Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Future games

• Pokèmon mystery dungeon 2
• Pokèmon Ranger 2
• Pokèmon Platinum

(this is official;I read t in pokèmon Beckett unnofisial collcter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude57 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Beckett is about as official to Pokemon games as my ass is official to Hannibal Lecter. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to wonder what goes though someone's mind when they say that an unofficial guide is official. -Amarkov moo! 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Be nice, Mr. Couriano. Let's not forget that the real enemy here is lieking mudkips. PMD2 is confirmed, but the others are speculative heresay. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Or DMDA fans botching America (Fuck Yeah) with "Seaking" every few words. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

here's proof for Pokémon Ranger 2! http://serebii.net/index2.shtml look at the entire page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude57 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust that page, it's just that it isn't an acceptable source. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are new stuff for deletion.

See the noticeboard for more information. And please use it more often. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about Pokemon articles

I was just wondering why some Pokemon have their own article (e.g. Swablu, Duskull, Cranidos, Manectric, Beldum evolutionary line, Lickitung)whilst others are just mentioned on a list (e.g. Jigglypuff, Ninetails, Crobat, Pichu). The individual article pages don't seem to show any evidence of notability or verifiability, the only sources appear to be fansites and other wikis (not considered reliable) and the official Pokemon website (not considered independent). Is there a reason for the lack of consistency that I'm not seeing? Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]

If you wanna merge them then go ahead. We haven't finished merging everything yet, that's exactly the reason why some still have their own articles. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering about the situation because it seemed odd, if a consensus to merge has established then I don't mind helping out]]. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I am against Mewtwo article being on merged on a list. The individual article already has documented evidence of notability, including its role in the movies and the Super Smash Bros. content.Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The Mewtwo article was merged almost five months ago. Currently the only remaining Pokémon with individual articles are Bulbasaur, Pikachu, Meowth, and Jigglypuff. All of which play a continuous major role in the Pokémon anime (except for Bulbasaur, but that is a former featured article.) Artichoker^[talk] 02:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The pokémon portal is ridiculously out of date.

Can we please focus on working on that one? It's so out of date that there needs to be more than one man fixing it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is working on this project's articles, actually...as you can see by my response four days later. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nearly time to shut down this WikiProject.

I've noticed nobody pays attention to the noticeboard anymore. And there is now rarely any message on this talk page. I think it's about time to shut down this WikiProject. Now that most of the Pokémon articles are merged we don't need it anymore. Who agrees? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that means this project is going to officially be killed off?Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merging it into the video game project as a taskforce. Even though there are less articles, there are still a good amount that need to be cleaned. We also need to figure out what to do with the lists, as they're a complete mess. It also may help gather some more people if its more focused. TTN (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be converted into a Task Force, then to be killed completely. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to get this into a task force, find someone who can. Also invite EVERYONE that was a big part of the project to help out Bulbapedia. That's where the people that believe in this project should go, that wiki is getting better, and we should make it even better. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought about creating an account at Bulbapedia. They could use some help too. Regarding this WikiProject, I suggest combining it into WP:VG as a taskforce. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia really tends to heathenize Pokemon articles, I've found Bulbapedia to be a lot more extensive in that field. Toastypk (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, let it be a Nintendo task force. You can't categorize the show, the movies, the cards and the comics as video games, now can you? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not paid any attention to WP:POKE and its related articles for a long time now, but thought I'd chime in. Now, I think it's possible that making it no longer a Pokemon wiki-project but merely the focus of a Nintendo-project task force will sort of increase the general sense of priority that editors on Pokemon lists have, because right now it feels as though a huge WP:POKE page like this makes the job of writing and perfecting the Pokemon lists seem more intimidating than it actually is. If you know what I mean... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In anycase, it's great that everything has more or less worked out, despite the problems with individual articles/vandalism/pictures. Personally, i'm proud to have been a part of it, even if the few articles I merged were nothing compared to the extensive amount of work most of you all have done =P Ageofe (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have something to say, by that I mean literally say it, click here. Now look, let's keep on topic here shall we? If you wanna comment on the video, I suggest you get a YouTube account, and comment with that. I'm not saying you shouldn't comment on the video here, but it's better orgonized if you do. I will try to make it a task force some time soon, yes I am pretty lazy while I'm on Wikipedia, that's because I like to spend more time on YouTube. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am asking the WikiProject Pokémon to bring back the separate Pokemon pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so their should be separate pages for the Pokemon. The Japanese Wikipedia has separate pages for the Pokemon, every single wikipedia, the French, German, Italian, Korean, Spanish has them as separate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Tough. The mergers were brought about by policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), not because they liked it more. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the mergers were brought about by members of this project, following a discussion on the subject that concluded that most of the individual Pokemon articles were thought to be better merged into a list. The interpretation of two policies and two guidelines (links provided by Jeske) were influential in this decision.Barnyard animals (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and am restoring the content for cases like Jigglypuff which have good articles in their history. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

calling what took place a "discussion" is a gross mischaracterization of what happened. some people felt that wikipedia's first pillar as an encyclopedia took precedent over interpretations of guidelines, in that because Wikipedia "includes elements of... specialized encyclopedias..." many individual Pokemon deserved far more coverage than a couple sentences. Other people disagreed and just happened to be more active, disrupting months of planning, work, and discussions.... I personally think that the consistent requests for more complete information and the decreased activity of several members should be telling the latter group that they may have been unilateral in there decision to act, and it would benefit the project to find a consensus - by that i mean an agreement that may not be perfect, but one that the most people feel is appropriate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good question. I'm not into pokemon, but i felt pride, that i lived in the world where i can read article even about some obscure pokemon in encyclopedia (and i even read few of them). And how were those articles unverifiable? There are pokemon sources (games, films) everywhere, and primary sources are quite ok for basic fictitious articles (but not for freudian interpetation of the protagonist psyche). Pseudohuman (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of merging the Pokémon pages. Those mergers are and have always been exclusive to English Wikipedia. The policy was misinterpreted and one Wikipedian, TTN interprets the policies too strictly. Most Pokémon sources are actually verifiable, whether in English, Japanese, or other languages. This merger needs to be challenged and undone. For cases like Mewtwo, there has been great controversy surrounding the merger. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many templates into one.

