Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Here?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulbapedia

Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

      -WP:FANSITE

Um bulbapedia definitely falls under this ,therefore we have a great resource to get everything.They have a history of stability and a lot of editors, myself a former one.So there, we can use this wesite for our references.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's for external links, not references. TheLeftorium 13:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, may I know where it says we cant use bulbapedia?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here. TheLeftorium 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok thnks-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Charizard

I think you should work on Charizard next. I dont know why you did Torchic. I guess to get a Generation 3 article made, and because it was a FA before. ha, but Charizard is in Brawl and it is a very popular Pokemon. You might be able to find some good references. Not sure. I just am saying don't do something random like Torchic. Charizard and Squirtle should be worked on next since they are in Brawl. --Blake (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Venusaur should be the next one..... Or Combusken... But venusaurs easier.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess Venusaur would be ok, but I dont think you would find anything on Combusken. I am suggesting Charizard and Squirtle because they might have more out of universe information you can use. --Blake (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyways.... I got the Charizard article made in my sandbox. It looks fine exept for too much in-universe info on Anime and Manga. Feel free to tweek it. I based the infobox on Bulbasaur's. --Blake (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did the same thing with Squirtle --Blake (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bws2cool/Squirtle. How does it look? I think Squirtle could become an article once the Anime section gets fixed. I dont know what part of it to take out. If I take out one part, I might as well take out all of it. Care to help? --Blake (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The "in other media" section has the kind of information that is needed to establish notability outside of the Pokemon universe. It's not much, but it's a start. Again, conception and reception sections are needed. In regards to the anime section, I'd suggest taking a look at articles such as Pikachu, Bulbasaur, and Mewtwo to see how they've structured it; try modelling it like that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon Articles

OK, if everyone could work on Ivysaur mainly(Torchic isnt of prime importance) we can get this done and then work on others.BUT UNTIL WE GET THIS DONE WE SHOULD NOT CREATE OTHER ARTICLES ABOUT POKEMON.Please I personally think the Ivysaur is ready, it just needs the pics, but apparently we share different opinions.So other than that the only thing left to add is what you guys call Game Guide Info.I mean, that would add a lot of info and we could it from IGN , a reliable source.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Game Guide info? I think that's actually what we want to get away from. The info that is actually needed is details on the conception and design of the character, as well as its critical coverage. Artichoker^[talk] 21:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, its true pokemon has no real world importance EXCEPT the games.The Games, Thats all nobody watches the anime cept 11 yr olds,Tell what 11 yr old i going to come onto wikipedia?THeyll go onto pokemon.com. So to appease everyone we mus t add the Game Guide info, such as moves and maybe base stats thats it.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 1st, you could have spent 30 more seconds fixing all your grammer mistakes. Second, yes, they will be looking for that information, but that is why we have the Bulbapedia link at the bottom of the page.--Blake (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Im in a hurry, and you rushing the pokemon articles by copying the originals .SLOW DOWN! and it is the truth.With that info from IGN, we'd have pokemon articles on GA or at least passable.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains information on verifiable fact. We have information about the games, not how to play them. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not how to play them, just thier moves and base stats.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That is game guide information though, which tells you how to play the game. You don't seem to understand the distinction between what should and shouldn't be included. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we want them to come and see our articles and then our project will be success ,Until we start adding all info we can,listening to the policies too(IGN is accepted),we'll never reach our full potential.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt need that information on Pokemon. Like I said, that is why we link to the Pokemon's Bulbapedia article. Also, like I said a few discussions up, FORGET ABOUT IT. They arent going to allow us to add all that information.--Blake (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! my articles passed and guees who delelted them after they passed CSD and speedy delete, MEMBERS OF THIS WIKIPROJECT!!!!You say you want to make this better but you keep holding it back! DO YOU NOT REALIZE!!!-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please fill us in on what article passed? I am a little lost.--Blake (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you guys are acting like five year olds! Why don't you just listen to what MelicansMatkin says? TheLeftorium 23:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Torchic and Ivysaur passed a few days ago. Then were deleted by these people,THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY WANT TO HELP POKEMON ARTICLES,scroll up and see.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Put torchic as an article again and add the pics and see it pass the speedy phase and then get deleted by these people.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Permethius, you really need to attain consensus before you go creating articles. We discussed this. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, im not creating any cept in the sandboxes.I'm pissed tho cuz Torchic could be an article,but the people here want to hold it back.Pokemon is basically in-universe info.Nothing more really .-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, but they would rather have an article half these ones' size, but with ALL out-of-universe information. The in-universe information is all on Bulbapedia, we dont need that here.--Blake (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True, most Pokémon have no information outside of in-universe stuff. That is why they don't warrant their own individual articles. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll e back tomorrow im going to play darkorbit to let off some stress.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ivysaur

Well anyway, at User:Permethius/Sandbox I've started an article about Ivysaur.If you would like to help please add things to it. Peace-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Turned into regular Article, Ivysaur PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Soooo....Anyone like the article?What does it need the most?And finally, should i add the {{pokemon-stub}}?Thanks and Peace Out PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You have only one reference, Bulbapedia, which can't be used as a reference in the first place. The information is entirely in-universe, and a great deal of the structure seems to have taken its inspiration from the Bulbapedia page on Ivysaur. There is also no out of universe information provided. This is pretty much the reason why all of the articles were merged into lists in the first place (see the above discussions). I can't see this being an article for long before it is remerged. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MelicansMatkin, and have restored the redirect. The Ivysaur article had absolutely not reliable sources to exert its notability (Bulbapedia is not an acceptable source) and was mostly in-universe, trivial information. Artichoker^[talk] 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The last version of the article created by Permethius can be found here for curiosity/historical purposes. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further note:' The last version before a redirect is here. It has mostly unreliable sources (serebii, psypokes, etc.), but some sources like the "official" books may be useful for the merged section or any individual articles that have demonstrated real world notability. —Ost (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll work on getting more important info and keep on editing ti at User:Permethius/Sandbox and when it is suitable i'll present it again, with at least 5 reliable resources,other than Bulbapedia.Thanks for telling my what I had to do.-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad that you were bold and took a stab at it. Some policies to consider while you're working at it: WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:V. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, It has 5 reliable resources, so if anyone wants to check it out....I worked on it for 2 1/2 hours last night and an hour today.Again, heres the linkUser:Permethius/SandboxHope this is good. If I need anymore info or references,please feel free to alert me.I will not be adding this as an article until everyone approves it.Peace Out-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reliable source you have for an in-text citation is the Smash Bros. Dojo. MySpace is not a reliable source, and the others are all fansites/self-published sources. Everything up to and including "In the Manga" is uncited, and Trivia sections are discouraged. There's still little real-world information about it in the article, and an excessive amount of in-universe stuff. It still needs a hell of a lot of work. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn ,this is so hard to find a reliable resource for him.But I'll keep trying.PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking another look at your sandbox, I see that in the references you've included The Official Pokémon Handbook; why not try implementing that as an in-text citation to back up what is said? WP:CIT has a good format for referencing books inline that you could use. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm leaving right now but when i return tonight i'll check that out.Thanks for helping.PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to try a Google news search for some additional sources. Most mentions of Ivysaur seem to be in passing, though CNN should at least meet WP:RS; I'm less sure if a NY Times editorial does. —Ost (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs/editorials are acceptable as sources; I'm fairly confident that the New York Times would fall under that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at reworking the page (hope that's okay with you Permethius); approximately 3000 characters were removed, though this was mostly trivial or repetitive information (there's only so many times we can mention that Ivysaur draws nutrients from the sun). I've replaced the MySpace reference with one from IGN for the basis of it's name, and condensed all the Biology, Diet, Habitat, etc into just Physiology. As the layout and information was very similar to the way it is presented on Bulbapedia, I changed the sections around and tried rephrasing some of the information. I've also removed the PokeDex entries as they are really too trivial for inclusion and would work best as a source for some of the in-universe information in the article (height, weight, behaviour, etc.). I think the article looks a lot better structured and more readable now, but of course feedback is welcomed.

