball as well; worth noting though that the two articles combine for a single reference (and no inline citations), so I don't know how we'd be able to fall back on that. By lists do you mean "List of Pokémon (1-20)" etc? If so I'm not quite sure where it would fit in, but I don't think it would work too well. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on that. For what it's worth, MissingNo. has been added to both Template:Pokémon and the list template. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm largely neutral on a merge. A quick read of FR/LG shows it to likely warrant it's own article, and we shouldn't take that away just for our own pride of a feature topic. However, there's a lot of flab to the FR/LG article, and most of it could probably be condensed into a much larger version on the Red/Blue page without too much loss. I'd probably err on the side of no merge. And as for the lists, I would oppose that addition. The lists are organizaed by Pokédex, of which MissingNo. isn't a part. Can you verify the tech support/tip line statements? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the tech support statement is citable here. As for the automated tip line, might be a bit harder to cite: basically it's a long distance call for their "Power Line" for most of us, then you have to go through the director with a touch tone phone (from start, 1-2-6-6-3). However both sources do refer to it as "Pokemon 000" (didn't notice until taking another look that the website did). It's also worth noting both sources never state MissingNo. isn't a Pokemon (and actually do the contrary), just repeat the "programming quirk" bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Score! I think they're covering their bases, though, and even refer to it as a glitch. Does the glitch register as Pokémon 000? Yes. Is it Pokémon 000? No. Programmers messed up while coding the game and, if for no other reason except not to rename the list 000-20, I think MNo would be better off as a "See Also." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)

I'm of two minds about merging FR/LG, and I'd be as inclined to merge it with Emerald or R/S. (What would we title such an article?) It's kind of iffy to merge games separated by so much time and so much difference in staff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be unheard of. Robotron: 2084 absorbed it's newer counterpart, and there was some more separating the two there. As for the title I don't see a reason why to change it. FR&LG are technically just re-releases for this purpose, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Mm. I think the umbrella topic here is "Game Boy Advance Pokémon games", not "Kanto Pokémon games." Does that makes sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. FR/LG are closer relatives of R/S than they are to R/B. Pokémon's core mechanic is battling, and FR/LG's battle system is identical to that of R/S. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the question is do we have enough stand-alone development information to support an article of GA quality. Atm we have...none.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

the threshold for an article is not "do we have enough info to make it a GA?" and on those grounds i strongly oppose merging games that only share a console and little else (FrLg & RSE), or merging rereleases with significantly altered plots, mechanics, and characters (FrLg & RBY). i'm neutral on combining the pokemon pinball games though. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(extra ranting, read if you want) look at how the rest of wikipedia works. when a book is written that has recieved attention from third party sources, it has its own article, even if there's not much else to say right now beyond a quick plot and regurgitation of said reviews - the article isn't merged into a Books written by John Johnnson article, and in fact those types of articles are actually used as lists for further article creation. You can look at other topics outside of fiction as well (Category:Chess openings, Category:Muroid rodents, etc.). Merging short articles just so we can have a pretty big one is counterproductive to improvement, and inconsistent with community-wide consensus (based on how a majority of articles across the project are handled) - this, in turn, is antithetical to the goals of wikipedia. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The goals of Wikipedia are to have an article page for every thing? Merging short articles to a parent article on a larger subject that includes the smaller subject is as old as merging, and is frequently done at the stage of writing where we're moving from Start-B to GA-FA. I'm not necessarily convinced that this should be merged or where, but the larger philosophical argument you're raising is invalid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I apologize for reaching this discussion tardy. Now, to respond to each of your points, KfM, firstly I am in agreement with merging FR/LG. I have looked for development info for the games, but there doesn't appear to be much out there. Perhaps ZapperNapper could try some digging, since he appears to want the article. As for the merge target, I am strong in favor of R/B, as that is what the game is based on. To put it simply, FR/LG are enhanced remakes of Red and Blue. If a remade game is merged, it's not merged into the last game of the series, it is merged into the original game article. Contextually, it would make little sense to merge FR/LG into R/S, as they a two completely unrelated games, besides being released more closely together. Also, I agree with the Pinball merge, although I admit I have not looked as closely into the matter. Finally, for Missingno., I am not sure if Nintendo really recognizes it as Poke^{sorry, on a laptop}mon 000, however, I am fine either way. Artichoker^[talk] 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with the merging of FR/LG into RBY. Sure, the FR/LG article isn't of the same standards as the other games and probably wouldn't become a GA at any rate, but the subject matter itself is notable enough for it to have an article. Like someone above said, the criteria for the games having their own articles shouldn't be on whether they can be a good article or not, it should be based on whether they have genuine notability, which judging by the references on FR/LG, it has.

While we're here, I want to throw another suggestion onto the table: For the third version games that have been merged into their respective parent articles, that we at least add the box art. We don't need to add a full vginfobox for each, since they're likely to be very similar to their parents, but it's quite hard to pick out the third version section from the rest with the lack of a logo. And yes, I have read countless times about the whole non-free issue, so don't bother citing that, but the use of the boxart to convey the meaning of the section would be beneficial rather than detrimental. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to toss in, but saying "the article should exist because it passes WP:N" is a wrong approach. If the article can't have enough material to pass GA on its own then it should be merged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, hold up a second...

the threshold for an article is not "do we have enough info to make it a GA?" and on those grounds i strongly oppose merging [certain topics]. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[S]aying "the article should exist because it passes WP:N" is a wrong approach. If the article can't have enough material to pass GA on its own then it should be merged.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously these are not only opposing points of view but mutually exclusive standards. More than likely one or the other is supported by official Wikipedia policy. Anyone care to check on which, and link the relevant policy? No point in continuing the discussion until this is cleared up. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the very first line of WP:N: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article.". It passes it, therefore it has a reason to have its own article. Also: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles". Therefore, although the subject matter may not be of GA-standard, it's not a valid reason to remove the right FR/LG have to a separate article. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I could probably reference content forking in this argument but I won't even bother. You're arguing that somehow this discussion is about removing an article's right to exist, but the debate is instead "if we pushed for Good Topic for the the games, what would we do about FR&LG?" Articles absorbing newer versions of themselves are not uncommon: Pokemon Red & Blue absorbed Yellow and others, the Asteroids article absorbed it's sequels, and so did Robotron: 2084. Nobody argued anywhere if these articles should exist, just what would be the better outcome, which is why this is a discussion.

If you fervently want to keep the article, please improve it. That's common sense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I second KfM here. Surely FR/LG could be its own article, as it indeed does pass the notability guideline. But so could Yellow, I believe. The question is not whether it could, but rather should it remain in a separate article. The onus is on everyone who wants the article to remain separate to find relevant development info and sourcing. Otherwise the article will never reach GA, and we're better off just merging it. Just because the article is merged doesn't mean information has to be left out. So unless we can find some good sources, I'm all for the merge, rather than letting the FR/LG article languish in disrepair indefinitely. Artichoker^[talk] 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether an article has enough information to become a GA has no bearing on whether it should exist. Articles are built over time, and the "Class" system exists for a reason. There are dozens of article at Start-class (which FR/LG is); the quality of information in the article has no bearing on how notable the subject is, it just means that there has been little building of the actual article. Whether FR/LG could ever become a GA or not is irrelevant in my support of a merge. It could stand as it's own article, but there are so many similarities to R/B that it is simply more sensical to merge. When you take out the information that is the same between the two, you are reduced to very little workable information at the moment. And that's not to say that the article has to be merged forever. If enough information becomes available regarding the specific development process of the remakes that there are enough differences between the two, a stand-alone article can be easily reestablished. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

it is nice to think that the merge process is always so nice to information in articles, but (especially in TTN-merged articles) i have seen encyclopedic information repeatedly tossed out. I don't philisophically believe that merging articles is generally good for the encyclopedia because it inhibits growth, and with the FrLg article on it's own it has a better chance of getting improved and expanded.

Melicans - you stated, "When you take out the information that is the same between [FrLg and RBY], you are reduced to very little workable information...", comparing the articles i see only two paragraphs in the Synopsis section of Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen that is repeated information.

AMIB - yes, every verifiable topic should first be considered as it's own article. only in certain cases should merges happen, take a look at the guidance at WP:MERGE on this.

merging FrLg is a bad idea based on wording at WP:V, WP:N, and WP:MERGE. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"There are several good reasons to merge a page:" "#2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe."

¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From WP:MERGE:

"Merging should be not be considered if... [t]he topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short"

Again threshold for inclusion is notability, and you can't only apply that policy when it suits you. The example for "Overlap" was having two seperate articles on Flammable and Non-flammable - which should be merged into Flammability because they are closely related concepts which cannot be discussed without considering the existence of the other. FireRed and LeafGreen cannot be discussed without eachother, but can certainly be considered without discussion of previous games (despite the fact that comparisons are used for added usefulness). To define "a large overlap" as merely being highly similar subjects with the same origins we should merge Lemon and Lime to be sections in Citrus - both articles are relatively short and would fit nicely as part of the parent article. They are both fruits with low pH, grown from trees, and orginated in the same geographical area.
And to those who say the onus is on me to improve all potential merges which satisfy WP:V i respond that Wikipidia has no time limit. If i didn't feel that there was some Big Brother sitting the background about to go around hacking and slashing articles at their whimsy, i would be more inclined to contribute to pokemon content. But too much information was lost in the earlier merge-sprees that i feel like it's pointless until this project sees value in having specialized encyclopedias again. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to be blunt: nobody here is arguing that there's some great and all knowing policy saying one way or another. Wikipedia wouldn't use a policy to strongarm projects from merging articles if they feel the end result is better. I could even sit here and start tossing out the names of games that have been merged into their original counterparts like Final Fantasy III and so forth that had greater differences than this game. But that's a moot point. Proposing to merge a lame duck article into it's parent is totally within a project's jurisdiction to move forward. And for all your complaining I don't see you working to improve the article. In fact since this started it really hasn't improved at all, and searching around hasn't produced that much development info on my part other than why Green was selected over Blue.

Since there seems to be consensus of being neutral or in favor of the merge and R&B already has a mostly complete section on FR&LG, I propose to everyone that we just go ahead and salvage whatever details need to be, do some quick tidying, and make an active push for Good Topic for the games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I concur with KfM, and am ready to boldly merge FR/LG into R/B. Unless, of course, ZapperNapper is actually willing to do work on the article and see if GA can be achieved, as opposed to simply arguing non-points here. Artichoker^[talk] 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

*out of breath* You know how hard it is to find good sourced info on the devlopment of FR/LG, given that they were made a good few years ago? Anyway, development section now has something in it. Anyone want to re-assess? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, I think everyone appreciates this. I've cleaned it up a little, and perhaps the article can remain after all. (also is there any chance you could find a source for the fact tag?) Artichoker^[talk] 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that bit was covered in ref 15, but I think I might have added it out of knowing what is actually in the game. Found a decent source for it. I just wonder if there's more info out there...? TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Unless, of course, ZapperNapper is actually willing to do work on the article and see if GA can be achieved, as opposed to simply arguing non-points here." - yes, because the mechansim for improvement should always be "Improve it now, or we'll merge it." I have worked on articles for this project before, and all that time and energy was wasted because some new cowboy rides into town and decides we need to merge everything. i find it funny how you are only willing to accept the legitimacy of a seperate article once it's met a certain threshold of content, as opposed to judging the merits of its potential content. By your logic, we shouldn't have stubs. Crafting a GA-ready article is a time consuming process and until the mentality of this project, which often owns the articles in its scope, changes - i'm disinclined to spend that time. i would rather try to encourage change at the project level. i would like to be able to work on an incomplete article collaboratively within the mainspace without having a referee blowing their whistle and telling me that i have X amount of time to meet their standards or else i get to watch all that hard work disappear into the histories, because the merges here are often a merging of the lead and chucking of everything else. but perhaps you are right and i should be like some other editors here, toiling away alone in my sandbox on full articles and then submitting them to the high council here for approval. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what you said before really blew me away. It just hit the head on the nail of what I was trying to say.--Blake (talk) 02:51, 24 June 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"

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species hasnt been used in over 2 years. It was discussed that it was going to be nominated for deletion but nothing ever happened. Care to come and say your thoughts? Delete, hisorical/inactive tag, or revive? --Blake (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just revived the project sort of. I rewrote it to follow things happening today instead of 2 years ago. --Blake (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

UBX

Hello everyone. Do you guys think it's time to change up our userbox's colours? I do! I don't know if anyone noticed, but last month a new user altered the colours (see here), but I reverted the change because it wasn't discussed here first. I liked those colours, except that the text was difficult to read. How about this:

This user is a member of WikiProject Pokémon.

Thoughts? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 15:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't we have both? :) TheLeft orium 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the colors appear a bit incongruous. =P Artichoker^[talk] 15:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Surely you're not making light of this debate... are you? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Who? Me? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the current colors, they do give the look of the original game without hurting the eyes. If it ain't broke...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I too like the current userbox. These colors are too bright. --Blake (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, 'twas aimed at Artichoker. I usually try and use the indents to indicate who I'm discussing with. In all honesty, I don't mind either way, but the old faded pink one looks better against white userpages, imho. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my point. I think the original colors (which I think I might have even implemented) are better. Certainly Parkinson's Law of Triviality is irrelevant in this sense as the sole thing we are discussing is color. We aren't making a bikeshed. =P Artichoker^[talk] 22:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't guess there's any harm in me using the red and blue userbox on my userpage, is there? I can just copy the wiki-markup directly to my page, right? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But of course. It's your userpage, you do what you want with it_{within reason}. Artichoker^[talk] 00:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did it! Although I swapped the colors because they made the userbox look too similar to this one. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

New trio of Mystery Dungeon games

Hello everyone. Nintendo just announced three new Pokémon Mystery Dungeon games for WiiWare. The article (at least the one I'm aware of) is here, but it doesn't have an appropriate title and there's virtually no information available yet, so what should we do with it? If HG/SS don't get their own page then these definitely don't, but where to merge them (there is no Pokémon Mystery Dungeon series page)? And why do I discover these new games in the middle of the night when nobody else is on Wiki? Hmm... -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to merge them with List of Pokémon video games. Any information available can be added to the Notes column. TheLeft orium 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done - Now I'm adding some redirects. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 11:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo image

There is a discussion going on at Talk:MissingNo.#File:Missingno-ny.png regarding whether an image there meets fair-use criteria or could be replaced by text. Input from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

List overhaul

Can I get your imput? --Blake (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at Mew (Pokémon)

Could someone please revert this nonsensical edit? See my rationale here. If you agree with me, I would greatly appreciate it if you could revert it to the correct version. Artichoker^[talk] 01:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but I wouldn't know what to say and don't want to get in an argument I didn't start. --Blake (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply an edit summary like: "rv per rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sesshomaru&diff=299422083&oldid=299230152" will do. You don't have to be in the "argument", you're simply reverting a nonsensical edit. Artichoker^[talk] 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right about it as it follows both convention and basic English grammar, but posting it here was probably not the greatest idea; if Sesshomaru (or however it is spelt) does indeed take it to 3RR, it could be seen as trying to involve other people in edit-war which would probably not be the best impression that could be made. Since the note on the talk page seems to have failed, perhaps just posting on Talk:Mew (Pokémon) and then inviting the user to comment there instead would have worked better, since more of us would have been better able to join in the "discussion" after seeing a viable outlet open up on the talk page (edit summaries are no way to go). I will revert the changes if I see them since it's basic grammar, but I do think posting here may make an admin less... sympathetic (for lack of a better word) if it should go to 3RR. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, it won't go to 3rr; simply because I did not violate 3rr and do not intend to. Besides, if this is the type of attitude he is going to take towards it (i.e. not responding to a direct prompt) then I consider the case closed. Unless he decides to be belligerent. But thanks for your concern and support. You too Blake. Artichoker^[talk] 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion opened here. And while I understand you have not made four reverts of this in the last 24 hours, do note that WP:3RR itself states 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring that have not violated 3RR. If Sesshomaru does decide to report you, there can be consequences even if 3RR has not been broken. I know that his conduct is not exactly exemplary, but there is something to be said for setting an example by partaking in the discussion I've opened. If Sesshomaru does not choose to, you cannot be blamed for not attempting a proper dialogue. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented there. Artichoker^[talk] 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Yes I understand that too, but seeing as after his warning I haven't touched the disputed article, wouldn't any report then be considered stale? Artichoker^[talk] 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(E.C. with below): It would, but any reversion made by Sesshomaru could also be reported for the same reason; if he has warned you, and he has partaken in as many edits today as you, it shows that he is aware of the policy and deliberately not following it. Additionally, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Blake could be reported too if he were to make a second reversion, despite it being only one edit after the first reversion, because it could be seen as a deliberate attempt to edit-war by an admin if they choose to look into the situation. I just don't want to see any of the WikiProject warned or blocked, however temporarily it may be, which is why I've tried to open this discussion. Sesshomaru has been notified, whether he responds or not is up to him. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) Needless to say, this was a somewhat stressful night for me. I may have acted slightly more edgy that usual, however I believe I remained within the boundaries of acceptable editing. Anyways, thank you Sesu, Melicans, and Blake for your support; I'm going to get so rest. Don't let anything burn down while I'm gone :) Night, Artichoker^[talk] 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond what our small group of editors think, but where to inquire? And nobody mentioned this yet, so I'll point out that WP:MOSTITLE don't specify how a media franchise should be handled. -sesuPRIME 04:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has indicated an unwillingness to continue the matter and so it would seem that this issue is now moot. In regards to your point, I think an inquiry at the WP:Guild of Copyeditors, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles), or even just Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style may be the places to find out; Wikipedia has so many different places, it's difficult to think of which would be most appropriate. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted the question at WT:MOS#Italicize a media franchise?. -sesuPRIME 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling another meeting: progress has been made