Is there a possibility we could combine {{Pokémon media}}, {{Pokémon games}}, {{Pokemon directory}}, {{Pokémon anime}} and {{Pokémon anime characters}} into one big template called Pokémon?

Oh and also if not, I think {{pokémon}} and {{pokemon}} should redirect to {{Pokémon media}} instead of the games. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I redirected {{Pokémon media}} to {{{{Pokemon media}}, though I think it should be the other way around. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

OK, with only around 40 left to merge (which I'll get to soon), it's about time to restructure and clean up these articles. I'm going to propose formats for the lists, and merge proposals for the remaining characters of the other pieces of media. Please comment on each proposal in its section.

Lists of Pokémon

Each entry should be in a plural format, and begin with X are know as the Y Pokémon. After that, a very brief description of the Pokémon should be given (two sentences unless a characteristic is prominent in the rest of the description). The rest of the paragraph should be used to describe the Pokémon with the Pokédex entries. If anime details contradict anything, they shouldn't be inserted unless they are very prominent in the series. Anything that expands upon given details should be sourced to the episode with a quote given whenever possible.

The next paragraph will only be given for Pokémon with a special role in the series. These include starters, legendaries, blockers (Snorlax), and any other special cases. This will be prominent for the main series, and spin offs will only be mentioned if they are important. Something as minor as being a starter in Dungeon won't be necessary, but being in Smash Bros. is obviously important (I'll try to get a better example).

The third paragraph will cover the anime role (and manga if it's really, really important). As you'll see below, if the Pokémon is major, it'll receive a quick blurb that links to the list entry, while minor ones will be covered within these lists. It'll still only apply to the main characters' Pokémon, though.

We'll set up a list of good citation templates for the Pokédex entries and try to insert the citations over time. If we can get at least five people doing two a day, it'll go pretty quickly.

Anime/Manga characters and gym leaders

All of the anime characters will be merged to one list, giving a brief, concise entry for each one. The major humans and Pokémon will be covered, while the episode lists and the single Pokémon entries will cover the minor ones. Pokémon like Ash's Pikachu, Bulbasur and Charizard will recieve entries, while minor ones that only appear once and awhile (Snorlax, Muk, Corphish, ect) will be covered within the lists.

There will be one main list for the main manga series. The rest minor series' characters will be covered within their own articles. The single Pokémon won't be mentioned unless they're absolutely important to the series, and they won't be placed with the list entries unless there is some special reason for it.

Gym leaders and elite four members will be placed within the game articles, and will only appear on the anime or manga lists if they appear frequently enough to be classified as recurring. Otherwise, they're essentially just made up of game guide material and unneeded plot summaries.

• No. The major characters deserve their own articles, as do the Pokemon, because they meet WP:N and WP:V. The CDJs, however, do NOT, and therefore should be merged into the article(s) for the episode(s) in which they appear. 68.59.172.250 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions

If there is anything that I missed or that someone else wants to implement to clean a certain set of articles, feel free to place it here or create another section for it. TTN (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes - there are two Pokémon, Seaking and Mudkip, whom are the subject of 4chan/DeviantART memes (respectively). ATM, there is a push to get coverage for both memes on their respective articles; unfortunately there is a lack of sources for either meme. Could you keep an eye on the Seaking redirect in case a channer finds it, as well as on any article even remotely related to Mudkip (Saturday, Axolotl, Mudpuppy, Mudskipper)? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to keep up with them. TTN (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Pokeproject_box_contents

This one needs to be fixed, it's very important, because it's part of the WikiProject template. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, sort of. SpigotMap 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this project

I'm not sure what the purpose of this project is. It would make sense to have it if Pokemon content was being worked on and improved, but instead it appears the content is being actively destroyed. If this project favors such destruction, it has no reason to exist; if it opposes such destruction, it needs to get moving in repairing the damage in order to validate its existence. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it turns out most of us here, apparently, are extreme mergists, or the few extreme mergists there are have managed to boss us all around.Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was first to mention that the project needs to go. Here is an useful video. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll become a taskforce eventually, which will be appropriate for the amount of articles that this will have eventually. Right now, working on the lists is much more important than trying to bloat out worthless articles. TTN (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that you have indeed been completely bullied into submission by extreme deletionists like TTN here, and as a result a huge amount of great content has been destroyed. The good news is that it has only been redirected, so you can restore it all any time you like—although, of course, you can't repair the damage with respect to all the readers who have been treated to completely inadequate coverage in the meantime. The bad news is that if you let the deletionists continue to get their way they will go on deleting until there is virtually nothing left—they're deletionists, that's what they do—and then they will turn their focus to destroying some other topic area. Everyking (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is dying. Sooner or later, carrot or onion will be merged to vegetable or something like that, citing some stupid policy. I'm sure in the future, Wikipedia will consist of one article that simply says "GO LOOK SOMEWHERE ELSE". These policies that are "needed", are the same policies that are killing this whole website. I was going here to ask about joining the project, but now I see that "policy" has transformed this encyclopedia into a hollow shell of what it used to be, I will be seeing myself out. Instead of having one site that has all the information, it's becoming a referral to many sites with one section of information. Just like the internet used to be before the Wikipedia project began. In that case, it shouldn't have even been started. 68.186.205.235 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about carrots or onions. Wikipedia requires real-world information. And Wikipedia isn't even close to be limited to one article. Stuff notable in the real world still and will most likely always have their independent articles. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is being bullied by TTN. Jeske Couriano, A Man In Black, TheBlazikenMaster, Erik the Appreciator, me, and a few others all agreed a really long time ago that these articles should be merged (serious discussion started in April). TTN has just been taking the active charge to actually do it. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