I haven't changed the way the information was written, which is primarily an in-universe style, so that needs to be worked. I also noticed a few weasel words that make the article seem to be composed of original research that have not been changed. A lot of work still needs to be done, but I think it is looking better. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the continuing issues, but your cleanup does look better. I just remembered that the most recent Nintendo Power had an interview with Pokémon developers. I think one mentioned Bulbasaur or Ivysaur as being his favorite Pokémon, comparing it to a Welsh Corgi because of its short legs. —Ost (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you'll be able to find that source? I must have missed that article if it was online. It would be a good addition to either of the articles (depending on which it was) for design information. Also, having just taken a cursory look at the CNN article you linked, I think that has some good information that could be added to the TCG article as well. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look up the article when I get home. Otherwise, keep on me because I definitely have the issue and can get the information. —Ost (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll be fantastic; we can work it in as a direct quote, possibly in a new development section, or something similar.

Note that a "Cultural Impact"/"Critical reception" section will need to be added as well. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily posted the scanned article if you would like to check it out. Sorry about quality, but my scanner appears to be broken and inserting a black bar. The mention of Bulbasaur on page 44 seems more about the individual's preference than about design. But the talk of Pichu in the same question does seem to give some of its design information. —Ost (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, your scanned article won't load for me.:(Anyway you can upload it in a different manner?Peace Out-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a site error. I can't get to it now, either. Perhaps I'm over my data transfer rate for the hour. —Ost (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I zipped it, but it's still pretty big and will go over geocities's hourly free transfer rate. Sorry for the inconvenience. Keep checking back and it should be available. —Ost (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the link and it said "Site Maintenance". It'll be up again soon, I'm sure. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Up, Though I dont see what we can include in here about Ivysaur.-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you got the interview. After looking at the response, I felt similarly to you. I figured I should still post the article as MM had not seen it and because it may have information for other articles—such as the deliberately strategic creation of Pichu. —Ost (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

← Not only about Pichu, but the information on the music composition might be useful in the Video Games articles as well, Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum especially. Artichoker tends to do a lot of work on those and is more familiar with the articles than I am, so I'll drop him a line about its inclusion. There's nothing there to use about Ivysaur, but we can work in the part about Bulbasaur I'm sure. In the development/conception/creation/whatever section maybe say something like "The designers noted that the design of Bulbasaur was similar to that of Corgis", only better worded. It's not much, but it's the little things like that which help make an article the more relevant. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats cool that you changed it, It looks a lot more readable, and if we can find some old resources and add them(from CNN, NYT etc. as you said) it'll be close to a full-sized article.Thanks for taking the time to help with this page, it brings a lot of confidence that we can get this page to be an article soon! Peace Out-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I also added a newin-section about moves ,with a resource and pics PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I think the moves section should really be removed. It's Game Guide information, whch is heavily discouraged. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 DoneBut I'm gonna keep the pics PeRmEtHiUs (talk)cs

It looks good; I'd double-check the licensing on the Brawl picture, but there won't be any issues with your self-made chart. Now we need to focus on the following:

• Conception/Creation
• Cultural Impact
• Reliable sources to back up the information provided. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of nearly 500 Pokémon, why are we creating an article dedicated to Ivysaur? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just the one Permethius happened to pick when he started work on it in his sandbox. Personally, I think it'll be a good test for the rest of them as it's a Pokemon that has much less real-world info on it than Bulbasaur, Pikachu, or Mewtwo. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Woah, are we considering making an article for each and every Pokémon? That's crazy! -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well what did you say? I'm not trying to pick on anyone, I'm just trying to get the whole story about why Ivysaur became so high-priority all-of-the-sudden. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of seeing it as a test for Zappernapper's proposal above, regarding splitting the current lists into evolutionary lines. Lets face it, the current lists are crap and have been since the merge. That there are so many Pokemon constrained into such a space actually discourages editing, I feel. Ivysaur is not a very well known/documented Pokemon outside of the fandom. It is certainly not on the level of Bulbasaur, Pikachu, or Mewtwo, and is probably lower than some other semi-notable Pokemon such as Deoxys and Lucario. If we can turn Ivysaur into a semi-decent article that can be merged with Bulbasaur to create "Bulbasaur evolutionary line" or something like that, it shows that these articles do in fact have the possibility of improvement that has just been averted so far by cramping them all together into the current lists. I don't envision seeing articles on the Gastly or the Meditite lines any time soon, but if we can bring Ivysaur up to a semi-decent standard then it shows that it is at least possible for some of the lines. I can see the Bulbasaur, Pikachu, Jynx, Porygon, and possibly the Charmander, Jigglypuff, and Lucario lines as being the most likely for this.

It really comes down to one of two options: do you want to discourage editing, or try and improve the articles? MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not attempting to discourage improvement to the lists, I'm just getting my facts together. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it when this is nearing ready to be turned into an article if someone could let me know. My comments are going to be pretty negative, but I don't want to burden this with negativity right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If we reach that stage, we'll be sure to let you know; you generally have a good amount of fair critique that looks at what the rest of us have missed, so you're input would be greatly appreciated if we ever get to that point. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Man, I'm trying to find other info but the only ifno I find is Guide info, which I cant write :(,But i'll keep trying. Plus, I have to get a new brawl picture.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, also, would it be fine if I added a picture of Ivysaur in bulbasurs mysterious garden? And what things should i add to the game part,considering the game is the most important part of the pokemon franchise-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Created External Links.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

From your talk page, it looks as if you're having problems keeping pictures on wikipedia. Check out VG Project's image page for some help with fair use images. Basically, you need to justify fair use that the screenshot is being used in an article to illustrate a chcaracter and that there isn't a free replacement. —Ost (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Torchic

I got bored of Ivysaur and decided to make an article about Torchic.Here it is. Please tell me if it is article status ,or what needs to be added.Peace Out-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Created Article-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I ran checklinks and flagged some dead links. But even many good links have the same problem as Ivysaur for WP:RS. —Ost (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All the Serebii, Psypokes, and anything else that fails WP:FANSITE need to be removed. Instead of creating the article, I'd have recommended waiting until it had been worked on a bit more thoroughly by the community. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually created in the mainspace yet; it's still in Permethius's sandbox. —Ost (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Torchic Pokemon MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