Pokémon (video game series)

6 articles

Pokémon Red and Blue

Pokémon Gold and Silver

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Well I'm happy to say that the whole issue of what to do with Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen has been thoroughly put behind us. The article was just promoted to Good Article status, which brings us one step closer to a Good Topic. However, one final hurdle remains: Pokémon (video game series), and this one will probably be our toughest project yet, simply because the article is so large and needs to be comprehensive. Any thoughts on this? Oh, and on a related note, am I the only one who thinks Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen is pretty damn close to FA? It appears to be our most comprehensive and best quality article out of all the games, so I was thinking maybe taking it to FAC in the near future. What do you guys think? Artichoker^[talk] 20:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From very nearly being merged to becoming a GA (and close to an FA; I agree with you on that) in so short a time. Gotta say I'm impressed, and congrats to all those who made it so. I haven't taken a thorough look at the video game series page recently, but I think that if every member here contributes toward it when a decision on how to structure and clean it is made, it will hopefully not be too much trouble. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice work Artichoker and the rest. However, I think this would be the correct topic: TheLeft orium 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

List of main Pokémon video games

6 articles

Pokémon Red and Blue

Pokémon Gold and Silver

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

Well heh, it certainly would be easier to get List of Pokémon video games to FL status than Pokémon (video game series) to GA. Artichoker^[talk] 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have to remove the "Games for PC" then you can. Nobody is going to search for those. They are mainly things that came out 5-10 years ago. Half of the PC titles probably aren't even there. --Blake (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you would make the list incomplete just for the sake of an FL? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, most likely not all of them are there as it is, and they arent very notable. A greeting card maker and random mini-games. The list would be better without them in my opinion, but if you dont think so, they can stay. They are just an eyesore. --Blake (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) So, have we decided whether we are going to use Pokémon (video game series) or List of Pokémon video games for our Good Topic? And furthermore, does anyone see any glaring concerns with Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen? If not, I'll probably be taking it to FAC in the short future. Artichoker^[talk] 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that "List" would work better; it's really the same basic information, but it seems to be worded better. No concerns with FR/LG either. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Pinball

The issue was brought up of merging it, but with all the talk about FRLG being merged and improved, Pinball got forgotten. I merged the pages here, but it still needs fixing up. --Blake (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Project Space Articles.

What do you think about making updated Pokémon species articles in the Project space.

Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species/Lucario or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Lucario

Or, making them on the actual pages with the redirect still on the top of the page. So, they will still redirect, but anybody that wants to help can click back and edit the article. I dont like having these articles in our userspace, and I would like to see what current, updated species articles would look like. Then they can work from there. I just want to know where we can put these articles legally. --Blake (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I found some articles like "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Shroomish evolutionary line" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Jynx evolutionary line". What should we do with these? --Blake (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

those are leftover from when i had suggested we try out the group articles and i had wanted people to see what they could look like, and offer a place for the project to work collaboratively on them, as putting them in the mainspace would have been contentious. No one else seemed interested in working on them, so, meh, i don't really care i guess. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved my articles to the project space and made this directory to try and keep track of articles made there. Including templates, project pages, etc. --Blake (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon Species Progress Report

Charizard - Needs small fixes
Lucario - Needs something to throw in "Cultural Impact"
Squirtle - "Concept and Characteristics", "Cultural impact"
Torchic - Overall fixes, references, etc.
Mudkip - Just started this the other day. Havent had a change to do much to it.

So, what do you think? Charizard is about ready to get out there. Lucario is awesome, but needs something in "Cultural Impact". I also need to give him manga references. I really need to fix up Squirtle, but havent had much of a chance. Torchic is pretty good, but needs to be fixed up and given Anime/Manga references. Mudkip was just a random thought. I was thinking there might be something on him due to his meme. I am going to fix him up now and see if he has some possibilities. --Blake (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip actually sounds like a good idea. Not sure about the others, though. The leftorium 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucario I made because hes my favorite Pokémon, and I turned this into what you see now. I am just waiting for a miracle so I can fill up the Critical Reception. I forget why I started Squirtle. It only has 2 appearances which dont have references. Torchic just has alot about Merchandising. --Blake (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

groans* I was editing Mudkip and the whole page froze. --Blake (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say I don't think Torchic has much chance, of all of those it's got the weakest shot. For the most part interest in Pokemon in literary and scholastic studies died off gradually with generation II and beyond. I keep thinking it might be good to make a "Starter Pokémon" article for all of the starters, so the starters could be covered significantly with spinoffs to Bulbasaur, Pikachu and later Charizard noted...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a "Starter Pokémon" and "Legendary Pokémon" and just be done with it. Although it might be hard to find things for certain legendarys. What do you have in mind for the Starter article? 4 evolution lines or each 12 Pokémon? --Blake (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that we are on a roll...

How about this one? I know its not good to go as it is, but I moved my Charizard page into the Charmander evolution line and then deleted it. Then I decided to take it back out, and it didn't look quite the same. Want to help? This definitely has more critical reception then Blastoise. Dont mess with the manga section too much, as I still need to reference and cut it down. --Blake (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh...I'm going to say this: I think you're right that it could work as an article after doing a google search through books, though has some really light reception (even one book makes a quick mention about its resemblance to a European dragon), yet more solid than Bulbasaur. Kinda bothered by the fact we don't have any development information available though when all of the other Pokemon with pages do (at least on my subpage in the case of Jigglypuff). I'd say its a possibility for down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly has some merit as a possible article. Keep improving it, and we'll see. Certainly much more notable than Blastoise. Artichoker^[talk] 02:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I finished fixing the references for the Anime and Manga. I also fixed some other things. Hows it look? --Blake (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? How does it look? And what do you mean by "every page has development info"? All articles but Mewtwo and Mew have the same exact thing basicly. They all have the following pharagraph plus information about its name and concept. --Blake (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The design and art direction for foo were provided by Ken Sugimori,[6] a friend of the creator of the Pocket Monsters game, Satoshi Tajiri. The species first appeared in this game. In the early Pokémon video games, all Pokémon were portrayed by two-dimensional sprites, but in later releases appearance has been conveyed by 3D computer graphics. Throughout the games, foo has been portrayed with no spoken dialogue. In the series' anime, foo has facial expressions, body language, and speaks by repeating syllables of its name, using different pitches and tones.

Template:Pokebox

User:Zappernapper apparently cooked this up based off of the VG box and tried putting into effect on here, but there really doesn't look like there's been any discussion to it's usage. It's similar to the current box for sure but added a bunch of unneeded Pokedex listings that really won't mean much to people unfamiliar with the franchise, and locks some of the fields (a problem for Mew's article). Is it even needed?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I say drop it. I dont think all those Pokedex numbers are necessary. --Blake (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember where the discussion was located at, but the previous consensus was to use the VG box, as any Pokémon box would be too in-universe. I agree with your revert, KfM. Artichoker^[talk] 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, where did Pikachu's Johto Pokédex number come from? The GSC dex does list the Pokémon a unique order, but unlike the Hoenn and Sinnoh dexes, they aren't assigned new numbers from their National ones. Just curious. -sesuPRIME 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

no there was no discussion, i was being bold, and i don't see how a template that automatically inserts the paramters we are using anyways would make it "too in-universe". Please take a closer look at what the template is doing before making sweeping judgements. This template is using the VG box, only simplifying it. You'd think people would welcome an easier to use template.

for Mew, as the article is written, Sugimori had nothing to do with the design or creation so i don't know why he has to be included, unless for later artwork condierations, in which case, the creator parameter could be explicitly changed.

concerns about extra numbers being meaningless to laypeople are a little silly considering that the national numbers are essentially meaningless

as for johto pokedex numbers, i was going off the master List of Pokemon. If this is wrong we could always remove that.

it seems the main concern is with extra numbers, which i personally feel is interesting to represent so readers can see how the "pokedex" is not really static. If other editors disagree, then feel free to tweak {{pokebox}}, but the other features of the template justify it's usage. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still an extremely limited use template and not that necessary. It's not a bad idea but a more forceful or by-the-book-minded editor will probably end up pushing for it to get TfD'd for it's limited usage and similarity to an existing template. That actually happened with a lot of the mini templates the project used to have, didn't it?

