Talk:List of generation I Pokémon

Snorlax Merge Discussion

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

The result of this discussion was no consensus. There was a general sentiment that this is a borderline case, but ultimately no consensus on whether it should remain as a standalone article. The procedural argument for a speedy close was clearly invalid and unhelpful. Charcoal feather (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Snorlax recently survived an AfD, per sourcing that showed notability, but I'm not seeing much showing Snorlax really being capable of having a standalone article. The bulk of sources I can find are promotion, and though some of it is interesting, most barely holds weight. The sources that do discuss it also don't particularly say much of substance, either. Snorlax is a clearly well-known subject, but there's nothing being said about this character that can't easily be summarized in the list right now. The article doesn't really have a clear focus, and trust me, as someone who just added what I could to the article, it's impossible to gain one with the stuff that exists out there. All that needs to be merged is a tidbit on Nishino's influence on the design, some promotion bits, and a couple of Reception sources, and it can be easily covered here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge I love Snorlax as a design...but yeah what's here is next to nothing on discussion sadly. It doesn't work in the "death by 1000 cuts" approach because there's not enough discussion to support that end. Snorlax is iconic...but not talked about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. Nothing about the AfD result mentioned that it was keep conditional to a merge, just keep period, end of story. As far as I'm concerned, further discussion is a nonstarter until a significantly later date. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• For context, the AfD was in August of last year, 8 months ago by me, not the person opening the merge discussion. AfD's are also not a safeguard against a discussion after sources have been more closely scrutinized. Given Pokelego999 has gone through some extensive effort to improve the quality of the Pokemon articles as of late, I feel their opinion and discussion both have merit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Zxcvbnm: This is an extremely bad faith and baseless accusation against the nominator. Are you claiming that a user who !voted keep in the Snorlax AfD is trying to do an end run around consensus? It seems to me like a user who had a change of heart, as you did with Lapras from one AfD to the next. This is also clearly not a "speedy close" rationale. What guideline or policy suggests eight months is an insufficient amount of time to open a new discussion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how it's "extremely bad faith" to cite the literal result of an AfD and that this discussion runs in the face of the consensus reached in the AfD. And to be clear bringing up Lapras is both baseless and a mischaracterization of what I did, I clearly had a weak keep the first time around, changed from outright redirect, and was not shouting from the rooftops that it should be kept.

  A user who wanted to keep the article can certainly change their mind and try to go against consensus. That isn't unprecedented at all, but it is still ignoring consensus. They are not the only person who participated in the discussion, it's not up to their whim to try to overrule it. Otherwise it becomes shopping for the right people to get the desired outcome. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out, you're assuming some really bad faith here, and you're doing it again. Please, stop. If this was directly after I could see an argument, but this is over half a year later. Surely if you feel the consensus is so absolute, it should survive a discussion after closer scrutiny, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because accusing a user of trying to do an end run around consensus with literally zero basis for doing so is a bad-faith action. You shouldn't need to have this explained to you. "It runs in the face of the consensus" what is the relevance of this to claiming that the user is trying to shop around for a better consensus or do an "end run"? I also brought up Pokelego's !vote in the Snorlax AfD because !voting Keep is evidence against your baseless claim.

  As far as this goes, opening a second discussion is not trying to overrule consensus. I know you must have read WP:CCC, so why are you ignoring it? The consensus policy says nothing about waiting a certain amount of time. Sure, if there was reasonable evidence that Pokelego was shopping for an ideal consensus, you could raise that point, but without basis, it's just a bad-faith accusation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  If "over half a year" is an incredibly long time to you to attempt to delete an article a second time, then I guess we both have different definitions of long. But since you are dead set on making me repent from this so-called accusation, then I will simply say Keep - the notability of the article has not changed at all since the AfD - and leave it at that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Look, if you can't participate in discussions without making nonsensical bad-faith accusations against other users, that's your problem, not mine. It's also wild to see you reframe what you said as a "so-called accusation." This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. This is unambiguously accusing another user of unacceptable editing practices, and it's honestly incredible that you think people don't recognize this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I change my mind on things by just sleeping on it till the next day. If we're talking about me from over half a year, I am just a completely different person in my own perception of things. People and opinions can change on a short term basis. That's just human nature. CaptainGalaxy 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate not making accusations like that. In any case, per above comments from other editors, it has been quite a bit since the last AfD (Eight months? Time really flies) and there's nothing about time limits for mergers after AfDs. AfDs also do not need to close as "keep with no prejudice to merge" or something similar for a merger to happen. Many articles in the past have been merged following AfDs, often times because it's the best way to properly cover the information presented.

In any case, I nominate this as someone who has been trying to improve the state of the Pokémon character articles as of late. I personally see it best as being covered by a merger, per the reasons in my nomination, and I opened a discussion to determine consensus as a result. There's nothing there about me attempting to "overturn consensus" or something similar. If I BLAR'd it or something I could see an argument, but this is an open discussion for anyone to talk in. You're free to disagree with the above proposition, but I'd appreciate not making hasty, bad-faith assumptions about my rationales for opening it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is silly. "Consensus can change" is one of the basics. As is holding a merge discussion on an article talk page. I'm indifferent on merging, but the assertion that it's wrong to even discuss it is absurd. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge There is next to nothing to talk about Snorlax outside of Pokémon topic aside from being "sleepy-head but cute" comments. Even in Pokémon topic, it's only notable for being a path-blocker and as the mascot for recently Pokémon Sleep. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't merge This article has so much sourced information, it's unquestionably notable as proved at the AfD. How can you say there's nothing to say about Snorlax, the article is full of information, there's no way it could all be summarized in a list. There have even been scientific papers written about it! PseudoGhost97 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because it's notable means it warrants a standalone page. The information in this article is more than coverable at the target article, as when random bits of fluff are removed, it basically boils down to "Snorlax was highly promoted and Snorlax is pretty popular." The two sciency bits can likely get some extra room, but it shouldn't be an issue to merge it. If you would like, I can create a version of Snorlax's section of the list with the merged information in order to better convey what I'm saying. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to make a comment about process, and I'm neutral on the merge outcome. Consensus can change, and I see this discussion started in good faith by a different editor. (I might feel differently if the same editor kept pushing the same discussion over and over.) This article might be borderline as far as WP:NOPAGE, but I have no opinion on the actual merger discussion for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I feel like I am going to be wrong here, but I feel like this could be seen as similar to Koopa Troopa from a few weeks ago, where there is enough discussion of the subject in question across the whole article, than just specifically in the reception area. I feel this article covers just enough in order for this to be an independent subject. But hey, that's just me. CaptainGalaxy 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This nomination Is still ongoing? Anyway, with the current reception including the sources at AfD felt like it should be enough. Also, it may be worth adding these [1] [2], and more per WP:BEFORE (merchandises). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first source doesn't really add much, and the second is worth a mention at most. I've added the extent of merchandising already, and they don't really add to notability anyway. In any case, I'm less so arguing notability and more arguing that this doesn't really justify a split. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Clefairy deserves-no, needs-his own page!

If you do Charizard, Jigglypuff, Pikachu and Eevee, why not Clefairy? He’s famous for the same reasons as said Pokemon. --PyukumukuAce (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability standards are a thing for fictional characters. We have to follow certain guidelines for things to have an article on here, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that offer some reception on the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

as with greninja, clefairy had an article of its own, but the coverage it got was considered lackluster, so its contents were merged into its list and clefairy is currently a redirect

also 75% of clefairy are female, come on cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

BULBAPEDIA OUR LORD AND SAVIOR 😀 [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyukumukuAce (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 8 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)