despite the fact that this article was created with an improper title, i'm going to ask again that if anyone needs an image for the infoboxes, that they drop a note on my talk page. i'll provide the sourcing and fair-use criteria, it helps to prevent wierd mixes of images that people have found in one place or another (e.g. the torchic picture has a weird shadow) -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There was clear consensus for this article to not exist, and I frankly don't see any exertion of notability, as it consists almost entirely of unreliable sources (most of which are also dead-linked.) I'm prodding it, but if that is removed, I'll probably take it to AfD for a full community consensus. Permethius, I urge you to please get consensus for such an article to exist before just creating it or reverting a redirect. But what does everyone else think? Artichoker^[talk] 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of turning Torchic Pokemon into a redirect, but A Man In Black beat me to it! Then, I was gonna leave a message here asking Permethius not to create articles without consensus, but Artichoker beat me to that! Man you guys are quick... -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While I commend Permethius for being bold, I agree with Artichoker; as I noted above, Torchic was nowhere near ready to become an article. Like with Ivysaur, a hell of a lot of work still needs to be done in the sandbox before we can even think about turning it into something more. Instead of "getting bored" with one subject and moving onto another, we should be working on the first subject to the best of our abilities to turn it into something that can exist without complaint first. Hell, I'm beginning to think that even working on Ivysaur is a bit much at the moment; we should probably focus our attention on existing articles that need a massive overhaul; Jigglypuff, anyone? MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, im sorryI'm gonna kepp them in my sandboxs and work on them and ill try to help with jigglypuff.And my ssb pic for ivysaur keeps getting deleted lol.Thanks Guys Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason the Ivysaur picture keeps getting deleted is because it isn't actually being used in an article yet. From what I understand, non-free images can't be used in sandboxes. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's deleted because he claims he made it himself. —TheLeftorium 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's so stupid that some articles have to be so heavily fought for, where as shit like this exists: The_Eclipse, Dual (Heroes) and thats just two things i could find real easily, and right next to eachother.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you coinman,its just for as many people that like pokemon, theres an even amount of haters.They dont let us do anything.And in the end, usally, all of our edits only go to user talk pages, lol. Ive done about 200 edits on my 2 snaboxes. Ans their not even ready.If an Heroes article was wrote like this it would be accepted. Infact, just look at this, and explain to me how it isnt speedy critera._Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Any user can nominate any article for deleion; go ahead and nominate those articles if you wish, though I'd recommend dropping a line at the Heroes WikiProject first (if there is one). This is the Pokémon WikiProject though, and Heroes articles are irrelevant to us: WP:OTHERCRAP. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont chuck that lame argument at us. The fact is that that torchic article is better than a lot of shit that currently exists on wikipedia, wow that darkorbit article is so shit.... you haters should stop hating, and let the article get created. See how it goes, go for it, make it a proper article. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a "lame argument"; they're two entirely different subjects that couldn't be compared even if we wanted to. It would be like comparing the article on Bono to the Great Barrier Reef, they have nothing in similarity. See also WP:PTEST. The Torchic article was crap, as were just about all of the Pokémon articles. The simple fact is that almost none of the Pokémon are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the articles. Believe me, we've tried before and are continuing to try as evidenced by the contributions to Permethius's sandboxes. If we were "haters" we wouldn't even be having these conversations. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll take the serebii and psypokes off and ask zarrep for a pic and then ill think itll be pretty close.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I really think we should make Torchic and Ivysaur into articles, see how they do (no one in this project should speedy delete them) and if it passes, congrats.It has a couple references etc. I mean you look at other articles standing with no cultural impact and no references and were here arguing about this! Come on. I'll be waiting, cause im tired of all my edits going to my user talk pages and they are decent articles that we could edit after they were put in , and not to mention add the pics.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think it might stand a chance. Get it assessed and see how it rates.--Blake (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And what might you mean by assessing it? Puting it into article like I proposed?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pu them into articles and they passed the speedy deletion phase.Now when zarrep puts his pics up were done.Job Well Done Guys!-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Woah!!! Wait, it still has alot of red links. Such as the main title image, the anime image, and un-used categories.--Blake (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry , lol. I have it covered .Zarrep is gonna fix that.The pics are red cuz i couldnt use them in my sandboxes now hes gonna put them up and what red links?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(←)There's still no consensus for the addition of these articles. Looking at them, they are ripe with original research, and still have no reliable sources to establish notability. Until you can address these problems in your userspace like you claimed you would, I don't think we can allow these articles. Artichoker^[talk] 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How does this look? I redid the Torchic Article. I removed alot of information that wasnt needed, and removed old templates and categorys. Torchic--Blake (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Psypokes, Serebii, and PokeBeach references all fail WP:RS and WP:FANSITE. There's a lot of information about it's portrayal in the various media, but still nothing regarding it's conception and critical reception. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I know. There arent many of them though. I wouldnt know where to get replacements for the references. Most of them are Pokedex info, manga symposys's, and trading card info. As for the content, I think Bulbasaur as much in-universe info as this does. It really isnt that much. --Blake (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If it can't be sourced reliably then it shouldn't be sourced at all. It's trying to get around the policies like that which led to the Pokémon test. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it does have to be replaced, I am saying that I dont know where to get that stuff from, and think someone else who has done it before should.--Blake (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You copied the original article, as well with Charizard and Squirtle.And with Torchic, its the same as mine except in mine, I took out the psypokes and serebii,check here.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore You should delete your torchic and continue to work on mine, since its the same cept for I took off deadlinks and fansites.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I cant "Delete mine" smart one, as I am not an Admin. Also, It is NOT the same. If you spent more then 10seconds looking at it, I did alot of work. I guess I will fix yours then, since it doesnt use those references.--Blake (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets have a vote to see whos better.Winner kkeps.Loser Blanks.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you going on about? I never said mine was better. I fixed alot of stuff you diddnt. You fixed alot of stuff I diddnt. Together we fixed most of the problems.--Blake (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha Melican, well blake then lets combine ours cuz ur right we both did add info the other forgot or didnt include.Nice idea.Now should we do it at mine or yours i dont care.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I was doing it at yours, but you reverted what I did. I already have the merged article on my page. Lets do it there. User:Bws2cool/Torchic--Blake (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok i will keep mine for historical reasons but i will edit at yours.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, but remember, try and form the article how the already made ones are. I made the Infobox and everything under "External Links" like Bulbasaur's. I also revmoved the first paragraph of some of the sections because they were like Summarys of what the TCG is. Thats not on Bulbasaur's page, so why should it be on Torchic's? Same with the Starter pokemon paragraph.--Blake (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha were arguing down there, and getting along up here.Well anyway, the more info the better.Adding all that makes it better.It explained what Torchic was.I highly advise putting it back on.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles are getting removed because there is TOO MUCH of that information in there. Putting it back in would be defeating the purpose. What these people want the Pokemon articles to be is hardly any in-universe information, if any. Most of it should be what people say about them on talk shows, or how the creators say they came up with the Pokemon.--Blake (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ummmm, the articles passed,only the people here are not allowing it,too many stubborn people . i need a break. I think I'll go play Darkorbit.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the information that keeps getting put is the wrong kind of information. Sure all the movesets will be interesting to the Pokémon fans, but the majority of those go to Bulbapedia or Serebii to find that out, not here. We don't cater specifically to a small group of fans. The information has to be real-world that establishes the topic's notability. If they want to find out how to play a game, then they need to go to a gaming website. There will always be some in-universe information regarding the character's portrayal in the Pokémon media, and that is necessary to a degree. But there is other, far more important information that needs to be found and included first. That is what needs to be our priority. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm i believe Torchic is ready.Please hurry and give consensus-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we cant have Non-free images on a Userspace, so someone removed them. I put them back but used <!-- Comment --> to hide them in the code, so we can get them later.--'''Blake''' (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Idea, but I personally think its ready , but we need consensus.What do you think?I would be helping more but im currently preoccupied with a few other articles right now-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. The Biological characteristics is nice. The "Other Media" section could use more stuff, but that cant be helped.--'''Blake''' (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the Super Smash Bros Brawl section with a valid and veriable reference.As soon as it's an article i'll upload a image for it.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It diddnt need its own section, so I merged it into "In other Media" I dont think its role in SSB is big enough for it to need its own image. There are already the Sugi artwork, Anime screenshot, and TCG scan. You dont really need more then that xD. Remember, we arent trying to create our own style of a Pokemon article. Use ideas from the other Pokemon. --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes,but I wasnt sure if SSB was able to be put in the other media section.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, look at Mewtwo, if we add a little more well be up to that status, which would make it good enough for an article, right?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this article again , and I wondered, Why wasnt it mentioned that it is a starter pokemon ruby and sapphire, or that is was in them at all? I added that to the video games section.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bringing It Up Again....

Hey, now I know i need consensus, so I am coming here to try to get it .Now I've workeed very hard with Ivysaur and I really think its ready.I'll add the in-universe tag if You want me to.Note: I'll add the pics when it becomes an article.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is definitely not ready. Almost all of the article is unreferenced. TheLeftorium 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Battlechart.gif necessary on the page? It seems like it is more suited for a general Pokémon article. If a strengths/weaknesses picture is to be included, I think it would be better have a picture showing how the grass/poison combination type fairs against the other types. —Ost (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it has a very nice "Biology" section which needs to be renamed to the correct name. Second, Brawl shouldnt get its own section. It should be shortend and merged with annother section. Lastly, it needs some "In other Media" stuff. --'''Blake''' (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Permethius! You can't steal non-free images (like File:Battlechart.gif) from whatever website you want and claim you created them yourself. That's blatant copyright infringement.
Also, a free battle chart can be easily created.
Also, the battle chart is outdated.
Also, it has a watermark clearly visible ("IGNgameguides.com").
Also, it doesn't belong in the Ivysaur article in the first place.

I and the other editors have been extremely patient with you, so please, please, please don't upload anymore non-free images and claim "I created this work entirely by myself." Please, please, please don't create anymore articles without consensus (you've done it multiple times even after claiming "im sorryI'm gonna kepp them in my sandboxs"). Please, please, please don't delete this talk page again. And for Pete's sake, doesn't your computer have spell check?