...also why is Blastoise back? o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[1]: Only one third-party publication? I don't think that's enough to justify the article of a rather arbitrary Pokémon. Artichoker^[talk] 02:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so quick with your statements, ZapperNapper. As I suspected and remembered, the discussion did indeed take place here. The consensus was actually to use a Template:Infobox character as Pikachu is not just a video game character (in fact it is more popular for its television appearances.) I don't know how it got changed to the VG template, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to the character template as was the consensus. Artichoker^[talk] 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused, you have yet to say why auto-filling certain parameters is somehow "bad" and while your comments here support using {{infobox character}} you instead merely reverted back to the VG infobox with this edit. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

if this project is serious about using {{infobox character}} to represent it's characters in all their roles, they need to come up with a list of items for inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at {{infobox character}}, and it didn't have the parameters that were necessary so I used the VG template. Artichoker^[talk] 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you were unaware of how extensible that template can be (allowing up to 15 custom parameters). i've gone ahead and reinsituted {{pokebox}} which now calls the regular character-box. I think a case could be made that since pokemon characters represent a unique situation where they exist in multiple fictional formats, it is necessary to provide some amount of deviation from normal templates - and possible without getting into trivial information. I have removed the additional numbering systems for now, and the parameters display actor/creator/etc. verbatim so if you need to input multiple people or explanations everything will work just fine. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And...consensus is still against you so why did you go forward with it?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is "consensus" against it? Me and Zap are for it. You are against it, and Artichoker just keeps changing what template it is based on. Is there something I am missing? --Blake (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I took your initial comment as oppose, my mistake.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I am also against it, so no; we are far from a consensus. This rather limited template simply adds complication and instruction creep, and is wholly unnecessary with the VG character template. Artichoker^[talk] 18:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

wow, and consensus for those articles constitutes four editors... consensus works by compromise - read WP:CON. Your arguements were that the template

included extraneous information (which i removed)
violated consensus at a GA-delisting about using the regular character infobox (which i implemented)
broke special cases for artist/creator/voice/etc. (fixed)

following standard practices, since i addressed all your complaints, i reinstituted the box. I can only assume you've reverted me, but i haven't checked, and i won't until this is resolved. If I am understanding your current argument it's that you feel my template is somehow more complicated and adds instruction creep? i'm unsure how a template that needs only an image parameter in most cases, is more complicated. we write for newbies and this template is far less daunting than the alternatives. while the underlying code might be pretty sophisticated, this is often the case when writing easy-to-use programs. And like it says on the template, pokemon are more than video game characters, so by limiting it to the VG template we are excluding relevant pertinent information. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep arguing "Pokemon aren't only video game characters" like somehow they're a special case. Wolverine (comics) uses the comic template despite appearing in numerous non-comic related material. Why? Because he's a comic book character originally. Ash Williams uses a movie character template despite alternate versions of the character appearing in games and comics. Why? Because he's a film character originally.

Every pokemon with an article originated in the games. They're not a special case just because other media decided to scarf them up, they're just video game characters that appear in other formats. If you're going to argue your case that isn't a foothold to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolverine was notable as a comic-book character for years before he was translated into cartoons and movies, while the cartoon was released only a year after the games in Japan, and within the same year in the US - to pretend that these characters' cartoon counterparts are inconsequential is to ignore these facts. Additionally, Wolverine is one of only a few characters that you could draw a parallel to pokemon about. The large majority of comic book characters have yet to leave to the comic book world, while 100% of pokemon are represented in multiple formats. If you could point me to another well-defined group where 100% of it's members are tied to nearly simultaneous releases in multiple formats i might be more persuaded to believe there is some kind of established precedent. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

hmm.... Wolverine in other media might be why they settled with using the comic character template at "Wolverine (comic)" Now what? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the message kinda went over your head because you didn't read between the lines. Look at the Street Fighter series of characters which have appeared in as many different genres as Pokemon, or really video game characters that have appeared in any licensed material (and trust me, there's a lot). They all use the VG infobox. It's not a special case with Pokemon, or any of the other ones. Truth be told what you seem to want is something more like a fictional character template, which I'm pretty sure already exists and is really damn complex. Please find some other line of argument for this, I'm feeling like a broken record trying to word this so it doesn't get skewed again.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

... no you didn't go over my head... but these examples you keep providing clearly established their notability in one genre first (like i said, in the US, both the game and anime came out in the same year), and it's not my fault when you provide poor examples - obviously enough people felt that Wolverine's roles in other media were significant enough that infobox info was needed on his roles in film and video games. And your newest example is no better as Street Fighter, again, clearly established its notabilty as a successful video game, but in this case not really a successful anything else. your arguement has been, "See, pokemon are just like character X. So we should do what we do with all characters like X." But I've been able to consistently show how Pokemon are not like character X. Again.... you show me a well-known character from multiple simultaneous media whose notability is derived from both of those media. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Both templates give the information at the moment. I don't see why you don't just switch it back to the VG template. --Blake (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

{{pokebox}} allows you to input parameters for first edpisode, first game, first tcg, and first manga - the vg box only displays info regarding the pokemon's role in the videogames... and then oddly enough provides info on voice actors (which i assume is meant for different voice actors in the video games [like Mario], not for voice actors in anime - the layperson typing in "Mewtwo" might be wrongly believe that the video games had voice actors, as we do not give any info about the anime in the infobox) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take a look at these examples on pikachu:

{{infobox VG character
| name        = Pikachu
| image       = [[Image:Sugimoris025.png]]
| caption     = '''[[List of Pokémon|National Pokédex]]'''<BR>[[Arbok]] - '''Pikachu (#025)''' - [[Raichu]]
| series      = [[Pokémon series|''Pokémon'' series]]
| firstgame   = ''[[Pokémon Red and Blue]]''
| artist      = [[Ken Sugimori]]
| voiceactor  = [[Rachael Lillis]]
| japanactor  = [[Ikue Otani]]
}}

vs.

{{ pokebox
| image      = Sugimoris025.png
| engvoice   = [[Rachael Lillis]]
| japanvoice = [[Ikue Ōtani]]
| episode    = ''[[Pokémon, I Choose You!]]''
| manga      =
| tcg        = ''[[List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets#Base Set|Base Set]]''
}}

Ok, so 8 parameters in the first one, six in the second, three of those six are for additional nontrivial information that you can't put into the VG box without admittedly uglier text that uses a second template call from within the first. Here's the output:

{{infobox VG character| name = Pikachu| image = [[:Image:Sugimoris025.png]]| caption = '''[[List of Pokémon|National Pokédex]]'''<BR>[[Arbok]] - '''Pikachu (#025)''' - [[Raichu]]| series = [[Pokémon series|''Pokémon'' series]]| firstgame = ''[[Pokémon Red and Blue]]''| artist = [[Ken Sugimori]]| voiceactor  = [[Rachael Lillis]]| japanactor  = [[Ikue Otani]]}}

{{ pokebox| name = Pikachu| image = "Sugimoris025.png"| engvoice = [[Rachael Lillis]]| japanvoice = [[Ikue Ōtani]]| episode = ''[[Pokémon, I Choose You!]]''| manga =| tcg = ''[[List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets#Base Set|Base Set]]''}}

I'd like some critical feedback on what is exactly wrong with this second template, on how it's not an improvement over the first. Or perhaps on why one might prefer the first to the second. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

well considering the lack of feedback, I'll just apply the general guideline that no change = consensus, and hope it's ok. The Pikachu article was changed on the 6th and is arguably the most visible article in this project's scope. It's been viewed 5800+ times since then, edited, and the new template has not been taken down. Like i mentioned on KFM's talk page, consensus is more than the few editors who congregate on this talk page, and considering that Pikachu's template was not reverted, it would seem no one outside this project objected to using a new infobox. Additionally, I put the template up on all other articles (except Jynx) and the only one changed was Mewtwo with this possibly controversial edit. Considering that, I'm putting pokebox on Mewtwo and Jynx for the sake of appropriateness and consistency. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

258th Pokémon

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Mudkip. so i herd u leik? I will reference the manga tomorrow. Other then that I am done with it. How do you like it? --Blake (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, referenced the manga. do u leik? --Blake (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the sourcing: blogspot is heavily frowned upon unless you can prove the author's reliability, and I'll check into the background behind knowyourmeme. I know though that this was covered in newspapers and such, so there are some references you can reach by google news. Renaming Critical rection to In pop culture might help too (it's akin to the All Your Base bit).

By the way, one more thing: GameFAQs polls tend to be argued against for showing a character's popularity through their rank on them...but, you can turn that around and argue that the references are showing that the popularity of the meme around the character earned it a place on both of those polls by Gamefaqs. Odd angle but might work.

