Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Nominating Snorunt for GA?

As stated before, I've been working on Snorunt for a while now, and I think its gone from drab to fab, so to speak. However, I'm still not totally sure if its ready to be nominated for GA yet or not. Opinions anyone? Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 23:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and took the plunge. Let's see if the PCP can get another GA soon. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

More Toy Fair '07 name information

A bit more information to help us with any decisions regarding names: from what I've gathered at PokéBeach, Serebii, and a few other sites, most of the new names are coming from this photo. The names on the little circular thingies that are legible are the ones we've been hearing about, and the ones that haven't been talked about are too blurry to make out in the picture (Subomie, Dorapion, Bipper, etc.). This is also the pic that the name "Piplup" (for Pochama) seems to have originated from - and based on the picture, "Piplup" seems like a wild guess at best, because the name above Pochama is extremely blurry. Also, there's a disclaimer at the bottom that reads "Some items subject to final approval.". ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

…that's the picture? How'd they get names?! I can barely read it! They all must have that crazy image-enhancing software or something…>>;—ウルタプ 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We really should hold off for a few of these then. Some of 'em are legible enough, but NOTHING is 100% sure. Any changes made though we should keep for the time being and switch if we need to. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s not the ONLY picture, and first-hand accounts are also being used. I’m pretty sure Piplup came from somewhere else. And I don’t get why they say Bippa’s name is too blurry. Its card( that’s what those are, by the way, cards for some kind of matching game) clearly reads STUBBY. --WikidSmaht (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's probably not the only one - that's why I said "most". :) If Piplup came from somewhere else, that would make more sense (it actually looks more like Piplop to me in this photo).

Piplop? That works quite nicely. I still don’t think Piplup is that bad... But how can you say it looks like Piplop to you in that pic? To me, it just looks like a blurry mess, and the only reason I’ve been favoring Piplup over Pochama is that the blurry mess could not possibly be construed as Pochama( well that and I think Pochama is terrible as an English name. Some of the Japanese names work fine, but not that one, and I hope they change Pachirisu too before release). So... No one else thinks that the first card in the second row says Stubby? --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it looks a lot like "Stubby" to me, too - I'm actually really surprised no one's mentioned that one yet... And it just looks more like "Piplop" to me because a) the top of the 5th letter looks connected to me, and b) the thing is so fuzzy that since "Piplop makes more sense to me, that's what I see. :) It was meant as just a personal, entirely objective side comment. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this stuff is actually getting sold at this show, is it? And if any is, it's only to people in the industry who are at the show. It really wouldn't be difficult to create a few copies of each toy for this show with a Japanese or beta name, and then change the name for later production. I'm getting less and less comfortable with using the supposed English names just yet. I'm for waiting on Nintendo/the Pokémon Company to announce them officially now. But that's just me. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Piplop"…that's much better than "Piplup", which made very little sense…it's now pretty close to a simple approximation of the Japanese name (seriously…"plop" even manages to associate with water and plumpness like pochapocha…).—ウルタプ 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this is an industry show, and as I initially cautioned, some names may still change. I just think it’s best to update with available information from a semi-official source, even if it changes again later. We just have to make sure to cite any information until the games come out in English. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you guys look at all the pictures? Some of them are interesting, but I don't think any other photos are helpful in naming any new Pokémon... My main point is I really want one of these! --Brandon Dilbeck 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

*throw at indigenous wildlife* :x—ウルタプ 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...and that just gave me a mental picture of a little kid tying a Pikachu tail to a chipmunk and lobbing that Poké Ball at it. :D Ah, that was a good laugh. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So they're still unofficial?? And what about the experienced users that are going around replacing the names?? --The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The toys may be serving as prototypes of what the company plans to sell in the future. If they don't have the real Pokémon names, it's possible that they could have made up fake placeholder names that they would fix before actually selling the toys. Not that I believe that this is what is happening, but just mentioning how it's a possibility. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...though I doubt they'd just make up names on their own. There's a good chance that the names there, if they aren't the final English names, are probably beta names given by Nintendo. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 00:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but unlikely. They would more likely have used the Japanese names, as on that one Pochama toy. Actually, I rather hope that that is the case with Pachirisu. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive

What the fuck were all discussions archived for? I thought the request was that inactive discussions be archived. I agree that archiving via move is a good method, but active discussions should be copied back after. That’s one of the reasons I introduced {{Resolved}} to this page. --WikidSmaht (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Heads up, guys and gals. Esteemed web author* Kristofer Straub has created a storm by having an article about his own webcomic (unfairly) deleted using sockpuppets. An angry, Wikipedia-hating reader of Mr. Straub’s blog/canvas Halfpixel.com has threatened to mass AfD all the Pokémon articles. So everybody prepare, keep an eye out, and if anyone has a collection of links to previous MegaAfD/VfDs, please provide them here.

*I just want to clarify that despite the problems he is causing, Straub is awesome, and none of the praise in this comment was sarcasm. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if webcomic authors didn't make ridiculous claims and rant and rave in their blogs, the internet would stop working. I don't expect anything of substance to come of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it wasn’t Straub who threatened the Pokémon articles, it was another reader, who, as far as I can tell, is a prolific professional author, but has never drawn any webcomics. You may be right that it’s all blustery talk though. Still found it worth mentioning. Let’s keep an eye on AfD for a few days to make sure nothing materializes. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt anything'll happen (it read more like sarcasm than a threat, to me) - but then again, it never did hurt to keep an eye out. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

I hope you guys don't mind, but I added the WikiProject:Nintendo template to the pokemon wikiProject template. Since all pokemon articles fall under WP:nintendo, it made sense to include both as one as opposed to having two seperate templates on each page. Also, if anyone wants to evaluate for the Nintendo WikiProject, all you do is put |Class=? in there and it is easy. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah i noticed that... no prob here, makes total sense :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Color coding based on color categories

I would like to suggest for the Pokémon infoboxes to be color coded based on their Pokédex color categories. No need to recreate the now-deleted List of Pokémon by color article, but I would think it would be a good idea if the title bar of each infobox to correspond to the Pokémon's color category. The Italian Wikipedia does this: it:Charizard, it:Typhlosion. I also thought about color coding by elemental type, but Pokémon with two types can cause a problem.

There are 10 different color categories. Information on this can be found either on PsyPoke or on Serebii.net.

• Black (examples: Umbreon, Houndoom, many Dark-types)
• Blue (examples: Blastoise, Azumarill, many Water-types)
• Brown (examples: Dugtrio, Hitmonchan)
• Green (examples: Venusaur, Meganium, many Grass-types)
• Gray (examples: Steelix, Rhydon, many Rock- and Steel-types)
• Pink (examples: Clefairy, Jigglypuff)
• Purple (examples: Muk, Weezing, many Poison-types)
• Red (examples: Charizard, Blaziken, many Fire-types)
• White (examples: Dewgong, Lugia)
• Yellow (examples: Pikachu, Ampharos, many Electric-types)

I would like to see these infoboxes color-coded. Andros 1337 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any possibly useful reason to do this. We don't even state the color group in the infobox any more, since it's inane, useless trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the whole "useless" bit. I don't see much in that as useless.Toastypk 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To whom is it useful to make the color of the infobox roughly the same color as the picture in the infobox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this as I detest the all-pink infoboxes, and don’t understand why they were made pink in the first place. I have long wanted to propose a change, but didn’t know how to justify it, as there is no color I would consider to universally represent Pokémon - unlike say, the Legend of Zelda series, which has strong ties to green and gold. This solves the issue of choosing an official color by using an official Game Freak-assigned one for each species. As for the same-color-as-picture issue, I don’t think it’s a problem, the current pink doesn’t cause any difficulties on Jigglypuff, for example.