WHEW! I feel a little better now. A little. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn, Sesu I havent created the article yet , where did that come from.Forget about the past, I uploaded that thing awhile ago when I didnt know.Godd for you that you feel good for telling me off, I just wanted a general opinion of it!Not you yelling at me about my mistakes!I really hate it.And no my computer doesnt have spell check.and lastly,THIS TIME I DIDNT CREATED AN ARTICLE WITHOUT CONSENSUS!!!!!!!I just wanted to know what neede to be improved.You can F'off if you're gonna do this.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool it guys. Be civil to each other. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Torchic Image

I uploaded this for the Torchic article to replace the HORRIBLE one that Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ uploaded. Then someone removed it from the page because it shouldnt be used on a userpage. Now it is getting deleted because its not used in an article. Blah. Why cant they just keep the images there? --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Because its against policies. And that picture makes me laugh.I uploaded the other one cuz thats the way it looks in the pokedex, If you have him.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does everyone here love to insult me? Just a thought.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying. I have no idea why you uploaded the other image. All the other Pokemon pages have the Sugimori art. Why should Torchic be any different? --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate how your fail image hasnt been "Requested for Deletion" yet, but the right image to use has. --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request it then, and you got that picture from bulbapedia,didnt you XD.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a bot that proposed it.I took off the tag on the note that their is no free replacement.There happy?-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also theres a specific way to propose it for deletion, you cant propose it like an article, which I seen you tryed to, and it failed anyway.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also , if you want to delete it,find the right deletion tag here.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Leak information

I have been sort of working on Lucario and am wondering where this pharagraph should go. I currently have it in the Videogames section before the Brawl information. Would it go in "Other Media" or something else?

Lucario was confirmed to be a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl due to an unintentional leak. The leak, which took place on Nintendo's official smashbros.com, detailed that certain stickers could only be applied to certain characters*. The characters they made reference to were Jigglypuff and Lucario. Their icons could be seen in the bottom-right corner. After realizing their mistake (which only took place in the Japanese section of the site) they quickly remedied the situation. Lucario and Jigglypuff can no longer be seen but there are various YouTube videos which show footage of the leak, as well as screen shots.

Also I need help finding a reference for it. It was just by itself in the old Lucario article. --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also on a side note, it has NO out of universe information. I think I formed a nice "Concept and Creation" section though. --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In other Media.Also try to find the video on youtube of it and use that.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blake , also could you look at my Ivysaur ,and do you like how I did the cultural im pact and such.I was up awhile last night researching it.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked?

I am trying to revert List of Pokémon (221–240) because they put the locations of the Pokemon in the games, which is Gameguide info. But, whenever I finnish reverting, nothing happeneds. I look at the log and it doesnt even say I did anything! What is going on? --Blake (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions page shows you edited List of Pokémon (161–180). Are you sure you also edited 221-240? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am very sure. 161-180 was simple because nobody else made edits afterward. But the 221-240 was harder. Alot of changes happened since the last safe revert. So I had to fix one thing before I do it. I tried multiple times, and nothing happends. I looked at where I am reverting to and it looks fine. But the changes dont happen. It says "This revert is doable" so I dont know why it wont let me.--Blake (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Any other edits you're having trouble with? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the "gameguide info" is pretty much on 80% of the lists with Johto Pokemon, if you want to do it yourself. --Blake (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Pokémon

Instead of having several users arguing about this in four different areas, I'm going to open this little discussion specifically for that purpose to try and clear the situation up for everyone.

The problem is that the information that keeps getting put is the wrong kind of information. Sure all the movesets and Dex entries will be interesting to the Pokémon fans, but the majority of those go to Bulbapedia or Serebii to find that out, not here. We don't cater specifically to a small group of fans. The information has to be real-world that establishes the topic's notability. If they want to find out how to play a game, then they need to go to a gaming website. There will always be some in-universe information regarding the character's portrayal in the Pokémon media, and that is necessary to a degree. But there is other, far more important information that needs to be found and included first. WP:MOSFICT. This includes but is certainly not limited to:

1. Conception - why they created the character; what influenced the design; the thought process behind the making of it
2. Critical reception - how this has influenced our culture; what makes it notable; how have people responded to it

That is the kind of real world, out of universe information that is absolutely vital, that we need to create these articles. That is what needs to be our priority. WP:N states that if a topic isn't notable, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Are these articles notable? Some users think so. Prove it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, right there is the double-crux of the arguement - WP:WAF and WP:N.

your interpretation of WP:WAF is that conception and critical reception are required components. reading the guideline, it is only using these as examples of ways to discuss a subject in a real-world perspective. grouped with those two examples are also description as objects of the narrative and differentiation between narrated/narrative time and fictional/actual choronology - completely feasible with these articles. Unless I missed the part where the guideline states these are required?

You reduce WP:N to "if a topic isn't notable, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia" which then begs the question of, "what is 'notable'?" How about we agree to stick with the consensually agreed upon summary of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Of course we are picking up the discussion right where you left it at #Can we just agree that there is no consensus?. Several published game-guides are reliable sources and the kind of information it is does not invalidate that fact. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 11:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree Zarrep, and I'm looking at at your points aboutWP:WAF and WP:N and they are correct.As a matter of fact, IGN is a reliable game guide.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And also, we could use these templates:

{{In-universe}} {{Primarysources}} See, a solution to our problem.Either way we go it will be fine-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you make an article that is going to have those tags on it in perpetuity, it will be disposed of, most likely by merge or redirection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

actually neither of those templates would theoretically apply. Let's say I write the following prose, "Staraptor is a Normal- and Flying-type pokemon first made available in Diamond and Pearl. One of the most powerful moves it learns is the Flying attack Brave Bird." These statements are written in a real-world perspective and supported by the Prima guidebook (pp. 214 and 414) -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And game guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Style.

I think if we are going to try and get any articles back we need to know what style to use. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style is obviously OUTDATED.

Should we base it off Pikachu?

• 0 Introduction
• 1 Concept and creation
• 2 Characteristics
• 3 Appearances
• 3.1 In the video games
• 3.2 In the anime
• 3.3 In other Pokémon media
• 4 Cultural impact

We need some sort of page to work off of. Because as a project, all the pages should have the same layout and not look like they were made by completely different people. Thanks, --'''Blake''' (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I like the Pikachu, and how about you form the Torchic, Lucario, Squirtle ,and Charizard articles like that and , ill form my ivysau and mew, mewtwo, bulbasaur etc. like that.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Too late. I just re-styled all of them. I think they look much better. It also brings up which parts need expansion. --Blake (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Link (The Legend of Zelda) is a perfect example of this system. As a Video game character it uses the same layout.

• 1 Creation and conception
• 2 Characteristics
• 3 Appearances
• 4 Reception

You two aren't the whole WikiProject! Blake, you can't go reformatting all the Pokémon's articles because you got one other user to agree with you. You're right the articles should have a consistent style, but you have to wait and get consensus on what that style should be.

What's with all the rogue Pokémon editors lately? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the style that all Videogame characters use. Such as Pikachu(Good Article) and Link(Featured Article). So I figured that should be what the other articles use. Right? --Blake (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sesu, you call us rogue editors, but me and blake arent even adults yet.We want to make a difference in this project, and we know we could .Also me and blake are on a lot longer than you guys, we have made several topics on this page, we were the ones who started to try to revive article, so be fore you call us that, realize that we are the main editors of the project-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not saying that Matkins or Leftorium are not on, they are a lot too.-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

sesu, the spirit of wikipedia is to be bold. making stylistic changes isn't one of those things we need to sit around and debate for a week before it get's done. if you think blake's changes were bad, the best thing is to take the good parts of those changes and improve from there. the second best is to revert them and then lay out specific issues you had with those changes (does it decrease readability? full of spelling errors? violate some part of WP:MOS?). Take a look at the cosensus flowchart for an illustration of how change works on wikipedia. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, thanks? I probably wont be making many changes for a few weeks. I have to finnish the semester. Bleh. --Blake (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon rereading my comment, I'm surprised I got so worked-up over something like that. So, I apologize Blake. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Trainer

I diddnt notice untill now but Pokémon Trainer has NO references at all. This is horrible. It is a high importance article in Project Pokemon. I am suprised nobody has fixed it yet. Thoughts? --Blake (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's yet another Pokémon article in need of some serious attention. I'd get around to adding references myself, but I'm busy keeping up with all the Pokémon Featured Articles. There are just soooo many! -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with splitting the section into a new article.

First, I'll make a nearly blank article so anons can play.--T3h 1337 boy 07:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wuzzat? Did I miss something? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New Pokémon games!