TTN is trying to redirect all Pokemon articles (except the Pikachu article) to a series of lists that provide nothing but brief summaries on the characters. As someone who has absolutely no interest in Pokemon (and has never played any of the games), I can think of the names of four Pokemon off-hand. One of them is Charmander, so as an example I decided to see what our content on Charmander looks like right now. Here goes:

"Charmander (ヒトカゲ, Hitokage?) are selectable as one of three "Starter Pokémon" at the beginning of the games of the main series of Pokémon RPGs that are set primarily in the Kanto region (Pokémon Red and Blue for Game Boy, as well as their remakes Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen for Game Boy Advance). Charmander are not acquirable anywhere else in the main series aside from Pokémon Yellow. The end of a Charmander's tail is alit with a flame, and the flame's status reflects both the physical health[11] and the emotions of the individual.[12] If the flame were to ever go out, the Charmander would die.[13][14]"

That's the grand total of what Wikipedia has to say about Charmander, a character sufficiently well-known that even someone who has only the most superficial knowledge of Pokemon is aware of it.

This character could potentially have a good article or even a featured article, something that would provide excellent, comprehensive coverage and satisfy the needs of our readers. Instead, it has this sad little stub buried in a list. Anyone who wants serious coverage of this character will either not learn what he or she wants to know, or he or she will be forced to hunt down another website that has information about it, and we will have failed in our mission to inform that reader.

Content on Wikipedia follows a typical pattern: it starts out short and inadequate, then improves with time, and ideally it eventually becomes comprehensive. Pokemon articles have followed a very different pattern—they started bad, got better, in some cases became great, then got destroyed. I propose that this has happened because a handful of very aggressive deletionists have imposed their will on this whole subject area, steamrolling right through the opposition and demolishing huge amounts of quality content. I could be wrong; it may be that this demolition actually has consensus support among Pokemon editors, and TTN, who appears to be acting unilaterally, actually has the backing of most Pokemon editors as he endeavors to whittle our Pokemon content down to stub level. To help ascertain which is the case, I would like interested editors to note their opinions below. If people support having comprehensive content, then this survey could establish a consensus against redirecting these articles. Everyking (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I am not even the one that proposed the mergers, nor did I really even participate in the initial discussions. This project did that on its own. As for your observations, they are very, very wrong. The only Pokemon with any FA potential is Pikachu, while the rest would just have crufty information. The list entries definitely need to be improved, but they are pretty much as comprehensive as they need to be. TTN (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have merely observed that you seem to be the one redirecting these articles, and fighting quite hard to get even the former FA Bulbasaur redirected to a stub entry in a list. I asked you where you got consensus for all this and you didn't give me a straight answer, telling me to ask around, so I figured I'd ask everyone watching this page and hopefully I'll get some feedback. Everyking (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, up until a little while ago, there were less than one hundred left to merge. The original merging started back around July, and it sort of fizzled out around September. I just finished merging the left over ones a little while ago. There is no single discussion, so it is impossible to actually point anything out, and as most of the members from this project have left or just stopped really working in this area, it'll be hard for too many to comment. Just look around some of these archives, and you'll get a good idea of them. For a general example of what they were doing before I jumped in, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porygon_evolutionary_line. Those articles were the first step, but they eventually also died out. TTN (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I'm still here is because I wanna see how this WikiProject will end. But yeah, Everyking, might I suggest you to go to Bulbapedia? In my personal opinion I think they should redirect to Bulbapedia instead. For example Charizard should redirect here, and Golem should redirect here and so on. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Bulbapedia's content, I'm interested in Wikipedia's content. I knew someone would mention Bulbapedia so I tried to address it above: "Anyone who wants serious coverage of this character will either not learn what he or she wants to know, or he or she will be forced to hunt down another website that has information about it, and we will have failed in our mission to inform that reader." Everyking (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That AfD link indicates strong, widespread support for having that content. Did everybody change their minds suddenly? Why would a whole group of people be working on expanding and improving content, then suddenly turn around and decide to get rid of it all? I find it much easier to believe that the matter was simply forced by a handful of deletionists, something I have seen happen many times before. And I think it speaks volumes that "most of the members from this project have left or just stopped really working in this area". I wonder why? Everyking (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read it? Those were keeps supporting allowing more discussion and merging them in the first place. It was found that having both those articles and the lists were redundant, so they were just trashed. Again, the members of the project decided this in the first place. They have mostly left in order to work over at Bulbapedia or they just feel that this section of the site is going to be fine. TTN (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of your assurances, I'd like to hear from others. Everyking (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm what TTN is saying, as I participated in the talks. Everyking, the PCP/WP:POKE did indeed debate, discuss, and blather to no end in regards to this issue, and the consensus was to merge every single article sans Pikachu into lists. There has been, and still is, a problem implementing consensus here, however, since people who had not participated in the talks at all saw the merger as vandalism and reverted it. I'd look at the talk page archives here from about May to August; that's when the bulk of the discussion took place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So: there's a consensus, but there's a problem implementing it, because a lot of people don't agree with it. Do you see how that logic is flawed? Consensus is not something that is made once by a select group and is then final, with anyone who did not participate in a certain discussion having their opinions excluded. Furthermore, consensus on a contentious issue cannot really be established without a centralized discussion that can be easily pointed to. Everyking (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not found in numbers; it's found in arguments. This project agreed that the articles have no place here per our standards, and some fans complained, some people were not aware of the discussions, and some just brought them back to make a point. The original consensus still holds until our standards change or real world information is provided for each and every one of the 492 bad articles. TTN (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, by definition, cannot depend on arguments rather than numbers; it has to be based on general agreement, and general agreement can only exist when people generally agree. "You disagree with me, but I'm right, so there's a consensus!" I think you have actually made it clear that there was never really any consensus at all, just one group of people who excluded the views of others. Everyking (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And that general agreement has to be based from the stance of policies and guidelines. The fans that complained are irrelevant. Also, most people that don't generally edit fiction related articles always felt that the Pokemon articles were unneeded, so there are a lot more people that want them merged than the ones that don't (I take it you've never looked at an AfD if you don't already know this). What is with you people that are more obsessed with covering the information than rabid fans anyways? TTN (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Everyking, half of the people reverting the mergers didn't even show up to voice their opinions on WT:POKE during the merger talks. Saying that the PCP ignored the concerns of others is fallacious here because they didn't hear said concerns. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that you'd like to hear from others, Everyking, so I'll add my voice. I was of two minds during the merge debates. I could see, rationally, that the full Pokemon articles violated Wikipedia policy on verifiability and notability. They were full of original research, fancruft, unsourced information and opinions, and in-universe content. However, it was pretty danged good original research, fancruft, unsourced information and opinions, and in-universe content. I liked these articles a lot. I liked reading them, and absorbing information from them.