I must say though, I am not sure this is the right place, I would have put the proposal on the template’s talk page.--WikidSmaht (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this because mentioning a Pokemon's color category in text is inane, useless trivia; making the color of the infobox itself that color takes up no additional space, and it also manages to provide a slight bit of additional info to satisfy Pokefan readers while hardly affecting the reading experience of casual readers whatsoever. This cosmetic detail won't get in the way of encyclopedic coverage, not by a long shot, and it's not Original Research because Game Freak has all the Pokemon assigned to single color categories in the RPGs. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are my ideas for colors representing each color category. Some colors have been modified for text visibility. I thought about using X11 colors, but some could cause visibility issues:

Black	Blue	Brown
Green	Gray	Pink
Purple	Red	White
Yellow

How is this? Andros 1337 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Red is not brilliant enough, blue and purple are too dull and pale. What colors does the Italian ’pedia use? Also, I think the current template uses a different color for the name bar at the top and the other variables below, are we going to use just one color throughout? --WikidSmaht (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am staunchly opposed to any pointless addition of meaningless varying colors to any template anywhere. This is pointless fiddling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... yeah, the point of the colors is to make an infobox look similar wherever it's used. It doesn't work if we assign 10 different colors. -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

??? It looks similar by virtue of structure. I thought colors are mainly a decoration? This way, they could serve a minor informational purpose, too. --WikidSmaht (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I think we all know how you feel by this point. --WikidSmaht (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB in that they're not necessary at all. That said, if this project had nothing else to do, then I wouldn't be opposed to it. But that's hardly the case - tons of individual Pokémon articles need work, as well as most of the core articles. Pokémon itself just achieved GA status again: this is the best chance there's been in a long time to finally get it to FA. There's also all the Toy Fair and other information to be dealt with concerning D/P. And here we are discussing the freaking color of the infoboxes.

At some later date, they might make a good aesthetic addition. But right now there are far more important things to be working on than aesthetics that have no point besides subtlely pandering to the fancruft crowd. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AMIB. This is silly and unneeded. If you really want to have the color of the infobox changed, I don't see what's wrong with that. But to split them into diffrent templates, which causes mess, just for color is silly. Or even to have to go through and change the color on each of them. Anyways, the color feature of the Pokédex was a pointless Pokédex feature which often put them in a vague category for their color when they have a better color to use. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 13:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree with e.o.t.d. — and i love stupid little projects... we have other much more important things. if someone is willing to take the time to go through every article and add a variable value, they could instead use that time to at least bring all articles up to organizational standard. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I concede that we're better off forging article quality than modifying template appearance. We're all pretty much at A Man In Black's mercy at WP:PCP, so I won't argue. :\Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell kind of reasoning is that? Wikiprojects don’t have dictators, and anyone who sets themselves up that way needs to be kicked out. If you think we shouldn’t do it, that’s one thing. But have your own damn thoughts about it, not just “A says so, so that’s what I say too.”. --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That’s fucking ridiculous. Yes, there are more urgent things we could be doing, but, if someone wants to take the time to do this, I would rather have that person do this than NOTHING. --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa, I wasn't actually being serious with my comment there, I was a little under the weather for the moment. My original thought was actually just what you were saying. It just seemed that because AMIB seems to oppose this proposition so staunchly, it seemed that he would make an effort to outright prevent this little side-project from being embarked on. Of course, I don't wanna speak for AMIB about anything. My apologies if I shocked you, I always thought the colors for templates concept was important to try out and see if it works. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry I flew off the handle, I just hate that kind of thinking. Anyway, even AMIB wouldn’t be that arrogant, I’m sure. AMIB is bullheaded but not stupid. Any steps he took to prevent or undo it would more than likely make use of normal methods, not admin powers. To do otherwise would be abuse. --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :) I was also probably not being reasonable about what I said about AMIB and what he opposes, and what he supports, opposes, and acts on is up to him alone to think about. Regardless, it's true that there'd probably be other issues about the articles that can be helped with the effort it would take to implement a color scheme in the species templates, though I don't think it should prevent someone else willing to spend the time to try the coloring concept out with the templates. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I'm being invoked by proxies.