Hello everyone! Nintendo just announced Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver for the Nintendo DS! The article is as complete as can be at the moment; the link provides no information beyond what's already in the article. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

EVERYONE! Do a little dance!!! Anyways, are we going to make a new article for it with all official news? Since if they just announced it, then more news is likly to come. But people might start putting false information on the page, so we would have to watch it very closely. --Blake (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I am slow. There is already an article. lol --Blake (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You like it? Started the article myself, although another article for the games was also created with spaces ("Pokémon Heart Gold and Soul Silver") by another user. I made the "spaces" version into a redirect, and made around fifteen other redirects. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 13:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo, im so getting this game ,and I'll try to help with the page as much as I can.:)-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great to hear about the new games, but we really need to watch for any new details that come out over the next few days. I suggest we semi-protect and fully protect the main article and most of the redirects for the time being, to prevent all the anons adding tons of speculation and false details. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to protect the redirects, as they're all on my watchlist, so I'll definitely catch any shenanigans there. The article itself is also on my watchlist, but I don't object to semi-protecting it if the vandalism/speculation edits become too frequent. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection can't be granted unless there is an extensive amount of vandalism within a recent period of time; pre-emptive vandalism is rarely (if ever) granted. Merging it into the original Gold and Silver article is a good idea for now, until more information becomes available anyways. It would have probably been either speedily deleted per WP:CRYSTAL or redirected anyways. Sesu, could you post the list of redirects here? I'd like to keep them on my watchlist too, just to be doubly safe that any vandalism is caught. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than list all 22 redirects here, I've listed them at one of my subpages (here). Note that they're not links to the pages, it's just a list. I'm not being lazy; this way is actually more efficient for you. All you have to do is:

1. Click "edit" on my subpage to display the wiki markup.
2. Select all 22 of the redirects and "copy" them.
3. Open your watchlist.
4. Click on the "Edit raw watchlist" link. It's near the top.
5. Scroll to the bottom of the list and "paste" the redirects.
6. Click on the "Update Watchlist" button.

Presto! You now have 22 new pages on your watchlist. Note that it is essential that you are copying from the wiki markup and not not simply copying while viewing the page. If you were to simply copy from my subpage, then it would group all 22 redirects into a single article title. Also note that they will automatically be rearranged into alphabetical order. Cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 03:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldnt exactly want the talk page of a redirect to redirect the talk page of where it's article goes. No. I think it helps us see what the people thought of how to improve it if it was to be made back into an article. --Blake (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake trio

What should we do with this article? Nominate it for AFD? TheLeftorium 14:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't nominate an article I created for deletion just because you hate me.--Aruseusu (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't want to delete it just because I hate you. ;) (NPA - comment removed by Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ) TheLeftorium 14:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree Left, it fails WP:N, obviously, and many others.Now do you want me to nominate it? Or do you?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I nominated it.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good. And FYI, I was just joking with Aruseusu, not "attacking" him. That's why I put that smiley at the end. :) TheLeftorium 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, lol.Just making sure.No offense.It just seems that for every friend you make, you make a hard enemy (hopefully im on the friend side now :) )--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, someone could just make it an actual article and add information from the past Uxie, Azelf, and Mesprit pages. I dont know if it has any "Critical Reception" though. --Blake (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of any 3rd-party, reliable sources that can provide any outside information on such a niche topic. Artichoker^[talk] 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a nice chance to see how to make multiple Pokemon articles. I just made a page about the trio in my Userspace here. I am not sure how we are going to do this.--Blake (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your userfied article seems better than the current article, albeit needing some cleanup to combine the information. But as mentioned above, it still needs sources to establish its notability. If the name derivations were not speculation and were verifiable, it may be a good place to start. —Ost (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well guys, I see something, we can make them by 3s or 2s. Such as I can add Ivysaur to Bulbasaur, and then work on Venusaur.I want consensus before I do this so please share your thoughts-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is Bulba,Ivy, and Vena will all be merged, therefore increasing notability and length, and having a Evolution line.Such as Raikou, Suicine ,and the other one would go together. and Ho-h and Lugia etc.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also have to move Bulbasuars page to Bulbasuar,Ivysaur, and Venusaur.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear the Lake Trio article will be deleted, and rightly so; I don't see how it could possibly be rewritten in a way that will pass WP:N. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For now yes, completely non-notable article, for now. We will get to that later--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon Status Report

Here are the sections that currently need some expansion to become an article and what I think they would rank before and after that information is added.

• User:Bws2cool/Charizard - (B)"Concept and creation" (GA)
• User:Bws2cool/Squirtle - (Start)"Concept and Creation" & "Cultural Impact" (B)
• User:Bws2cool/Torchic - (C)Introduction & "Concept and creation" (B)
• User:Bws2cool/Lucario - (C)"Cultural Impact" (B)

Note the status of the Pokemon articles right now.

• Bulbasaur - (C) It could easily be a (B) and with some help a (GA)
• Pikachu - (GA) Possibly could be an (A)
• Jigglypuff - (Start) It needs a bit of help and it could be a (C) or (B)
• Mewtwo - (C) It needs some help. It is suprisingly small.
• Mew (Pokemon) - (Start) Wow. This is worse then Lucario x.x Needs help in "Design and characteristics"

What do you think? --Blake (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, I am not saying they should be reassesed right now. I am just saying that with a little work, they could be better then they are now. Also, I think that some of my articles should move out of my userspace. They are the same, if not better then alot of the articles that are out already. Wikipedia is not done so why cant the articles be out there in the open untill they get improved? --Blake (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than cranking out even more species articles, I think we should focus on improving the ones we already have. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I echo Sesu here. These specific Pokémon seems too nonnotable to warrant their own articles. Artichoker^[talk] 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo and Mew are hardly more notable then say Lucario or Mesprit. Jigglypuff is somewhat notable since its basicly the 2nd mascot for the series. Bulbasaur is just notable since it’s the first pokemon. I am not saying they should be removed, but we might be able to make a much better article about Charizard then about Mew. Why not give them a chance? Only the Pokemon articles right now have been given a chance with the new layout. There could be so many hidden possibilities that we aren’t seeing because they were redirected instead of restyled. I would revamp all of them to see how they look, but putting over 400 articles in my userspace wouldn’t be very good. Blake (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that Mewtwo and Mew both have what we have failed to find for most everything else; reliable third-party sources, in this case about a psychological study relating to children. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bouncing back and forth here, but the references trouble me immensely for the proposed restored articles. There isn't a single source in Lucario that would pass as a reliable source. What of the cultural impact section for Torchic makes him significant to Koffing or countless other pokemon that have had toys made of them? If that's the best we've got for either of them it's best to just abandon them, no offense meant. The other two starters...I'm up in the air about, though I'm really of the mind that them and Bulbasaur need to be stripped down and rewritten from the ground up.

Speculation needs to be avoided in these articles. They need reliable third party sourcing and good coverage. Jigglypuff has a TODO section on its talk page that lists some sources that might be useful, including the use of the character as an element to introduce children to drama. That's stuff that should be used. And that's really just starting.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit-war on Pokémon episodes removed from rotation

There's an ongoing edit war at Pokémon episodes removed from rotation; any discussion that anyone can involve themselves in over the matter is much appreciated. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Can some of the external links on the page be made into inline citations? —Ost (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The CNN articles on Porygon I think are already used. Psypokes and Serebii can't be used, but the last two EL for the Barboach/Whiscash episode could be used I think. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

IP has reverted once again and has been warned. One further reversion will result in them being reported. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ivysaur

Is it ok if I find a amazon-like picture and sale for a Ivysaur plush and use that as a ref for the Merchandizing subsection?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well.....--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want you to check [1] Funny im number 2 XD--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the image, it would have to pass Wikipedia's policies on fair-use; how would it contribute significantly to the article? MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple things

First, I found this Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/List of articles which shows the "ranks" of different old pokemon articles. Very interesting.

Second, how are we going to put the "In other wikis" links on the "evolution line" pages? That will be difficult. --Blake (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When you say "In other wikis," do you mean the other languages? If so, some like the Portugese link on the Bulbasaur page are already using the evolutionary line, so we can follow their example. —Ost (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism issues

As we all know, the Pokémon articles can attract a large amount of vandalism; and in the case of HG/SS, original research. For those who revert but don't usually warn, there are templates that can be used to do so; these can be found here. These can cover anything from vandalism to original research to copyright notices to edit-warring warnings. If the user/IP continues after the fourth and final warning, report at WP:AIV. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This needs a major cleanup...