I didn't participate very vigorously during the debates, though I was inclined towards merging. When the merged lists were put up for AFD I voted to keep them, and I helped restore a couple of undone redirects. However, I did not lift a finger in helping to merge the articles, partially because I started my postgrad studies at the time and so didn't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia, and partially because I liked the original articles and didn't want them to be merged.

The mergers were done according to an overall consensus, not a consensus to merge and reduce the information, but a consensus to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Throughout the debates, no one could come up with a good reason to keep the articles beyond liking them. No one could counter the arguments that the articles violated policy. This is why it looks like the consensus to merge is rather flimsy; many people, like me, chose not to help with the merge despite recognizing there are no valid arguments against it. We liked the original articles.

A lot of this is my personal opinion, I can't pretend to speak for this Wikiproject as a whole (hell, I'm not even a full member any more). But perhaps this can offer some insight on how the consensus was reached, and why the subsequent merging seemed to go very slowly. Bhamv (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, I was once the coordinator of this project, and was a major contributor to the previous Pokémon Adoption Centre. We were a very active group of editors with the goal of expanding and improving Pokémon coverage on Wikipedia. We got tens of articles to good article status and 2 to featured status. However, these editors (including myself) faded away one by one, to be replaced by the current bunch, hell-bent on implementing (already somewhat controversial) guidelines to the detriment of the encyclopedia and readers.

So no, of course I don't support the redirects and lists. It all comes down to this question for me (the same factor I use for any article): what makes the encyclopedia better? Well, in this case, having the articles does. Thus, we should have the articles. To me, it's obvious, but apparently, this just isn't good enough for the deletionists. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the drama. A Man In Black (talk · contribs) is also part of the original group (part of the PAC I believe) on this project and he's been advocating some form of merging for a long time. I've been here for a long time (3 years, 9 days) as well and also support the merging. Standards should be uniformly applied to all articles. I've been redirecting dozens of one-shot characters and other very minor characters for other series for the longest while – why should Pokémon be exempt? Because there's a whole project devoted to it? Of course, I have never had a stake in this – besides some minor removal of game guide information, my focus has always been on the games. So I do not speak with great passion on this issue, and haven't even visited this talk page for at least a week. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Pokémon may be, they are not one-shots: the vast majority appear in various media lots of times, hence the long articles of old. While some who were in the PAC/PCP have now decided that the articles shouldn't exist, I'm just pointing out, as Everyking asked, not all of us have. And not drama, just reflection. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most of those appearances are YouTube videos, too bad that's not reliable enough. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The lists may not provide a bunch of interesting little factoids on Pokemon, and someone with basic knowledge of Pokemon woulden't get much from the list. But if you didn't know anything about Charmanders, that little paragraph would give you a very basic idea of them.

Since you're asking for my opinion, I feel that the lists were a a step in the right direction even though Wikipedia had to sacrifice a lot of interesting information and several well-written articles. The focus on berevity, and quality over quantity, was well placed. Besides policy arguments, you try patrolling over 500 pages on pokemon related things for vandalism. Take a look at the history and see how much stuff needs to be reverted daily on the lists alone. (Now, the lists would have been much better with pictures, but those were all deleted!) I'm not a huge contributer so my opinion doesn't count for too much, but just take it into consideration with everyone elses, Everyking Ageofe (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeske's comment "and the consensus was to merge every single article sans Pikachu into lists." is a lie - there was no such consensus: a number of people wanted a handfull, some wanted more than a handfull, even Jeske at one point wanted more than just pikachu, whether or not he's changed his mind now, but the idea that all articles except Pikachu were agreed to merged is wrong. I can supply the diffs for comments by members of this project about this, if people wish me to be that boring.Barnyard animals (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you stop living in the past? This is the present, and this is how it is now. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you stop commenting on me and comment on the matter that this thread relates to? A reasonable question that was asked by Everyking has not been answered to mny satisfaction, I am addressing that. Do you disagree with what I say in the above post or can you show where such agreement was made that every article except Pikachu was to be merged? If you can't, my post is reasonable and I'd like you to get off my back.Barnyard animals (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