I don't think the content issues should prevent template tweaking. Templates often benefit from a bit of useful tweaking. But color coding is useless without a color key, and the color is so useless that we aren't willing to devote three words per article to it, so we certainly don't need a color key. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of more informational response that you should be including as part of your initial "I oppose this because" responses on many talk page topics. I honestly made a misassumption about you because you didn't clarify from the start why you consider something "a pointless addition of meaningless varying colors to any template anywhere. This is pointless fiddling." Looking at your talk page posts in many other articles, I see that you often say something simple and to-the-point to justify a controversial opinion of yours, and you only start going into greater detail when other users get irked by what you were saying. I really don't want to see you be the subject of a lot of flak from other users as a result from this, so I really think you should make an effort to give more descriptive and perhaps considerate supporting text to your viewpoints on your talk page posts, it might prevent misassumptions by other users about you like what happened with me. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I think it sounds like a fun idea, but I also don't see it as being a helpful, educational one. If someone wants to know what color a Pokémon is, shouldn't they just look at the picture of the Pokémon? But I will say, I'm getting tired of the pink. Anyone up for lavender? --Brandon Dilbeck 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I burst anyone's bubble, but I just thought I'd give a couple examples of how arbitrary the color system can sometimes be (taken directly from Pokémon Ruby as I write this):

• Delcatty, which is almost entirely tan, is listed under "Purple" because of its ears and the thing on its neck.
• The entire Abra Family is listed as "Brown", though their predominant color is a yellow-gold color (as is even stated in all three articles).

Many Pokémon are colored pretty much equally by two different colors, and there's no system to determine which one would be used: Volbeat is a "Gray" Pokémon -a judgement that makes sense because most of its body is gray or a grayish black. But it has a red horseshoe-shaped thing around its neck which is remarkably similar to Delcatty's, in whose case it, and not the main body, determines the color of the Pokémon. They are obviously held to different standards in judging their colors. Not to mention the fact that a good portion of the population is slightly colorblind, which can cause a bit of difficulty. I'm slightly red-green colorblind myself, and to me, Vulpix and Torkoal are both a kind of dusty red (but still clearly red), while the Pokédex says they're both brown. And while the Pokédex tells me that Duskull, Dusclops, Shuppet, and Banette are all black, I consider the first two gray, and the last two purple. With a screen quality like the GBA's or the DS's, color-perception deficiencies seem to show themselves more. In summary, the fact is that this system of colors is unnecessary, can often appear to (or actually does) contradict the Pokémon's actual appearance, has no clear-cut or even vague rules aout which of a Pokémon's colors is its Pokédex color, and consumes time better spent improving other articles. Aside from even those main arguments, it's just plain crufty, and, as Brandon so well put it, "if someone wants to know what color a Pokémon is, shouldn't they just look at the picture of the Pokémon?". There's just no good reason to do this. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 06:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this is so much better justification to opposing coloring templates than just "This is pointless fiddling." You have my thanks because you perfectly proved how this really is something that shouldn't be bothered with. :) Anyway, Brandon Dilbeck has brought up somethng else that'd potentially important to consider: Maybe we should change the overall pink color of the template to something that's not pink, so as to help indicate that the Pokemon franchise is not just for 13-year-old girls in learning community schools like, uh, Bobabobabo; it's also for charming 20-year-old men like myself and grizzled, conspiring old men in... uh, how old are you, AMIB? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nidoran articles tagged

Byss07 has decided to tag all the articles for both Nidoran lines for deletion, for the charge of "gamecruft"…any plans on what to do? I can only think he thinks this because they're "male" and "female" counterparts, but the games define them as separate species.—ウルタプ 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to state the obvious, but, how ’bout we just remove the Prod tags? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, AMIB untagged the Nidoran articles, and I did their evolutions. --WikidSmaht (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Nidoran♂'s picture got removed by a bot back in January because of an issue with its copyright rationale - probably didn't have a {{pokeimage}} tag. I got another one up. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamecruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Hbdragon88 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agreed. :D (hates cruft-calling) Toastypk 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

New AfD Nomination

I've nominated List of Pokémon references or spoofs for deletion. Please discuss it here. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image categories