From List of characters in the Pokémon anime series:

Ash Ketchum (サトシ, Satoshi) is the main character of the series. His dream is to become the greatest Pokémon Master in the world. His current Pokémon are Pikachu, Staravia, Grotle, Chimchar, Buizel and Gliscor. At Professor Oak's lab he has Bulbasaur, Kingler, Muk, 30 Tauros, Snorlax, Heracross, Noctowl, Bayleef, Cyndaquil, Totodile, Donphan, Swellow, Sceptile, Corphish, Torkoal, and Glalie. In training he has Primeape, Charizard and Squirtle. He has also released Pidgeot, Butterfree, Lapras, Larvitar and Seaking as it was in their best interests and has given away Haunter and Beedrill, also because it was in their best interests. As well as this he traded his Aipom to Dawn for Buizel so that Buizel could be a battler and Aipom could participate in contests. He currently has six gym badges in Sinnoh.He known to beat Drake and been known as Gary's rival. Also, Ash seems to have a affection for May Haruka. Ash's voice actress in the dub are Veronica Taylor (4Kids Entertainment) and Sarah Natochenny (Pokémon USA) and in Japanese he is voiced by Rica Matsumoto. Ash aslo has a little bit of a soft spot for Dawn so he does love her a tiny bit.

And that's just for the section on Ash without even looking at any of the other characters listed. Anyone fancy trying to help me overhaul this article and clean it of all the fluff and garbage that currently pervades it? MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow....

1. The whole article only has 4 references
2. That last part about Ash "having a little bit of a soft spot for dawn" is completely speculation.
3. It tells all about what pokemon he owned and released. Its all Gameguide information and nothing about what kind of character he is.

This does need ALOT of cleanup.--Blake (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but see the way everything is linked? Dawn, May (linked again as Haruka), Drake, and Gary don't link to any Pokemon pages. Also, there's reference made to him having "an affection" for May. Surprised Misty isn't mentioned, to be honest. I think the whole WikiProject should probably work together on this one. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum (サトシ, Satoshi) is the main character of the series. His dream is to become the greatest Pokémon Master in the world. Ash’s voice actress in the dub are Veronica Taylor (4Kids Entertainment) and Sarah Natochenny (Pokémon USA) and in Japanese he is voiced by Rica Matsumoto.

That is about the thing salvagable in the whole pharagraph. lol --Blake (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the rest was cruft, although Pikachu should get some mention. Also, didn't someone else perform Ash's voice for that hour-long 10th anniversary crap? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Kayzie Rogers did. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it ideal to maintain information about Ash in the list of characters and in his own article? I would think it would be more manageable to add <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> around lede of Ash Ketchum and then transclude it to the list. —Ost (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to that if you wanted to try it, Ost. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. See what you think and tweak Ash's article as needed.—Ost (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. This brings up annother article to try and fix. I am suprised Ash has a (C) rank. It only has "Character Biography" (Which needs to be split into "Characteristics" and "In the Anime") and "In other Pokemon Media". --Blake (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bws2cool/PokeStyle

Took me a while. I would like permission to replace the current style page with this one. I worked hard on it and it should be up to date. I might have to make some edits to it if we plan on using the Evolution Line idea for every Pokemon though. --Blake (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a lot better, but I have to ask if your time could have possibly been spent doing something more useful? I don't believe that page gets many hits. But go ahead and replace that page with your new version, it certainly is better. Artichoker^[talk] 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't Worry Blake, I Got it and put it up there, giving you the credit, if that matters to you--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote over some things I was going to keep, but I went back and added them. Next time you could let me do it. lol --Blake (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess I was a little bit in a hurry nad I thought you werent on.Sorry--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bws2cool/Charmander evolution line

I just threw this together. It needs alot of help with adding references. Half of Charmander and Charmeleon's parts arent referenced. --Blake (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, focus on the Bulbasaur one first! TheLeftorium 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, stop and focus on Bublasaur, we are working on our current 5 pokemon article etc.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Such high wiki spirit. <_< --Sonic Mew (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's common sense: all rushing something out there is going to do is make things worse for the other pokemon articles where some editors feel said articles shouldn't exist already.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I am waiting for Bulbasaur evolution line to be finished so I can have that as a guide. --Blake (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(Note to edit summary; we haven't decided on whether we are using "evolution" or "evolutionary" yet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

I thought we were using "evolutionary" for better flow. No? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "evolutionary" too, but Artichoker and Blake have both used "evolution" in their prior posts. I don't think it's set yet, though "evolutionary" is what I think would work best. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Its evolutionary that im going after,since when Arti says okay, I'm gonna name it Bulbasaur evolutionary line, which I think I have the right to name it that.Also Melicans, I was the IP that switched Blakes comment, You catch every little detail XD.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I like Evolutionary better also, I just thought we were using the other one.--Blake (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

'Evolutionary' would be the correct term. Artichoker^[talk] 23:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

D/P FA

Ok, a few days ago New Super Mario Bros. made FA, which when I look at it, it isnt nearly as good as our D/P, and guess what? Becoming FA brought a lot of attention to the realted Wikiprojects, new members more help etc.. So why don't we nominate D/P, it would bring extra helpers, which is obviously needed to get done with all this work.... Tell me what you guys think--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, alot of changes were made in late January 09. I think it could make FA. Its a nice size article and has over 100 references. I say go for it. --Blake (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I need Sesu and Matkins say, which no doubt would want more help.And an FA.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of all the Pokémon articles it is probably the closest to FA, but given that Artichoker has done the vast majority of work on it I'd bring it up with him first. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Asked him on his talkpage--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Melicans; go for it if Artichoker says okay. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Thank you for bringing this proposal to my attention. In terms of comparison to the newly-passed New Super Mario Bros., I would say D/P is definitely not as good. Everything on that article is up-to-date and the prose is very well written. Specifically, I have some concerns on D/P's comprehensiveness and sourcing with relation to the "Related games" section. There are several citation needed tags and I believe some more information could be added to both sections. A full copyedit is also probably necessary. Also I am flattered that you all believe I have "done the vast majority of work on it", but unfortunately I cannot take credit. In fact it was User:Ink Runner who superbly wrote most of it, so ultimately it is his call (although he has been inactive as of late.) Artichoker^[talk] 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get a hold of him, but do you think our Bulbasaur evolutionary line is worthy of article status?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. Artichoker^[talk] 19:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the prose is not all that fantastic. I did a rewrite of the plot section that day and it is still severely lacking. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Soul Dew

Can somebody please request this for deletion? It is very small and not needed as an article. I tried reading about how to get it deleted and couldnt figure it out. Thanks. --Blake (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Dew. TheLeftorium 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

We are going to have to remember to delete File:SoulDewSprite.png once this is over with. Dont forget that.--Blake (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts

I wanted to get Article Alerts working in our project so I went and asked why the error was coming up. Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokemon

Apparently, the Article Alerts failed because of the é in the name of our project. They sugest that we move the project template to Pokemon and then set up Article Alerts and change it back to Pokémon. What do you guys think? A quick redirect wont hurt for a few minutes. --Blake (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: It's change it back after the bug in the bot is fixed. Aka the template would be moved to Template:WikiProject Pokemon for an indeterminate amount of time. This really doesn't change a thing for you guys as long there is a redirect from Template:WikiProject Pokémon to Template:WikiProject Pokemon. All your categories, messages, etc... will work, all your articles will still be tagged and display the banner as usual, etc... The only difference is the code is hosted on a different page (and the alerts will work). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Book 1: I Choose You

Worthy of its own page? I think not. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 05:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well.... I would nominate it but I find nothing except internaly links that are bad, considering its a book. If I could find a reason to nominate it I would.Well, then again, Im gonna try to speedy it.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I just nominated it for AFD, you can find it here--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 13:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I closed it on a redirect.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Fossil Pokémon

Hey guys, I nominated it for deletion because it's no longer needed. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List overhaul

Hello everyone. Lets face it: the lists are that annoying aspect of Pokémon that we all generally ignore except when reverting vandalism. Well, (brace yourselves) I think we should completely overhaul the lists. Now, I'm not suggesting we do something crazy like actually fix the prose, I'm just suggesting we reduce the number of lists from 25 to 4. That's right, 4. The revamped lists would be: List of Generation I Pokémon, List of Generation II Pokémon, List of Generation III Pokémon, and List of Generation IV Pokémon. This would make the lists uneven (they'd contain 151, 100, 135, and 107 Pokémon, respectively), and make them considerably longer, but it would avoid the issue of splitting-up evolutionary chains (Poliwag and Poliwhirl are currently in separate articles, for example), and, as mentioned above, it would reduce the overall number of lists significantly.
Hmm... As I'm writing this, I've thought of a way to help ease the potential size issue of 100+ Pokémon per list: we could group them by approximately 50 per list. Generation I could be divided into 3 lists, Gen. II divided into 2, Gen. III into 2 or 3, and Gen IV into 2. This would bring the total number of lists to 9 or 10. See? Much more manageable than the current 25 lists.
Well, I've proposed a few different methods, so agree with my ideas, disagree with them, or suggest your own, but I want to see some real discussion about this. Cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Yes, I was kidding when I said we shouldn't bother fixing the prose.