additionally, I'm sure that celestianpower wasn't referring to appearances in youtube, but appearances in video games, manga, anime, trading card games, merchandise, movies, etc. And everyking, ur right, there's no consensus. like i've said before, if nething, it's a consensus of the people who decided to stay with the project after it started the merging. i'm usually long-winded, but i don't think there's much left for me to say. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against the merger process, and TTN has been abused it. The merger process is very controversial, and it has alienated English-speaking Pokémon fans. Some of them have stopped coming to Wikipedia because of that. I do not trust TTN at all. TTN is an extreme mergist with no interest in Pokémon or Fire Emblem. TTN even threatened to merge the article on Fire Emblem character Marth. Even the article on Mewtwo was merged, and that was wrong, as Mewtwo has great notability. TTN's notability standards are too high anyway. There should be a poll to challenge the merger. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has abused anything. I don't know much, since I just recently started editing frequently in this project, but there seemed to be a general notion towards merging the article by many respected editors. Most of the articles on individual Pokémon articles contained superfluous, unsourced fancruft and gamecruft. When you think about it, there really isn't a whole lot to mention about Mareep, etc. Merging these Pokémon into lists allows a nice paragraph (usually all that's needed) of description. Artichoker^[talk] 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree about Mewtwo, but TTN wasn't the only one supporting the merge. And most people that supported the merge didn't do it because they agreed with him, it was because they knew most Pokémon weren't notable enough. But I must say there is one thing I'm STRONGLY against on the lists. It's no images. And is there any good reason for that? No, there isn't. I always said that lists are still articles on Wikipedia, they shouldn't be treated differently. Unfortunately there are some people that can't see that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for the interested regarding Mewtwo, I did start this awhile back to try and recreate a good article for it till I got sidetracked lately with a few other articles and other matters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking Quetsion

Hi all, I'm new to Wikipedia as an user and today I wanted to add some links to the Pokemon pages (a link to a website which functions as a Pokedex). I created a template like this:

{{OmnidexInfo}}

Almost immediately after I've added this link to the External Link parts of the Pokemon sections, they were removed and the moderator sent me a message "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged.". Ok. No problem, my goal was to add this link as some piece of useful stuff. After my reply the moderator told me:

"We've been trimming down all of the unofficial links to fansites recently. This is why other fansites, such as Serebii, are no longer listed. I'm not entirely sure why Bulbapedia remains at this point; probably just so that the section isn't left blank."

The only problem I was wondering is: why is linking to Bulbapedia allowed? As far as I know this is also an fan-made site? Can you please clarify this matter?

I hope someone can give me an answer to my question.

~Remco~

TheUnknownCylon (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's an encyclopedia edited by many people, that has standards. Unlike fansites owned by servers that can only be edited by limited group of people, everyone with an account can edit that site, very similar. Just to inform people that the information about most Pokémon isn't gone, but has instead being moved. And believe me, irrelevant things there get reverted just like they do here. They have different, but they have policies that everyone must follow, that is also a place for facts, just more Pokémon-based. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your money isn't gone—it just got moved into my pocket." Everyking (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your money is wasted...TheUnknownCylon (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Serebiidex

Template:Serebiidex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Omnidex

Template:Omnidex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [2] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to articles in other languages

Links to articles in other languages are lost when users decide to write a redirect to a list over an existing article like here There are eleven other language articles on this topic, which just vanish. Is there a way of displaying them in the page that the redirect points to?Barnyard animals (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does no-one in this project even care about this?Barnyard animals (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i do care, but i'm not w/ the project nemore.... i initially had been merging the text to include other languages when we were following the old consensus. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

I have an idea. If we're not allowed to use the official Ken Sugemori artwork for the individual Pokemon on the lists, can we use the in-game sprites for them?Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because that has the same problem as the Sugimori images. Namely that the images do not have a fair-use license. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about pictures from the anime or manga?Leprechaun Gamer (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The only way around it is to change the policy. What irritates me the most is that it doesn't make lists any more encylopedic to remove the images. How many times do I have to say that? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Abra evolutionary line

I have something to say about the revision history on this. I'm not asking anything to be unmerged, I just wanna say that whoever thought it was a good idea to mix the revision histories of Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam was a good idea clearly has never read revision histories. I know it's gonna be hell of a job, but I want Alakazam's revision history to be seperate. Because it's hard to see the difference between revisions now since it goes from Abra, Kadabra and then Alakazam at random. It's pain, so please split the revision histories to what it should be. I wanna know how the article about Alakazam was before it was merged. Nothing else. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

if you want nothing else, here. Other than that you need to take the matter up with Deskana, who's the one who did the merging. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Article Revamps

See: Talk:List of Pokémon anime characters. In a nutshell, all the character articles need major overhauls. In-universe information of the Pokemon and not the characters themselves dominate majority of the articles. In order to maintain separation from lists for some of the central characters, a whole rewrite must be done. I'd suggest the Project work on Ash first since he is most likely the easiest and is central to the entire franchise. It may also be best to discuss which characters should be merged first and which ones to work on so that editing can be directed more efficiently.Fox816 (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiball

I've created two SVG versions of the Wikiball image, A crystal styled version and one closer to the original.