For those of you who never have seen Category:Pokémon images, we've had approx. 1000+ images tagged with {{pokeimage}}. This makes categorization superfluous because it's not useful in any way. This is similar to the large number of photos that get added to Category:Nintendo screenshots ({{Nintendo-screenshot}}, Category:Screenshots of video games {{game-screenshot}}, and Category:Screenshots of television {{Tv-screenshot}}. In order to not only organize ourselves, but also help these associated categories, i've created new subcats to hopefully replace all instances of {{Pokeimage}} or at least prune downn the parent category to a usable size, and also remove them from the ambiguity of their related categories (e.g. {{PokeGame-screenshot}} belongs to both Category:Nintendo screenshots and Category:Pokémon images so we only need one tag and the image is adequately categorized without adding to the bulk of either). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

would ne1 object to me labelling {{pokeimage}} as deprecated in favor of the newer more specific tags? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

moved back from archive b/c was only visible for two days -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely sounds like a good idea, but what are all the specific subcats? I'd like to at least see what they all are, to see if there are any that could be added or removed, or if there are any that are vague enough that they would be able to cover any miscellaneous images. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, sorry :) i had listed the new templates on the main project page and thought everyone would be able to figure out the categories from there... but if you want a quickie link you can just look at the subcats at Category:Pokémon images. I've also made an alteration to {{pokeimage}} so that there's now a drop down box that lists alternate, more specific tags. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet :) I'll probably put in some work later and re-teg some images. And you're right, I don't see an point in keeping [[tl|pokeimage}}, but I'd keep it until we've converted most or all of the images, just in case. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

well... i've found a couple images that could prolly keep the old tag... but we should defintiely try to make people aware of the new tags, maybe put something at the top of the project page for a month? that, along with the notice on the template itself, will hopefully make editors aware of the change. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle Frontier AFD notice

I thought I'd let you guys know that Battle Frontier has been nominated for deletion here.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we compress it (i.e., shorter, simpler explanations of each facility instead of what's there now) then merge it to either Hoenn or Pokémon Emerald. (How does this get AFD'd and not Battle Tower? >>)—ウルタプ 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, if all of us had started out on our quest for Pokemon coverage at Wikipedia years ago without any Pokeprosal to back us up, would we have had about 50+ pages covering 15 Pokemon each instead of 493 individual species articles, 4 Pokemon region articles instead of a hundred pages on locations within those regions, and just one article talking about the anime instead of several additional episode lists? Just some mumbling of what's currently on my mind, that's all... I definitely think we need to do a lot of merging of many Pokemon locations into the main Pokemon regions, because Wikipedia's the general encyclopedia that should appeal to the casual reader, and it should be at Bulbapedia that all the specific pages and info be stored. AFDs to try and delete articles like Battle Frontier and Battler Tower probably isn't as good as merging and redirecting, IMO. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Battle Tower article, that's actually how I came across the Battle Frontier AFD. I was going around fixing redirects for the fourth-generation Pokémon, and Crecelia was still linked as Kureseria at the Battle Tower article. So then I decided to clean that article up, and while I was doing that, I made a link to Battle Frontier, so I clicked it and realized it had been nominated for deletion. Battle Tower still needs cleaning up and references, but I cleaned out most of the unnecessary stuff.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it should probably go in with Emerald's article, since it wasn't present as part of Hoenn in R/S, and because it's plenty different from the Battle Tower. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 05:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll start by creating a new section in the Emerald article. Hbdragon88 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

see... now if you look at the section, this is why i thought it should stay an article on it's own. There's a lot of information missing (there's not even a link to List of Frontier Brains) like how battling in the frontier is very different than anywhere else in the game, and nothing about it's role in the anime? Did anyone save it to their userspace before it got trashed? if not, could CP or AMIB pls retrieve it for me? If i have to rebuild the article slowly from the section to prove it would legitimately be too long to leave in, i will. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s. i'm not going to be making a point, the section should hopefully be a marked improvement from the original article and (i presume) will merely end up being too long (only time will tell i suppose). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PCP-drive template deletion notification.