I like the idea. I think 50 per page would be better then one for each generation. --Blake (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Idea.....(NPA - comment removed by MelicansMatkin).-Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just delete all of them and leave just List of Pokémon? In all seriousness I think this could work to an extent, though it does nothing about their quality (which is the underlying issue). MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the breakdown:

Generation I (151 Pokémon):

• List of Pokémon (1–51) (51 in this list: starts with Bulbasaur and ends with Dugtrio)
• List of Pokémon (52–101) (50: Meowth–Electrode)
• List of Pokémon (102–151) (50: Exeggcute–Mew)

Generation II (100):

• List of Pokémon (152–201) (50: Chikorita–Unown)
• List of Pokémon (202–251) (50: Wobbuffet–Celebi)

Generation III (135):

• List of Pokémon (252–319) (68: Treecko–Sharpedo)
• List of Pokémon (320–386) (67: Wailmer–Deoxys)

Generation IV (107):

• List of Pokémon (387–440) (54: Turtwig–Happiny)
• List of Pokémon (441–493) (53: Chatot–Arceus)

Alternatively, Generation III could be organized like this:

• List of Pokémon (252–297) (46: Treecko–Hariyama)
• List of Pokémon (298–342) (45: Azurill–Crawdaunt)
• List of Pokémon (343–386) (44: Baltoy–Deoxys)

If anyone's worried about how time consuming this overhaul will be, don't; I'm willing do it all myself once more editors give the okay. Cheers. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 04:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a marginally more-reasonable way of arranging them, I guess, but I don't really see the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the new arrangement is much better than what we have right now. Also however, I think MelicansMatkin's should be given some consideration, as the lists currently have no reliable, 3rd-party sources to establish notability. Artichoker^[talk] 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I, too, am really doubting the need for the lists. Epic twist! I guess it never crossed my mind that removing them altogether was an option. Maintaining information on the nearly 500 Pokémon is a task that history shows we simply can't handle, and, perhaps more importantly, the overwhelming majority of Pokémon have no real-world significance anyway. I say we should keep the standard List of Pokémon and the five individual species articles, but remove all 25 of the other lists. Well, what does everyone else think? The plot thickens... -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 09:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea; even though I have little formatting skills, I would be willing to try this out. Larger lists would mean more on discussion pages, so yeah. -from the files of 2D Backfire Master (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... It's been so long since anyone commented on this section that it almost got archived! So what's the final decision here? Should I start reorganizing the 25 lists into 10, or should we start a serious discussion about whether to even keep them in the first place? I vote for the latter. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, that was a multiple choice question. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either option; I don't disagree with redoing the lists (though it means a hell of a lot of redirects to change), but a "serious discussion" would depend on how many people actually participate in it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

References

How are we going to keep doing the references? A full 20 Pokémon list with at least 3 Pokédex references each gets more then 60 references. With 50 Pokémon each, the lists would get over 150 references. Should we change the reference to just say something genaric like "Charmander's ingame Pokédex entries" for the whole pharagraph? Also there is the matter of the Anime. Almost nothing is referenced there. Should we reference that? Pidgeoto is currently referenced with the following format

<ref name="Pallet Party Panic">{{cite episode| title = Pallet Party Panic | series = [[Pokémon (anime)|Pokémon]] 
| credits = Hideki Sonoda (writer) | network = Various | airdate = 1999-12-04 | season = 1|number = 78}}</ref>

which ends up like this:

Hideki Sonoda (writer) (1999-12-04). "Pallet Party Panic". Pokémon. Season 1. Episode 78. Various.

Thanks--Blake (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anime episodes should be sourced in that format. Nothing wrong with a large number of references to cover the subject matter; see No Line on the Horizon for an example of an article with over 100 of them. Additional references means additional verification. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

With the Anime referenced I predict the 20 Pokémon lists will easily excape 100 references. --Blake (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bws2cool/PokeList

I wrote annother style page. This time for list sections. The lists seem to all follow different styles. This should organize some things. Feel free to edit it. Where should it be put on the project space? *goes back editing the lists* --Blake (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I made a guide to referencing the Pokédex. See here.--Blake (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I prefer using the quote parameter in Template:Cite video game, so that your first example would become:

<ref name=dexcharizard5>{{cite video game|title=Pokémon Red and Blue|developer=Game Freak |publisher=Nintendo 
|date=1998-09-30 |platform=Game Boy |language=English |quote='''Pokédex:''' It spits fire that is hot enough 
to melt boulders. Known to cause forest fires unintentionally.}}</ref>

Well, its already done the other way on alot of pages. Changing it now would be insane. --Blake (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't advocate immediately changing all instances of Pokédex citations on all pages. Your way works fine, but I have found it to be more confusing when some text is outside of the template (although there are valid reasons to do so). There would be no rush to change any other citations on pages. I simply feel that the guidance should reflect how the template is intended to be used; although I do see that the Lists are stable with their citing approach, most articles have notoriously inconsistent formats for references. I suppose I should also point out that I don't see the need for this guide, which is essentially a special case of citing any line from a game. —Ost (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, currently only about 3 or 4 lists are referenced by the Pokedex. There may be more but I havent checked. There are 25 lists. Alot of pages need to be fixed up. This was also a guide for me, since it is hard to search for the right template for the right game and then have to replace the old information with the new stuff. I made it to easily have a place where I could find each reference for each different game and easily be able to fill it out. --Blake (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Permethius/Sandbox3

I've started the trio of bulba, ivy and venu here.Look at it.68 references!!!!A sure article.Tell me what u think bout it--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

69 refs but thats not important. So if I can get consensus I will move Bulbasaur to Bulbasaur,Ivysaur, and Venusaur, and add the stuff in my sandbox--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When this idea was brought up a few weeks ago, the suggested article name was something like Bulbasaur evolution line, which I personally prefer. If this article does move forward and your title is used, please make sure to fix the spaces in it first. —Ost (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know about this. Its too big. If we were going to make a merged article, then we should make it more like my Lake Trio(Pokemon) article, where it shows each Pokemon in each section. The way you did it, its way to big, and probably repeats ALOT of information. --Blake (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the format is ideal. I would rather see all three species integrated into the whole article. Also, I do prefer Bulbasaur evolution line to its current title. Artichoker^[talk] 18:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying you like how mine is merged? Also, I dont think we should merge some Pokemon that have really good articles already like Pikachu, but merging Mewtwo and Mew, might be a good idea. --Blake (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it, so please don't edit ym sandbox ,I'll change it, but what about the infoboxes? Do I put them all at the top?And with Pikachu a small section on Raichu wouldnt hurt, it would help.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. Pikachu should definitely keep its article to itself, but a section on Pichu and Raichu could work, right? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 19:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, and since you guys think its too long I'll trim it the way Blake did to Lake Trio, but it's gonna cut some refs, which are vital for a page like this.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, guys check it out now, I've done a complete overhaul.I would like your say, It only lost 1 reference, because it would be saying the same thing over too much. But anyway, I think it's ready for article status, its a whole lot better that Bulbasaur and would be ready for GA Nomination immediately, and FA after some improvement to the Culural Impact section, which Venusaur needs some info in there.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern with retaining references. Keep in mind you can always use more than one reference for a statement if they both back up claims. Of course, article content should drive the need for sources; a reference does not need to be included if it does not add to the article. Note that I combined your same sources into named refs—without removing any citations. I understand it is in your sandbox, and I thought it would be easier for me to combine and let you revert if I offended. —Ost (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that article is much worse than the Bulbasaur article. Almost half of the article is unreferenced and it needs to be shortened down. TheLeftorium 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigger doesnt always mean better. I dont think the people would want to read all of this. That is why I said to merge them, since it repeated alot of stuff. But you have to cut some of it out. Think whether they would want to read any of that. Also, is the person who voiced May's Bulbasaur and the person who voiced May's Venusaur the same person? --Blake (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Blake, it is, Ost im not offended at all that you did that, I WANT people to help me in my sandboxes.And I'm gonna trim it now.Also Left, Bulbasaur is crappy and this is better--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Read it now, I really didnt cut anything, just made it A LOT easier to read, by pointing out which was Bulbas Ivys and Venus.Again feel free to critisize me--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Also Left, 53 references, thats more than Pokemon,our main article, saying most of it is unrefed is like saying that article has next to none, this would be one of the higher references articles on Wikipedia--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 16:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Left was referring to the number of sources, but rather how much of the article is verified with in-line citations. Whole paragraphs—particularly in the Characteristics and In Anime sections—have no sources attributed to them and statements like "[t]he name Venusaur is most likely a portmanteau..." (emphasis added) sounds like WP:OR. Also, why is there an Appearances section and an In other media section? It seems arbitrary to put Games and Anime in one section and Manga and Cards in the other.