• 
  Original PNG version
• 
  Crystal SVG version
• 
  Closer styled SVG version

Which, if any, do you all prefer? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Original. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What?! Those look awesome, I was just browsing the page. I'm not even a Pokemon fan (i'm a Weekly Jump type), and honestly those look alot better than the cheesy flash version. I would say the middle one looks the best. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk at WP:FICT

you know, the way this is going, it seems that the guideline will be explictly stating my opinion i had months ago, that as sub-articles of the main topic, notability is not an issue for individual species articles. once the arbcom case is settled and FICT is undisputed, i plan to take this whole mess to RFC. i opt for later rather than sooner b/c i think it will give people time to think about the guideline - just think, not discuss. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The sub articles only are to be applied to single lists of fictional elements, such as the 25 current lists. The current lists have the potential to contain all of the relevant information (they're pretty crappy at the moment), so there is no way we would ever need to go back to the old versions that bloat them up with OR and cruft. TTN (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Blue Japan

I came across this article today, and I was wondering if it's necessary? The game doesn't seem that much different than the other versions of Pokemon blue. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Either redirect it nominate it, prod it or speedy it. Green redirects to red and blue, and I'd say that could be more notable than the Japanese version of Pokémon Blue. I'd choose the first option, as it can be relevant in the Pokémon Red and Blue article. 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulbapedia

Was just looking over the previous RfD on the Bulbapedia article, where it was stated that notability had to be proven for the article to remain, or a redirect to be placed. Given that it seems we're trying to encourage people to move over there if they want to continue contributing to detailed Pokémon articles, I was wondering if it might be worth going and doing that, so we can get the attention of more of the people who, let's be honest, seem to ignore the talk and noticeboard pages of the project as it stands. Between the information on Bulbapedia's own messages from the editor (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bulbapedia:Messages_from_the_Editor), them being the founders of a multi-language wiki collaboration (http://www.encyclopaediae-pokemonis.org/), being linked by Penny Arcade on a couple of occasions, and Wikia having at least twice tried to literally buy them out, I'd say that's enough to prove notability, wouldn't you? --58.174.99.55 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Bulbapedia and Encyclopediæ Pokémonis are not usable as sources due to them being Wikis, and I don't think you'll be able to find news on being linked from PA. However, if you can find a source for Wikia attempting to buy them out... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the earliest instance I can find of Wikia contacting Bulbapedia directly is at http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bulbapedia_talk:Advertising#Wikia, where Angela Beesley, co-founder of Wikia, first offered them hosting personally. IIRC, as part part of that offer, they were given the option of either a lump sum, or 30% of advertising revenues on the Bulbapedia in perpetuity. Trying to find a public access reference for those. If you have a private contact, I could also send you a copy of an email exchange between "Archaic" (the webmaster of Bulbagarden, to which Bulbapedia belongs) and Angela only a month or so back, which was shown to some long term contributors to Bulbapedia, where they were offered instead stock options in Wikia. --58.174.99.55 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not receive a forwarded email from anyone but its origin. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The copies of these emails I have access to do show all original headers, but if you'd prefer it from the horses mouth, if you wanted to contact Archaic himself, he might be willing to forward it to you. --58.174.99.55 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question about Images

How is Pokemon any different from other Nintendo franchises whose articles have plenty of pictures of characters? Wouldn't Wikipedia risk being sued just as much for using those images as it would for using Pokemon images? Are we making a mountain out of a anthill here? SuperChencho (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Nintendo articles are you referring to? Do they have 20 per page as well? -WarthogDemon 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are very good questions. Lists shouldn't be treated like crap in my opinion, they should be treated as articles, therefore they should have the same picture limit as articles. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating list template

Can someone please create a list category for our article statistics? They are currently listed as "unassessed". If we do that, they will all be rated. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rediscussion - repercussions of a potentially new consensus

Okay, I'll lay down the gauntlet.

I've only just noticed what happened when I tried to look up the plural of "Eevee". Before starting, I wanted to respond to a previous thread above: 'consensus' is not just a consensus of who shows up, but a general consensus among users and Wikipedians in general. If people discuss something in a small group, and then run into new opposition upon implementation, then the small sample group obviously was not a representative of a consensus. That would be evidence that there was statistical error (or bias due to convenience of sampling) in the sample. In such a case, more views and arguments should be allowed, and discussion needs to happen again with the larger group. Obviously, if there are a group of holdouts that don't seem to be persuaded by reason, they can be ignored in favor of the greater consensus. But just barreling through won't help gain consensus and will just create drama. But that's in the past, I suppose; I hope to rectify this now.

From my personal view, I think this whole discussion has happened already for 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (and season vs. individual storm articles in general). The consensus there was, if I recall correctly: if there is sufficient information to warrant a new article which would not fit in the format of the super-article, then keep the separate article. From my (admittedly, now dated) experience, this is a strong consensus in general across Wikipedia. Personally, I can see no logical reason that the Pokemon case should be different. Removing information from Wikipedia is generally a terrible idea. Those articles with little information may be merged into the smaller format. This seems like a very intuitive starting point. (Precise definitions of "information" and such are omitted here, but I take the view that "information" is measured in utility to readers. Very badly presented information can be counted as no information at all, and may well be merged.)

Can someone point out some concise place that explains how this contrary consensus took hold? I can't imagine that all the individual articles had so little usable information. It's certainly possible that some newfound argument is convincing enough to overturn the previous consensus in other project(s). —AySz88\^-^ 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It took hold because there was a strong feeling that the individual articles were being loaded with Pokécruft and that none of the individual Pokémon, sans Pikachu (and possibly Mewtwo) were notable of their own accord (as notability was, and still is, not inherited). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While I was not a part of the original discussions, I can explain the rationale for the merges. Much of the information was identical in every article. Every lead (with the possible exception of Pikachu) was word-for-word the same, the only differences being the Pokemon's name and type. Many (although admittedly not all) of the articles contained little or no detail on the actual Pokemon themselves. Often, what wasn't an identical phrase to another Pokemon species article was simply an overview of how to best use the Pokemon in a competitive battle. All of this information had to be removed, since it automatically fails WP:NOT. The rest of the information was either a list of episodes in which the Pokemon has appeared, or completely unsourced material which, according to Wikipedia policies, may be removed at any time.