I have nominated the PCP-drive template for deletion. I am doing this to improve talk pages. For more information click here. Also please leave your opinion there so that a consensus may be reached. A solution I have for the problem of this template is just to make it possible to add a small message to the main PCP template for our focus pages. I believe this would be an improvement. Funpika 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's not like people would be too interested to see that tag on a talk page anyway. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I just checked the main project template and there is a focus parameter in it. I just noticed that. So basically the PCP-drive template is 100% unneccesary. Funpika 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese preference

It seems that a lot of articles about things that have been released in English use Japanese names over English names. Anyone want to help find these offenders and fix them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Examples? As far as I know, the only ones that do use Japanese names for articles are D/P Pokemon. Most of these have not had English names released, and if there have been reports of such, we cannot confirm them to be true. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I already stated that - I only referred to subjects released in English. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

He means things besides the species articles, Jerichi. I.e., Green (Japan) over Blue (English) for the Special character. (Special over the official English Adventures, too…)—ウルタプ 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I misunderstood. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean Satoshi over Ash. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I just making up an example...Blue/Green and Green/Blue are disputed a lot too...—ウルタプ 14:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was a part of that dispute. I said that it should have been Green, since, IIRC, his "official" name in the remake is Green, not Blue. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this being the English Wikipedia, I'd say it would make more sense to use the English name where applicable. The Green vs. Blue thing... well, I would personally stick to the Blue thing, being the official English name. While I'm all for Japanese names, I think it would be easier for the reader to identify with "Ash" or "Blue" than "Green" or "Satoshi". Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But I'm talking about LeafGreen, which has been released in English though. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, his default name in LeafGreen is Red. Additionally, his default name in Red was Blue, and in Blue, as in the later LeafGreen, it was Red. It is Green in FireRed, but let’s not forget that he was officially known as Blue in the English versions of Gold, Silver, and Crystal. So the final count is Green:1, Red:2, Blue:4. You can’t argue that it was “Green” most recently, because it was “Red” again at the same time. And, let’s not forget that both of those were merely default names for a player-named character. As an already-named NPC, he was Blue each time. Not to mention Pokémon Adventures( the English-language translation of Pocket Monsters SPECIAL, the manga considered to best represent the game world). IF the G/S remakes name the last Gym leader “Green”, and/or they publish additional/reprint volumes of PA calling him Green, then I would concede a need to change. But as it stands, he is most commonly known as Blue in English, by far. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon rewrite

Our umbrella article is in pretty sad shape at the moment, so I'm going to be doing some rewriting. I've got a scratch page at User:A Man In Black/Pokémon, if anyone would like to help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it bad? I've long wanted it to be a featured, but it is pretty good right now at the moment, IMO. Toastypk 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I recently read through it and found several cringe-inducing issues with layout; it talked about the four generations as the first section of the article, and some information was not in easy-to-read sections like what I see at the scratch page. The collecting and development sections at the top of the new draft page definitely fit better where they are, IMO. Anyway, I'm considering doing a big write-up of the various sections in AMIB's subpage; it's the least I could do to console him, following the doubtless trauma he must have underwent following the $10 tredecillion legal threat someone post on his talk page. (a tredecillion is 42 zeros. ^_^) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon is all about the games/anime/manga/etc. themselves, and has nothing whatsoever about how they were concieved, developed, or recieved. Plus, the generations section of the article has grown massively out of control. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling is needed in these articles. Also grammar checks and references needed. More Pokemon articles are needed. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (at war here (screams in the background)) 21:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... more? Why would we need more than our 500-odd? What would they be, anyway? -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

isn't there a talk page equivalent to WP:BJAODN? if so... that would be a great candidate XD -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page entries can go into BJAODN. And by the way, we have about 900 articles under this project. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i know XD that's what makes it so funny... WE NEED MORE!!!! this right after the wikipedia motto of the day was "Wikipedia: Over 500 articles on a single Japanese cartoon series." the irony is kinda sweet. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to introduce the newest member of PCP's GA family