I'll dig around, see what I can do.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I was wanting it to lean more towards "its so popular it was in two GameFAQ's character battles!" not "Luigi and Megaman are better then Mudkip." I will try and find a real reference for the meme stuff... I was sort of worried that these wouldn't be enough. --Blake (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll restructure the section with what I have, recreating the first paragraph entirely. Looking over the original two references I wouldn't trust them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's done. I'd still hold off on it though unless more sources are found. Kinda bothered there isn't any development information really either...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that it was once debated whether or not the meme should even be on the page, and now its going to be what brings it back as an article. --Blake (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"somebody's gotta show how the meme has any relevance to a freaking video game character"--okay that's actually a good point...I don't think it can be done with the sources available.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It has revelance to the character because it is a very popular Pokémon just because of the meme. The meme is the whole reason Mudkip is popular and was included in the GameFAQs character battles, and dA changing everyone's avatars into Mudkips. --Blake (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The DA thing is one bit, but for GameFAQs we would need to prove it was included as a result of the meme. I'd still feel safer with this if there was actual discussion about Mudkips that could be cited for reception, but as it stands the more it progresses the more it feels like we're clutching at straws. Or more accurately, propping the entire character article up on one point that apparently derived from a child's toy being "raped".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain this meme to me? I don't recall seeing it and honestly didn't know Mudkip was that popular Pokémon (because of it or otherwise). Reading some discussion history it looks like it's fairly well known, but I didn't see many details about the original post and when people tend to utter the meme. I was going to wait, assuming it would eventually get clarified, but KFM's "rape" comment has me thirsting for answers. —Ost (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You can look here and here for some background on the meme. I honestly dont know what actualy IS the meme. There are images of Mudkips with "so i herd u leik mudkips" pasted on them, there are videos with Mudkips talking back and forth to eachother, and parodies of them with things like Spongebob, Darth vader, Mario, etc. --Blake (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the links and I'll look at them when I'm not at work behind filtering software. —Ost (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

←The meme is not particularily notable, and I don't feel at all comfortable in using it as the sole basis for it becoming an article. It's about a person desecrating a doll, not about the actual Pokémon. I guarantee you that if the meme was "so I herd you leik barbiez" it would not be on the Barbie article. Why? It has nothing at all to do with article or it's subject; Mudkip. And I really don't even want to get started on the sourcing problem. The Wall Street Journal source is the only legitimate one there. And that ain't enough to prop up an entire article.MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The meme isnt about the guy humping the doll. Thats just how it started. The point of including it is that because of this meme there are many many images and videos made just for Mudkip, and it has become one of the most popular Pokémon. --Blake (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But Blake, I can understand that there should be more that just this to prove that the character itself has been made popular. It just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources, and I dug for about two hours. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that makes Jynx notable is the controversy over its skin color. That is only one thing, yet it has an article. I know that it would be nice if there was more, but why does there need to be so much reception just for it to even exist? I agree this might not make it to B-class or GA without more, but that is the point of wikipedia. There can be unfinished articles that can be finished later. Wikipedia is not done. --Blake (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The recreation of Jynx's article wasn't solely based on it's skin color: what made Jynx notable was how people reacted to it's design and continued to do so after it was changed. There's no such content for Mudkip.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The recreation of Mudkip's article isn't solely based on what happened on 4chan: what mades Mudkip notable is how people reacted to it and continue to do so years after it happened. --Blake (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

But they're not reacting to mudkip, they're reacting to the meme barely about mudkip.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the meme is about the guy and the doll. It's the concluding line of the "story" (and I use that term very loosely), and were that narration to have never been dreamt up or written about, it would not even exist. You cannot turn to me and say that the meme isn't about the guy and the doll, when it owes it's very existence to it. You may as well say to me that Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own isn't about Bono, when clearly it is. You can't use Deviantart as a source, nor can you use YouTube or a fansite dedicated to the meme. The very sources you are using to prop up it's notability (or at least the notability of the meme) are discounted and would not be held up by any editors who have a basic understanding on Wikipedia's policies about sourcing. You say "what mades Mudkip notable is how people reacted to it and continue to do so years after it happened". But none of the sources you have provided demonstrate this. The Wall Street Journal article is all you have to stand on, and that article has a grand total of one sentence (which is about the meme, not the Pokémon; there is a massive difference between the two). MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to tell the truth, a few days ago I had no idea what the meme was besides all the various Mudkip images. All I knew was those. Also, how would DeviantART not be a reliable source for the sentence about them changing everyones avatars? Its like referencing an anime episode because something happened in the episode. We are referencing the website because something happened there. (Btw, KFM put that there, not me. Although that was because I had even worse references in the first place.) I wouldnt mind not having the article made as long as the paragraph can be mentioned on the list. Then it wouldnt be "propping up the article". (Note that I have already put it there earlier today.) --Blake (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

← The following is transcluded from User talk:Jéské Couriano: The consensus is against you because the meme has no reliable sources and the NYT source is only a name-drop mention, not enough to establish notability for an article. Also, D-ART is not a reliable source either, for the same reasons other user-generated-content sites are. By NYT he means the WSJ. I can also tell you that dozens of editors and IPs have searched over the course of several years, and none of them have ever found any source that can be included apart from that.MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, and completely unrelated to this, but why would news from DA's staff be bundled in the same category as user created content?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind I just noticed it is indeed user submitted. Bleh!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mudkip can't stand as an article with WSJ or d-ART, as the WSJ thing is a name-drop and about the meme (which, as many have pointed out before and will keep doing so whenever someone unearths this monster, is not about Mudkip at all, but about a guy and a plushie) and d-ART is a user-generated-content site, which precludes it from use, making a total of 0 reliable sources and 0 sources defining notability, despite what /b/ would tell you. Please read Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260); the consensus there is to make SIHULM simply a one-sentence blurb on List of Internet phenomena. As an aside, it's refreshing to see someone who isn't a clear troll reviving this discussion, as much as the discussion is useless given the existing consensus. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but why do you call them all trolls? I find that sad in you as an admin. Many of them were probably just new editors wanting to help wikipedia, but they diddnt know the rules. Anyways, as I have said above, I dont really care as long as it gets its pharagraph on the list. It obviously deserves more then "just a sentence in the list of internet memes", and as long as its sourced properly, I dont see why it cant be included. It just isnt enough to support a whole article. --Blake (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, anyone who brought up SIHULM was either bringing it up to provoke people, attacking anyone who refused to add SIHULM to Mudkip and later List of Pokémon (241-260), or were indef'd for trolling shortly afterwards, often on unrelated articles. By my count, only eight users, yourself included and all named, actually brought the issue up in good faith. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to [this removal of the pharagraph], Why did you remove the GameFAQs poll information? That has nothing to do with the whole meme deal. Also, why cant that be on the page? I could understand about the dA part since it isnt sourced, but the part sourced with the journal is completely legit. I mentioned putting it on the page and nobody said anything opposing, and KFM even left it there, just putting a fact tag on it. --Blake (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You read the wrong page. Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260), specifically the sections titled "SIHULM is bigger" (Not spelling out to avoid tripping antivandal filters) and "I don't see why this is so difficult" both clearly show a consensus to not include the meme-related stuff in Mudkip's section as tangential and (in any case) more appropriate for List of Internet phenomena. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I really can't say it any more succintly or clearly. The information is about the meme. It is not about the Pokémon, it has nothing to do with the Pokémon, and it is completely irrelevant to the section of the article. It is a completely different and unrelated subject, and should not in any way be included. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, again you removed the GameFAQs information. Will you please check what you are removing? What do you mean "You read the wrong page"? I did read that page, and the other discussions before I even added the information in there. Most of what was there was there was no source. I have a source. Also, why dont you add that extra information to the meme page if you feel it fits better there? Although I do feel it does contribute to the Pokémon as it is more popular then say Torchic, having almost 50% more search, image, and video results on google. When it other wise would have half as much as Torchic. The images all over the internet are OF MUDKIP. The videos are OF MUDKIP. What exactly is "The meme"? Is it the story? Is it the phrase? Is it the images and videos? A week ago I never knew the meme started from some guy doing it with a mudkip doll. So how is that the meme? --Blake (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The GameFAQs info (I think) is fine. I've just moved it to a more appropriate area. The meme is all three rolled into one; the "story" is what gave birth to the meme, the phrase is what people attribute the meme as, and the videos and images are the products of the meme. All three are one and the same subject. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The meme is the story, mainly its closing sentence copypasta'd to oblivion. The pictures and videos being of Mudkip don't mean a thing; they were created specifically to spread the meme, which is widely regarded as a forced one. At present, that will be my last word; my mood isn't very good after receiving a fucking jury duty notice. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "Due to a popular meme, "so I herd u like mudkips", Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube."? --Blake (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? Remember user-generated-content sites can't be used, of which Youtube is one. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It would of course be using the Wall Street Journal reference, which says the following

"Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips," a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon," spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." and "so i herd u like mudkips": Originally posted on another Web site, members of 4chan adopted the phrase as in-joke. A "mudkip" is a lovable, water creature from the animated series Pokémon. You can watch some of the thousands of tribute videos on YouTube."