The simple fact of the matter was that when you stripped away the identical leads (which is now visible word-for-word as the lead for each list), and removed all of the game guide content, there was little actual information left. What information there was got placed into the lists. People have ranted and raved over the merges (I know; I was one of them), but it's a sad fact that all of the useable information in the articles is now present in the lists (and most of that remains unsourced). It's very possible that whoever originally merged the articles did miss some of the information, but when you consider that many of the listed Pokemon are in the same condition as Kangaskhan, it's plain that in most cases there wasn't much information to merge in the first place. If you are interested, there was an ongoing discussion at Talk:Bulbasaur on this several weeks ago. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more clear - I expect that most of the individual articles could and should be merged into lists - indeed, the vast majority of the articles, 90% or so. However, I did not expect that all of them but one or two would have been. I'd expect at least a dozen exceptions, and certainly didn't expect the existence of some to be doubted, like Mewtwo or Latios.

Skimming through Talk:Bulbasaur, I can think of plenty of contraindications on the 'notability' assertions. For example, someone says that a few paragraphs from a few major news articles are needed for notability. But this can be done by searching on the Google News archives, a fairly easy task for Mewtwo or Bulbasaur or Meowth - though unfortunately, a bunch of articles are under subscription barriers, so I can't quite tell whether those really are a whole paragraph.

Also, out of curiosity, was the removed material moved off-Wikipedia (i.e. to Bulbapedia or some such)? —AySz88\^-^ 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure; I only rarely glance at Bulbapedia nowadays. However, last I checked the info they had was similar, if not identical, to the excised material. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But this can be done by searching on the Google News archives, a fairly easy task for Mewtwo or Bulbasaur or Meowth - though unfortunately, a bunch of articles are under subscription barriers, so I can't quite tell whether those really are a whole paragraph.

Then do so. Doing this would render moot what was a long and contentious debate (and may yet still, I've been away).

As for the unsourced advice and such, it was mostly deleted for lack of a better home that wants it. It was mostly poor even in a game-guide sense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard

Since this isn't being used anymore should we nominate it for deletion? I really think it should have been used a lot more, there were too many pokémon-related deletions I wasn't about to notice until after the closure. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Pokémon (441-460) needs some attention.

So please comment on that talk page, I can't discuss this with an unregisted user alone. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't have a discussion with that IP alone anymore, I don't even know how to explain that cons. has been reached. Especially since the IP took the word "everyone" too literally in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this section to the Pokémon talk page, since this wikiproject is deserted. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:List of Pokémon (441-460). Cheers, Face 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's time....

....to make this WikiProject a task force. Now how do you make a wikiproject into a task force? It's obviously dead, or dying, so there is no use in letting it being a whole project anymore. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark it as inactive, but I really wouldn't want to see this collapsed under a task force. It reminds me of when Pokémon used to be mighty and constantly referenced as problematic (see Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png). hbdragon88 (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this image supposed to show? That Wikipedia is getting more useless? If so I disagree. It's mainly getting rid of stuff that no real encyclopedia would have. For example, how can you source all the trivia on television episode articles? In most cases you can't because there isn't often published words from the writers of one particular episode. The reason why Family Guy...... Whoops, I got too far off topic, sorry about that. Ok, agreed, I will mark it as inactive. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's parodying the current state of the encyclopedia. Stephen Colbert has sparred with Wikipedia before, with a few bits around it (interviewing Jimmy Wales, Wikiality, tripling size of elephants). Many, many people have wondered why Wikipedia had articles on each and every one of the 493 Pokemon. Now we're getting a bit better, but the image was a perfect parody of the state of Wikipedia back when it was made. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging Yellow, Crystal, and Emerald.

While many people oppose it, I think it must be explained that none of these articles have any potential of reaching GA status, let alone FA status, by the fact that only the Changes and Reception sections are unique to their articles. For instance, with these articles left alone, there cannot be a "main Pokémon titles" featured topic, as they have no potential for advancement to GA status. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up!

Have fun! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting us know. Cheers, Face 11:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone on 21-40?

Someone insists on changing every mention of Clefairy to Clefairys. I can't keep fighting him over it...someone help out. -Sukecchi (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anti-pokemon

What do you think of this article? It's ugly and unsourced but gives a lot of google hits.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this, I immediatly tagged it with {{db-attack}}. I now see that it's not exactly an attack page however. It's just an unencyclopedic rant that should be removed. I'm actually surprised that it's been here for more than a day. Cheers, Face 15:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad that this was cleared quickly. I suggest that your project's members watch the page's title since this was the second time that the article was made. You might have a case for salting should this article pop up again.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I see it, I'll get out my Goblin Gardener and kill it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New discussion

Right here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of all Pokémon CD articles

A few hours ago, User:Ultraviolet scissor flame made the incredible bold move of changing the content of all Pokémon CD articles to a redirect to List of Pokémon theme songs. As far as I can see, this has never been discussed. Fortunately this WikiProject is not gone yet, so I have a central place to ask: do we agree with this?! Cheers, Face 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just notified the user about this post. Cheers, Face 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That list already exists on Bulbapedia and that's where it belongs. But it was good that the articles were redirected to somewhere. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While bold, his edits are appropriate. The Pokemon CDs fail WP:MUSIC, and at best should be listed briefly in the theme song list or in the appropriate series articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are notable enough to be on a list either. But I know it's just the first step. All television shows have theme songs and there are plenty that have themes that change each season. Though most of the times it's just the background that changes and the theme song itself is the same, I'm sure Pokémon isn't the only show that has the theme song lyrics changing. I am unaware of any other, but I'm sure some exist. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if those albums fail WP:MUSIC. The album paragraph reads: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage."
On the other hand, it also says: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Most of the articles were not like that however. Most had quite some additional information, and the First Movie even had chart performances. Cheers, Face 20:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore my previous comment, I misunderstood what was going on. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The é's