Just a few minutes ago, my recent pet project, Snorunt, had been passed a GA. That brings our count to 21. Its comin' together, folks. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay folks, we have 21 out of about 900 articles that are Good Articles—we're 2.3% done! By the way, this category says there are only 19. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because that category is based on class, not by whether it's a GA or not. Charizard and Ivysaur both have GA status, but have been improved upon enough since then that they are now "A-Class" - a step up from ordinary GA. :)

Incidentally, if we're looking for another species FA, those two are the ones to work on, since they're so close already (Charizard especially, considering how relatively well-known it is). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 07:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon article clean-up

Hi all,

Since summer of last year, I have been attempting to clean up bad spelling and punctuation on Wikipedia. Each week, I spend a little time doing AutoWikiBrowser automated fixes, trying to correct poor spelling and punctuation on Wikipedia using Google searches. Each week, I come across quite a few Pokemon articles which need clean-up. It appears someone (or several people) working regularly on this WikiProject commonly mistake "it's" (it is or it has) for "its" (belonging to it). Because a significant portion of articles needing clean-up come from the Pokemon sector, I'm hoping it's possible for the Project members to keep a closer eye on potential typos or misspellings and help keep the workload down. I manage to clean up at least 500 articles a week, and even if there was just a 10% reduction, that would make things a little easier.

It wouldn't matter so much, but these mistakes are fairly old; they're showing up on Google, so the articles aren't getting cleaned up as soon as the mistake is made. It takes a while for these entries to find their way onto Google. Any help you can provide is appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. But, here's the problem. We have 500 odd articles to keep up with and about 20 active members. That's about 25 articles per person, and taking the time to go through all of the articles would be painstaking, especially with the few we have currently. However, I'd love to help however I can, but, at the moment, it's going to be hard to do that kind of detail work when we have a small taskforce and much larger priorities, such as getting significant Pokemon articles to FA and more minor ones to GA. As a sidenote, most of the existing Pokemon articles likely weren't put into the format they are in by PCP members. Currently, these articles are mostly relying on willy nilly edits from people not associated with the PCP for content. We're trying to fix that, but it's a hard task to achieve. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. We have 900 odd articles, apparently, which is 45 per person. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 03:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

well i recently got approved for AWB, and been using the time to fix our images (several hundred didn't have fair-use rationales, even our lead images) and move them into more specific categories to take the load off the main categories (we used to have 1000+ images in Category:Pokémon images). But my next goal is to go through the 493 species pages and at least try to get them in a consistent shape and will be running the spellchecker while i do it. Hope that'll help. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I HATE THE FUCKING AWB. It doesn’t work for me, and it makes a lot of annoying unnecessary changes. But, as long as you are already using it, be on the look out for stupid things like “due to the fact that” and “that/those of _____’s”. In fact, see if you can identify whether it is a particular idiot that keeps using the redundant possessive, and give him/her a grammar lecture. --WikidSmaht (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AWB only really speeds up making repetitive (read: mindless) changes - of course it has an advanced find/replace feature which you could use, but it still wouldn't be much faster than going through all the pages yourself. If you've had problems with the program, you may want to bring them up on WT:AWB. Like i said... I won't be going through the species articles until i've finished with the images, so hopefully you can figure out how to do what you want and get to it quicker than me (or help me with the images ;) ). Also, I'm sure you've been told this before, but pls try to remain civil, we are not censored, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to be using so much gratuitous language. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I do understand you have a large workload; I spend a lot of time on the Dinosaur WikiProject, and we have 1,144+ articles to split between 6-8 active people. And, like you, we try to get articles up to FA or GA status. So I understand there's only so much you can do.

I do AWB searches for phrases like "to it's", "on it's", "by it's", etc, which are likely to be incorrect (not all instances are, but most are). AWB works great for catching these mistakes, and the automated fixes help the encyclopedia conform to one style, so it doesn't look like hundreds of different people wrote one article. Anyway, thanks for your work, and anything you can do to reduce the bad grammar or typos is greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)