Just think. After this is added, the whole "Mudkip meme" thing will be a thing of the past. Nobody will ever be asking for it to be added to the page, because its already there. --Blake (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is about the meme, not the Pokémon. It's far better suited to the aforementioned list of internet phenomena. Nobody is asking for the meme now because it is already included on another page, which is all the anonymous IPs wanted anyways. They couldn't particularly care if it was on the Mudkip article, so long as it was on Wikipedia somewhere (which it is). And now I really must be off to bed since I have work in the morning. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Due to a popular meme, "so I herd u like mudkips", Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube." Excuse me, but how is this not about the Pokémon? I went ahead and put the meme information on the meme page, but I think this will help the Mudkip section of the list. I would stop suggesting putting this information there, but I just am not seeing your logic. --Blake (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think what Melicans is trying to get at is that mentioning the meme by name is problematic, for two reasons: (α) It's a troll meme; indeed LoP (241-260) and three other articles are under permanent semi-protection because the vandalism from it is massive, and (β) including it seems to make the section not about Mudkip and more about the meme. The question that helped determine the consensus against the meme was "Does it help people to know what (a) Mudkip is?" In this case, Melicans is mistaken, although I'm not going to test the waters by unprotecting Axolotl. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I could help with any vandalism that might happen on the list, if thats a problem, but I dont see how putting the sentence there would increase the amount of vandalism that happeneds. Also, about it making the section about the meme, it dont see what you mean. This would be akin to having a sentence in Never Gonna Give You Up saying it has become popular due to rickrolling. It in no way changes the view of the article.

The music video for the song has become the basis for the "Rickrolling" Internet meme. From "Never Gonna Give You Up"

Mudkip has received many tribute videos on youtube due to the internet meme, "so I herd u like mudkips". What I want to put on the list article.--Blake (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I did not agree with Melicans on the point of including the meme name. In fact, I would not mind the name's presence in the article provided it links to the LoIp blurb about the meme and the section remains about Mudkip and does not stray from that. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I find Blake's argument compelling. Rickrolling may be a meme, but the media is of Rick Astley. It does not somehow become not-Rick just because of rickrolling. Similarly, the mudkipz meme may have connotations beyond mudkip, but it is still mudkip. Cratylus3 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cratylus, as has been demonstrated several times before, the meme is more about plushophilia than anything. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the *origin* of the meme. The meme is *about* mudkip. Note how many people don't know the origin but know the meme.

Let me try to rephrase this. The Wall Street Journal sentence says "Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips," a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon," spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." From the position of the commas, we know that the segment "a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show Pokémon" is an aside (a note made in the middle of a sentence that is essentially unnecessary), much like it would be if the author had used dashes or brackets. So the actual sentence reads "Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips" spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." Do you not see the problem with that? The article is not saying that the tribute videos are about the Pokémon Mudkip, it is saying that the tribute videos are about the meme, which has been established many, many times (just read the talk page archives) as having absolutely no relevance to the Pokémon itself. You are inserting information about an unrelated topic within the article.

The one reliable source you have, the Wall Street Journal, says that the meme spawned thousands of tribute videos, not Mudkip. You absolutely cannot use this to back up your claim regarding Mudkip's popularity, because Mudkip's popularity is not mentioned at all. I cannot state it any simpler or make it any more clearer than that. The source is not talking about Mudkip's popularity, it is talking about the meme's popularity. And we've established many times before that the meme is unrelated to the Pokémon. If you can find a reliable source that specifically says the meme has increased Mudkip's popularity, go ahead and include it. But I can tell you now from over three years experience that you will find no such thing. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooooohhhhhh. Your comments finally make sense. Well it also says "A "mudkip" is a lovable, water creature from the animated series Pokémon. You can watch some of the thousands of tribute videos on YouTube." I'm not sure if that counts or not. If not, then I am done with this whole arguement. Its got old, and I have nothing more to throw at you. --Blake (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a nonsense twisting of English. The clause 'a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon,"' is clearly descriptive, not an aside, and not intended to be disregarded.Cratylus3 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the mudkipz meme has nothing to do with mudkip is flatly false. It is like saying that the swastika has nothing to do with nazis. It may well be that the swastika had a different meaning before, and it may well be that it retains a separate meaning now, but just because you don't like nazis doesn't mean the swastika has nothing to do with them. It might not have before. It does now. Cratylus3 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reindent) Cause-effect suggests otherwise, Cratylus. The story about a plushophile spawned the sentence that would be copypasta'd to the last of the Infinite Layers of the Abyss and back, which in turn spawned the meme, which in turn spawned the "tribute" videos. Directly because of the narrative's selective quotation the meme came into being. It'd be like me altering your statement above to say the meme is about Nazis. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. There are people out there repeating the meme without knowing the origin. That's how it is with memes. But central to any telling is the name and/or likeness of mudkip itself. I'm sorry you don't like the meme. But pretending it's not about mudkip won't make it not about mudkip. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing was solved, why keep going? The meme did indeed have an effect on Mudkip's popularity, but we have no proof. The reference says that the videos are of the meme, not of Mudkip. --Blake (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that I was finally able to phrase myself properly. It is not about liking or disliking the meme, it's about what the source says, and how it's being attributed to a statement. Whether the meme is or is not about Mudkip has been discussed many times; and quite frankly, the overwhelming consensus is that it is not. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the meme might not be about Mudkip, but it did make him a popular Pokémon. So adding information about what the meme is and how it started wouldnt be acceptable, but saying what I did above about "due to the meme, Mudkip has reveived alot of videos" would be acceptable. We just have no source. Can we please leave it as that? The Rickroll meme is about bait and switch, but it is Rick's song that is being played. The Mudkip meme is about a guy and a doll, but its Mudkip who has all the publicity. --Blake (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But the source doesn't say that Mudkip received tribute videos because of the meme, it says that the phrase received them. It's the difference between saying "peas" are popular and the phrase "I like peas" is popular. You can't infer that peas have received a big boost in popularity just because the phrase is well known. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

""due to the meme, Mudkip has reveived alot of videos" would be acceptable. We just have no source. Can we please leave it as that?" Why does this conversation need to keep going? --Blake (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry; when you said "leave it as that" I thought you meant re-add and leave it in the article, even though it's unsourceable. I didn't realize you meant just leave the discussion at that. My apologies for misunderstanding. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I understand how you would misunderstand. --Blake (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Blastoise

I fixed up Blastoise to modern style. I wonder what you have up your sleeve. I just hope you do it soon before it gets deleted. You should have done this in your userspace. --Blake (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I concur with Blake. I still haven't seen your third-party source. Shouldn't that be the first thing you add when restoring an article? Artichoker^[talk] 03:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the following references might be what he was talking about.^[1] ^[2] ^[3]--Blake (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Cooper, Sean (2009). "Blastoise, the shellfish Pokémon: The last evolution of Squirtle". Beckett Pokémon Unofficial Collector. No. 7. 12 (116). United States: Tracy Hackler: pp. 15–17. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ Stuart Bishop (2003-05-30). "Game Freak on Pokémon!". CVG. Archived from the original on 2008-02-08. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
^ MacDonald, Mark; Brokaw, Brian; Arnold; J. Douglas; Elies, Mark. Pokémon Trainer's Guide. Sandwich Islands Publishing, 1999. ISBN 0-439-15404-9. (pg 192–195)

That is not enough references to establish notability. Plus I don't think #3 is independent of the subject. The leftorium 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much substantial information from third-party sources to establish notability for Blastoise. Unless some major improvement can be done, I think the article should be reverted back to a redirect. Artichoker^[talk] 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not enough references to establish notability.

so please point me to the paragraph at WP:N that lists what "enough" is. I am aware of the term multiple, and unless I don't understand english, multiple merely means more than one.

as for doing this article in my userspace first - i have expressed my opinions on that type of editing several times before so i think it's clear why i did not pursue that route.