Am I the only one changing the 'e's to 'é's and capitalizing 'Pokémon' in the articles, or is someone else doing it? Just curious. Kiyi-chan (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I do that too, along with changing pokeball to Poké Ball. Useight (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum dispute

There has been quite a content dispute at Ash Ketchum over the last few days. I remain neutral on the issue and just thought I'd bring up the matter here in case anyone wants to give input. Useight (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and I say it again. I do believe that real-world information exists for Ash, I also believe more real-world information exists for this character than ANY Pokémon character. He is the main character of the anime, yes he is the main character because he is the only one that appears in every single episode. Do not ask me for sources, I don't have any, I don't need sources for talk pages, just article. On talk pages we are discussing how to improve an article, and stating that sources exists is part of discussing how to improve an article. Well, I know for a fact that Ash does have more real-live content than Brock, Gary, Oak or any other character that appears commonly on the anime, no I'm not saying it's a fact he has a lot but I know he does in fact have more than Oak for instance. Tell you what, tomorrow I will scan through the article, just so I won't forget I will add it through my schedule, since I'm a Pokémon fan it could be hard to find something invalid for Pokémon fans, but I will try my best tomorrow, after that I will leave comments on the talk page telling what I find wrong with it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to say this in a manner that you take it that the article is going to be merged or deleted or something. No, the content dispute is whether the article should contain a Pokemon section listing Ash's current roster. (see here.) Or was I wrong in this assumption? Artichoker (Discussion) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are right, I was taking it like it was going to be merged, sorry about that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pokemon list articles are useless and uninformative.

By all accounts they fail the notability guidelines even more now that the articles are in list form on top of being uninformative and pictureless. Also, Bulbapedia is down 60% of the time and the Pokemon Wikia is terrible. You encyclopedia zealots have successfully made finding information on these things impractical and annoying, good job.

I'm just thrown' it out there that you're failing miserably at whatever good intentions you think you have. Now excuse me while I go look at the histories for the redirect pages for encyclopedic information. - 4.154.239.88 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem a little uncivil to me. In any case, can you show me an example of one of the articles you are talking about? Artichoker (Discussion) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He/She means all the Pokémon lists. Bulbapedia, at this point, indeed seems to be down. I don't know if it's unreachable often. At least this is the first time I've seen it offline, but then again I don't look at it every day. Perhaps they're under attack again; some people really don't like that site. Anyway, depending on the "information" you said you wanted, the three pokedexes on Serebii.net (RBY/GSC, RSE/FrLg and DP) might be alternatives. Cheers, Face 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I so agree that the lists are useless. I really would want to say that "no images because of copyright law" is bullshit, however I will just sound uncivil and unhelpful, so I won't.

I sometimes think that those lists are nothing but vandalism magnet, the only good edits I've seen is if a main character gets a new Pokémon, or minor grammar checking, besides that I can't really see any useful edits. I know there needs to be a limit, but no images isn't helping anything, in fact it makes things worse. I can only hope images will be allowed on lists, they are articles and shouldn't be treated differently. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the main problems is that nobody has actually tried to improve them. I tried some basic cleanup with some of them, hoping it would catch on, but it didn't. Just getting the entries sourced with the game information would at least allow them to become decent. If you want images, try to find if any of the game guides have pages with multiple Pokemon. You also may want to just ask on a noticeboard or something similar if you can combine the single images, as they're already used together in other pieces of media. TTN (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear WikiwProject Pokémon, I don't know very much about wikiprojects and such, but here's my two cents: I do not support the merging of all the Pokemon articles, because it seems that a lot of useful information is disappearing! I also believe that merging the Pokemon articles goes against Wikipedia standards. I recall that when I first took an interest in Wikipedia, there was a policy along the lines of the "pokemon rule" which dictated that every topic with equal or greater importance to an individual Pokemon would receive its own article on Wikipedia. What happened to this policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.4.139 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Pokémon rule" was sarcastic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for this? Try reading it, it will probably shed some light. Artichoker^[talk] 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, I remember back when Matt Yager had it in his userspace. It was never a standard of inclusion, just a much-mocked "Well, if you're keeping this crap, keep my crap too!" argument made in some AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not directed towards you; I hate it when I indent comments incorrectly on talk pages. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time you should start the comment stating the name of the person you're speaking to if it's not the one at the bottom. That way people won't mistake that easily. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess, although it would be kind of weird saying Hey 66. Artichoker^[talk] 21:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do have to agree the current setup does cut out an incredible amount of information. But the problem is as a result of the other end of the debate, there's a truly small number of characters in the series that could be considered viable under WP:N, less than 20 by my count and even that's stretching it. The impact of it is pretty much gone, and just about anything introduced in the third and fourth generation games is dead in the water short of pokedex descriptions and anime purpose (Gardevoir being used as a sexpot by very odd people does not count, Lucario possibly could but it's an undenyable longshot at the moment as there just doesn't seem to be enough discussion). So where's the happy medium in the end?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute at Glitch City

There is currently a content dispute at the article Glitch City, which is supposed to be a redirect, but a stubborn user, User talk:MKULTRA333, continues to revert it back to an article. Glitch City is simply a glitch in Pokémon Red and Blue, and is non-notable, which is why it was changed to a redirect in the first place. My discussions with him can be found at Talk:Pokémon Red and Blue#Glitch City and Talk:Glitch City. Can I have a third opinion of this please?

Thank you Artichoker (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a city it's a glitch. I agree that it shouldn't have its own article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, could you please post your thoughts here? Artichoker (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, because all I got to say about this is it's unsourced and original research, so there is no point in wasting my time find something to say about this if that's all I have to say about it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Glitch City for deletion. The entry can be found here. Artichoker (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)