the third source (which was in the original article) is indeed third-party, check this link. however, reyling on customer reviews (which prolly isn't a good way to go about judging refs), i would say it's not likely the best third-party guide to use outside of refs for the japanese versions of the first games. I've found a better source that can at least be used to substantiate basic video game information. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't see any indication of notability. Apart from restoring the article, you haven't edited it all. The "Reception" section contains one sentence. Are we going to see some drastic improvement to this article soon, Zapper? Artichoker^[talk] 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i have a life outside of wikipedia... and if i didn't have to keep spending so much time here, i could spend more time on the article... and if you are having problems seeing how a third party source satisifies that criteria for inclusion, take it to WT:N --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...you're right, i made no edits beyond restoring the article. ---ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but diddnt you say "isn't the goal of wikipedia to provide comrpehensive information, not just "the bare minimum"?" Why did you removed Cissy and Lola's Blastoise? Its not like they were unreferenced, so what exactly was wrong with them? Those are two notable gym leader's Pokemon. Also, what does this mean? "it makes relatively few appearances in the anime. A handful of trainers in the series have owned Blastoise, " It made alot of appearances. There were 9 mentioned in the previous article, while 4 are still there. Sorry if this seems like a big rant. I am about to go to bed and just want a few questions answered before you disappear again. --Blake (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

the two appearances i removed were from episodes where Blastoise is only briefly shown and owned by one-time characters. Gary is an important character so it seemed worth mention, and in the movie, blastoise had a significant amount of screen time. I made the claim that Blastoise doesn't appear much based off the reference i was using, and to be honest I agree with it if you compare Blastoise's appearances to other pokemon owned by semi-regular characters (Roselia, Cacturne, Chansey) or with the likes of Snubble, Jigglypuff, Magikarp, and others beyond those owned by regular characters, this also has a lot to do with the fact that they aren't found in the wild and so even miss out from many cameos (oh look, there goes a Wingull). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why Blastoise is more notable than any other Pokémon. Almost all the information on the page is in-universe, which should be avoided per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The leftorium 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just straight up reverted it to a redirect. It needed significant coverage, and clearly doesn't get that. Open and shut case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the article here if you wish to add to it more. There is one flaw with your pokebox template. It doesnt work in userspaces or project spaces. --Blake (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. It works if you used the "name" part of the template. --Blake (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

KFU, your edit was a horrible assumption of bad faith - especially with two references that significantly covered Blastoise. As for in-universe... WP:WAF is talking about prose like "Blastoise can be found living on island beaches near the ocean, but their preferred habitat seems to be freshwater ponds and lakes." Merely describing facts about the character in its various incarnations is not "in-universe". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Bad faith"? Bad faith is deciding that even when faced with a solid consensus that the article needs content or should be removed to go ahead. The article has no real development information of any kind, nor does it have any reception at all. This does not significantly cover anything: its a passing mention. A paragraph discussing the importance and impact of it, that's reception. If you want I could take it to AfD and let them spell it out for you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) I reverted the article back to a redirect. As KfM and I have said over and over, notability has not been established. Where's the reception? I added one sentence on it from an article that gives it a passing mention. That's about it. Draft it in your sandbox, and if enough critical discussion on it can be scrounged up, perhaps it may become a good-quality and notable article. In any case, a further recreation of the article will result it being taken to AfD for some real consensus. Artichoker^[talk] 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well since you decided to randomly revert it without addressing the concerns of notability or consensus, I have nominated it for AfD. Artichoker^[talk] 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i don't need "critical reception" it's helpful and even desired, but is 'not the threshold for inclusion that WP:V and WP:N spell out. I have stated in the lead of the article why Blastoise is notable - it is well-known for being on the cover of the first games, and i even have a third-party source saying that explictly. I can't imagine how to be more clear about it's notability than that. It's definitly a step up from saying a pokemon is notable because some guy sang a song in his american idol audition. I've been looking through the other pokemon articles and the sources used, to try and emulate what you guys want, and compared to things like Jigglypuff#References I'd say my article is a vast improvement. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jigglypuff is awful article to compare anything to (but even Jigglypuff actually has a decent sized "Cultural impact" section.) And yes, as a matter of fact you do need critical reception. If there is no 3rd party reception of a character, then it's not notable; seems like common sense to me. Artichoker^[talk] 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not that I dont want the artice to be made. I do. If it was up to me, every Pokémon would have an article. Its just I know there is no fighting these people. If you want a Pokémon article it has to have a really good reception section. --Blake (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you may edit the Bulbapedia article. I'm sure they would welcome your information. Artichoker^[talk] 22:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

stop trying to pass editors off to that slow POS. i find it hilarious that you can sit there and defend jigglypuff when the single source that's used to actually say something like, "Jigglypuff is popular" is not only from Nintendo's press release but also points to a dead link. You point me to the policy that supports your viewpoint (inclusion requires critical reception), i've already pointed you to mine (inclusion only requires third party description). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Jigglypuff's going to land up being safe for starters compared to Blastoise. Call it a hunch.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

those refs for Jigglypuff are fantastic, i don't see why you don't put them in now and drastically improve that article (another point for not doing article creation in the userspace)

and your quote was the one i was referring to as well... significant means more than trivial, but the source need not cover the topic exclusively. Are you saying that three pages (ok, 2 and 1/2) is trivial? This isn't like those other sources where the pokemon gets a couple sentences (maybe a paragraph) and we say, "Aha!" It's an article about the pokemon and the author even makes evaluative claims about it's popularity and why - and he's not from nintendo. you guys should be peeing yourselves with excitement, but instead i have complete dismissal of my sources without so much as a "this source doesn't prove notability because X". If i write an article and say, "Foo is well-known because of bar" with a nice reliable source attached that actually backs up the claim, it should be an open and shut case on whether Foo meets the threshold for inclusion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I hate these stupid rules. Why should we listen to anything some random person says? But the point is that people are talking about the Pokémon. You wouldnt say "Charizard is sexy, sleek, and destructive." just because the person said that. You say "This person said that Charizard is sexy, sleek, and destructive." to point out that it is a popular Pokémon. If nobody is talking about it, then its probably not a very notable Pokémon.--Blake (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

exactly, and someone who's not nintendo decided to talk about Blastoise in more than a passing mention, so now it's magically notable according to wikipedia. they even give us info beyond what moves it learns - they write evaluative claims about it's popularity, discuss the reasons, and even give their own opinions on the subject (which is spelled out some at the AFD). BTW Blake, you don't have to do whatever the project does, if you personally feel that Blastoise satisfies your understanding of WP:V and WP:N (as it would seem by your comments) it's completely resonable to voice that opinion at the AFD. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what to think now. It is a question on whether that is the kind of thing they are looking for. I will change my vote to keep though, because I think it should satisfy the requirements. I think what they are looking for is more like a whole section of that though. --Blake (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is opened up here as implied necessary by the closing AfD remarks on whether or not to merge it into the character list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A few things....

Pokémon Pinball and Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire currently say that there is a discussion at Talk:Pokémon Pinball about merging them. There is no discussion there, so people are probably confused. Are we going to merge them or not? I tried merging them here but it still doesnt look too good. Is someone going to work on getting these ready to merge or should we remove the merge notices?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Charizard is as ready as its ever going to be. Does anything need to be done before it goes out? A small copyedit maybe?
As for the Manga on the lists idea, I put it on Bulbasaur and Blastoise, and it looks good so far. I will try and finish redoing List of Pokémon (1–20) later today.

So, what do you think?--Blake (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with putting Charizard out there, there are additional sources to support he has some importance. However if we do this I would strongly recommend afterwards we stop trying to revive articles for awhile and focus instead on improving what we have. Pikachu needs some cleanup and could be in danger if the victim of a harsh GAR, and Jigglypuff and Bulbasaur direly need repairs. I can finish up Mewtwo after I get Ivy (Soulcalibur) and Tifa Lockhart to GA (sorry, I like breasts), and I think you and I together can complete Jynx. If we can get them across the board to GAs, then we can turn our sights to possibly reviving more. What do you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I don't think anything else would be notable except for Kadabra maybe. I will work on improving the articles we have now, then start on the lists again. I still think its sad how hardly anybody has touched the lists since they have been merged. There are really horrible entries and nobody is doing anything to fix them. --Blake (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Should I put Charizard out there? I added a "Pokémon Top 10 Handbook" to a few things. Also, look at this. Wow, 20 references for just the Charizard section. --Blake (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I boldly made the article. --Blake (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur, the Weakest Link Pokémon

As it stands this is ultimately one of our weakest species articles, and has been for a very very long time. While there's some point-counterpoint towards it's significance as a starter in R/B, there's not any real world content to explain why Bulbasaur is important enough for an article based on the critter's own merits. So what I'd like to suggest is to move the current article to a subpage per Blake's concept, and restore the redirect for the time being. If sources appear we can always restore it from there.

Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's almost ironic considering it's stronger than Blastoise, but I would be okay with that. Artichoker^[talk] 15:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As one door opens, annother door closes, eh? Charizard and Jynx are in and making Bulbasaur look bad? I guess, but we need to merge some stuff to it's list section. I didn't try and put too much there since it was argued whether or not any information was suitable to be there. --Blake (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I just looked, and there isn't really much that I diddn't merge. --Blake (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well on that note, went ahead and moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/Bulbasaur and took care of the related details.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Johto Pokédex numbers...

...don't exist, according to the games themselves and their Nintendo Player's Guides. So shouldn't they be removed from the List of Pokémon? They could be considered original research. -sesuPRIME 03:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some digging, and it seems this is the source, and it indicates the numbers appear for Generation IV. Can anyone verify that? (And truth be told...I would rather the list just keep it to the National Dex number, as the rest can easily confuse the heck out of anyone unfamiliar wit the series considering how our lists are set up).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, HG/SS will add the "missing" Johto numbering to the Pokémon. Although why we bother with using more than one numbering system is beyond me. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of them might be a challenge, but if anyone doesn't object we could give it a go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

um... isn't the goal of wikipedia to provide comrpehensive information, not just "the bare minimum". It's useful to tell readers that the pokedex is not a static numbering system, and has been reordered several times with each new generation. additionally, it's helpful to show how that organization was changed. I can't believe i'm having to defend this notion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is most likely in the "Pokedex" section of Gameplay of Pokémon. Adding it in every species page is un-needed. It looks really bad and is probably close to gameguide info. Not everything needs to be told to readers. --Blake (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i can appreciate that sentiment, and only oppose removing the additional numbering systems from list and mechanics articles. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else opposed to removing them or shall we go ahead?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have been on that list for a looong time. I know its a bit much to ask that you wait until HGSS, but I guess if the numbers never existed then they can be removed. It just seems like alot of work to go through for nothing. --Blake (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pointless to remove them now, when they are on the verge of actually having those numbers. But if people are uncomfortable with talking about numbers that are currently not assigned, we could simply change the column header from “Johto Pokédex No.” to “Johto Pokédex Order” for the sake of accuracy. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bulbapedia article is not the source, the games themselves are the source. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I was talking about removing were all the 'dex numbers save for the National one. See the problem I have with them is they make an already complex list that much more confusing to the casual reader who might not know about Pokemon at all, and they're not really used in player's guides or any other content (indeed we don't use them in the character articles even to avoid bloating).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that you can organize the list by Pokedex number. This tells the reader what Pokemon were in the game and which weren't. --Blake (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this is a good time, but....

I think Jynx is ready to be an article. Make whatever changes to it if you feel it needs a little bit more work, but it has a big Cultural Impact section and everything else is written well. I think it would make at least B class right off the bat. --Blake (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While I think it needs some work still (Smoochum could use mention in the design section, I can tackle that later on though) and some referencing here and there I'd say go ahead and get it out there now, it's definitely a C(+)-grade article at the moment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will also be figuring out how to reference the manga as I have been doing the anime episodes. Then I will update all the articles with those. Should I move the page or just copy+paste? --Blake (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste would be best. People might get edgy over negated article history otherwise :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article made at Jynx (Pokémon). --Blake (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work, KfM. Artichoker^[talk] 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What? No "Nice work, Blake"?..... jk. Its alright. So, what needs to be fixed for B-class and maybe GA? --Blake (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh whoops, sorry I didn't see the history. Nice work to you too Blake. In any case GA doesn't appear to be too far off. Sourcing will need to be done for the "Appearances" section, which shouldn't be too tough; and then maybe a copyedit. Artichoker^[talk] 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, Blake gets equal props on this one. Some fixing and source hunting should do it, I'd suggest finishing the refs in Development first then tidying up the rest of the article. I've got my hands full with a list of articles I'm trying to get to GA already and two GANs up, so I'll lend a hand once the GANs pass.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\

And nominated here for WP:DYK ;) (Boy I'm quick!) MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I will be getting manga references like I do the anime, if I can find a template. As for the games, the whole section is a little funny. I dont know if the bit about how to obtain it is too much in-universe or not. Is anything wrong with the anime part? I think I worked the hardest in that section. --Blake (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cite book is your best bet. I just hope that you're willing to dig through all 30 volumes to back up your claims ;) (I may help, if you want). TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Back up my claims"? Its for the Manga section which tells about Jynx's role in them. I have read all of the manga up to Hoenn, so I can say that I know that all the RBY chapter stuff is true. I cant say about the FRLG chapter though, cause Bulbapedia doesnt have pages on those ;l. Anyways, I am just going to use the references that were on Charizard's page. They seem to work alright and look basically the same as the template would. --Blake (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kusaka, Hidenori, & Mato. Pokémon Adventures, Volume 3: Saffron City Siege; Chapter 28, "Peace of Mime" (pg 5-19) VIZ Media LLC, August 5 2001. ISBN 1-56931-560-4

Cordell, Bruce R.; Jeff Grubb, David Yu (September 2001). Manual of the Planes. Wizards of the Coast. ISBN 0-7869-1850-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

I just wanted to let you know that I will be using Cite Book, as I found a good way to use them. (It looked a little complicated at first) I will try and get it done soon, I just have alot on my plate. --Blake (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Jynx's appearance on the main page as part of Did You Know? garnered it quite a few views! Look where it ranks on the DYK most viewed for July! MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Manga on the species lists?

As the Pokémon special was "the world satoishi was trying to convey", do you think it would be acceptable to put the manga info in the lists? I have never seen any talk on this before and was wondering why it was never merged to the lists. --Blake (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the information never made it over either. The manga is as important a part as the anime. I suppose it's because the appearances of most are fairly inconsequential. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as most Pokémon only have a few sentences about anime, and usualy get merged into some other part of the section, this would complete the pharagraph in most cases. (Some things such as Starter Pokémon or Legendarys might have to have separate pharagraphs.) I see the entries as:

1. Lead, Concept and Creation

2. Characteristics

3. Video Games/Anime/Manga

4. Super Smash Bros/Critical Reception

Most Pokémon have just have no "Super Smash Bros/Critical Reception" section. --Blake (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as each manga in which a Pokémon features importantly gets a mention, and not just one series. It’s not like it’s any more official than the rest. --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn’t Bulbapedia. Try not to think of it as “the” manga, there are several, and it’s Pokémon Adventures, not SPECIAL, because here we actually use the English names for things that have English names consistently, instead of some half-assed pick & choose policy based on otaku bias from those in charge.</rant> --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yah, yah, I know. I get tongue-tied sometimes and forget to not say Special. I usualy write it as "In the Pokémon Adventures manga," because "In Pokémon Adventures," isnt specific enough. They shouldnt have to click the link to see it is a manga. As for the "Only including Adventures", I dont think putting small mentions of every Pokémon in 10 different mangas would be necessary. --Blake (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, PokéSpe is the most notable out of all the manga series, seeing as it's the one that has the most releases, the biggest plot, most characters etc. etc.

And please don't start mouthing mouthing off about Blake and myself just because we call it Special. One, we're around Bulbapedia too much, and if you have a problem with the way they do things, take it up with TTEchidna over there. And two, Special sounds better than Adventures! TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No argument that it is the biggest, and that Tajiri’s endorsement is significant. But there is no reason to include only PA in any proposed manga section.

As for the rest, read more carefully. I wasn’t lecturing Blake, just reminding him not to call it Special on Wikipedia, where naming policies actually make sense. The rest was an off-topic rant about the management style at Bulbapedia. As for your other suggestion, you might have noticed that several editors over there have taken it up with both TTE and the head of the manga project, and they pay no attention except to occasionally assert, with no evidence, that it is most commonly called Special by English-speakers. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the English Wiki's namimg policies, and that all article references to the series be called Adventures. Doesn't stop people still referring to it as Special on talk or project pages. And yes I know what's going on over on Bulba with regards to the manga project and TTE and CP! with the naming scheme. I should know, because I've made my view on it clear - who gives a crap and just leave it the way it is. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 14:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also remember not to call the individual story segements “rounds”. In English they are called Chapters( old release) Or ADVENTUREs( new release). I agree that mentioning every manga a Pokémon appears in would not be helpful, but NO appearance in Adventures, the anime, or whatever should be mentioned unless it is significant. For example, if we were talking about Ivysaur, there is a chapter in The Electric Tale of Pikachu( or one of the sequels I guess) in which an Ivysaur features prominently, and not corresponding episode of the anime, despite that manga being a partial adaptation. Fearrow and Clefairy, for example, also have unique roles in that cannon that they do not have elsewhere. --WikidSmaht (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

When did the word "Rounds" come up? Either link to what happened or dont talk about it. It is confusing. If you think something should be added, then add it. If you think something is un-necessary, then remove it. I never read past Misty's gym battle in "The Electric Tale of Pikachu". --Blake (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] Cooper, Sean (2009). "Blastoise, the shellfish Pokémon: The last evolution of Squirtle". Beckett Pokémon Unofficial Collector. No. 7. 12 (116). United States: Tracy Hackler: pp. 15–17. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[2] Stuart Bishop (2003-05-30). "Game Freak on Pokémon!". CVG. Archived from the original on 2008-02-08. Retrieved 2008-02-07.

[3] MacDonald, Mark; Brokaw, Brian; Arnold; J. Douglas; Elies, Mark. Pokémon Trainer's Guide. Sandwich Islands Publishing, 1999. ISBN 0-439-15404-9. (pg 192–195)

[1]

[2]

[3]