Since you mentioned the article, I don't think that Pokémon has sufficient inline citations. If this is supposed to be the Project's flagship article, it could use some work. I'm a little surprised that it's GA and I tend to agree with Artichoker's comments during the last GAR. It's not as messy as the characters of Pokémon article, but it could use pruning and cleanup with more sources, especially in the Video games section. —Ost (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added a few refs ,took out a lil bit, and added a couple {{fact}} to the run on manga sections,since they are fictional characters and these are acepted, not too many though, i have 3 or 4, via WP:CN--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I've tried to fix everything you critisized again, and I think I did a pretty good job, not being cocky or prideful.So here i am again, asking for consensus under the name Bulbasaur Evolution Line, also if I do get consensus, I must note I'll be nominating it for GA right off the back--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bulbasaur evolution line" would be the correct title. Note the capitalization. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 14:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well do you give consensus? I know we need more than one eprson too, I'm hoping that you ,Blake,Melicans,Left and maybe Artichoker.That would be it, so plz tell me if you guys agree with wat I plan do--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine as long as you dont delete/merge the Bulbasaur article. It should stay there just in case this doesnt go so well. --Blake (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by MelicansMatkin

• Infobox - I think a new one will have to be desined that can incorporate all three Pokemon in the one; as it stands it seems to empasize Bulbasaur over the others.
• The Pokemon - The first few sentences all repeat the same information almost word-for-word. Should be removed from all three and placed in the lead. The section heading should be "The Pokémon", not "The Pokemon" (though spelling aside, it sounds awkward to me). Also, Fushigidane and Fushigisō are correctly in italics but Fushigibana is in bold; why?
• Concept and Creation - Headings for each probably aren't necessary; separate paragraphs will probably be enough I think. Again, the first bit of information in each is repeated. It should either be put in the lead or at the beginning of the section; perhaps as "The design and art direction for Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur were provided by Ken Sugimori, a friend of the creator of the Pokémon games, Satoshi Tajiri.[9]" Why is Venusaur in italics at the end of the section when it isn't anywhere else? Also, you need a citation for that portmanteau; try IGN. Japanese names for Ivysaur and Venusaur also need cites. "Creation" in the section heading should be decapitalized.
• Characteristics - Anime information on Bulbasaur should be moved to the anime section. Most of Ivysaur and all of Venusaur need citing. Why is Venusaur's name cited here but not in "Concept and creation"? Is only needed once in any case.
• Appearances - Reading that makes me feel like it will talk about the same information as the previous section. Maybe change it to "Depictions"? Why are games and anime included here when manga and TCG are included in "In other media"? Maybe a better name would be "In the Pokemon universe" or "In the Pokemon franchise" and include all four together. Same issues with splitting each into three sections. Decapitalization again needed in the headings. Why is information on Ivysaur present in the Venusaur section for the games? Also reads like a strategy guide when talking about strengths and weaknesses. Rewording might work. [Citation needed] tags in the anime section need only to reference the TV episode.
• In Other Media - Watch the capitalization in section headings again. See above for issues on games/anime and manga/TCG split. Manga is well sourced but could do with some trimming. TCG needs more sources. Why no information on Bulbasaur?
• Cultural Impact - Capitalization issues again. Critical Reception focuses too much on Bulbasaur to the detriment of the others. The two Ivysaur sentences should be in the same "paragraph". Actually, the first Ivysaur sentence isn't even needed, since it's basically stated in "In the games". Who are Matthew Thomas Gross and Clark Helmsly?
• General grammar fixes needed.

If these are fixed you'd have my support for creation as Bulbasaur evolutionary line, though nominating for GA off the bat I think would be a bit premature. I would like to hear further input from Artichoker, Ost, TheLeftorium, Sesu, and AMIB after these changes and corrections have been implemented. Feel free to strike out the above when each one is done. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. Before I give approval, it needs some serious copyediting, which I'll be happy to do after the issues listed above are addressed. And Blake, I believe it's intended that "Bulbasaur evolution line" will replace the Bulbasaur article. Or did I misunderstand things? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it would be alright. Bulbasaur would just redirect into Bulbasaur evolutionary line so it could easily be reverted back. --Blake (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bulbasaur evolution line" or "Bulbasaur evolutionary line"? There's no real difference between the two, just a matter of which one sounds better aesthetically I think. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a mind reader, Melicans. I like "evolutionary" much better. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs •}  16:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I actualy did that on accident. We will have to redirect those pages. >;3 --Blake (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...... I'd better start the work. Please, feel free to help me do it, it's a ot of work. Plus I'm having my tests for the end of the year soon.Also Evolutionary is better.And I meant Bulbasaur to be redirected.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "Ivysaur" and "Venusaur" will also be redirected once the article is created. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think the whole article is too long and cluttered. I don't really see the point in merging all three articles into one. What makes Ivysaur and Venusaur notable? (Read Kung Fu Man's post further down this page in the Pokemon Status Report section). Why not just work on the articles that already exist first? TheLeftorium 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tons of information is repeated throughout the article. I'm working on cutting it all out and clarifying it together, which should make it both shorter and more legible. In half an hour I've cut it by 4 KB, and I've only just started. Keep in mind that one byte on Wikipedia equates to approximately one character, so I've already removed about 4000 letters, numbers, and spaces. See what you think of it once I've finished. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reworking finished

I've finished my cleanup after about two hours of work. The article has gone from 51,517 bytes to 32,034; almost 20 000 characters have been removed. I've implemented just about all of the things I said needed to be done above. All I can see now is the Cultural impact section; like I said above, "who are Matthew Thomas Gross and Clark Helmsly?" Still needs some cites too.

Summary:

1. Capitalization problems in headings have been fixed
2. Duplicate information has been removed (was especially bad in the manga section)
3. Bulbasaur TCG info was added (was misplaced in manga section)
4. Spelling and grammar fixes
5. Reference fixes
6. Removal of some unnecessary sites from External Links
7. Lead written
8. Conception clarified
9. Lots of fancruft and game guide info removed
10. Awkward "Bulbasaur", "Ivysaur", "Venusaur" splits in each section removed
11. Renaming of headings
12. Games, anime, manga, TCG, listed under new section "Depictions"

I personally think it's an acceptable standard now (at least I hope it is; I've never worked so quickly on Wikipedia!), minus the cites issue above. I'd like to see what Sesu's copyedit does and opinions from other users on how it looks now. Will provide links to compare before and after versions soon. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit: before my edits and after. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, nice job matkins, now should i make it into an article?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 15:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, I'm copyediting...

It's probably too late for this, but how do Ivysaur and Venusaur pass WP:N? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a-done with the-a copyediting. <YAWN!> My brainy too fryed. fryi frHUH? What? I'm awake! Whew, that page was a a-beasty to a-copyedit! I'm done copyediting. Forever! Aaahhh! Oh, I'm tired...y.. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice job Sesu.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But we still need to figure out what we're going to do about the infobox(es). And is the page going to have the Sugimori picture for each of them? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 18:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking about combining The three pics togetther, but it depends on what the new infobox is like.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_DeathER 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the length is good now; it's gone from being about 52 000 bytes to roughhly 28 000 bytes. I was thinking about the three pics too, combined into one. Having just the one pic instead of all three shouldn't violate fair-use policy I think. I think I could do that, and I have an idea for the infobox too. Instead of saying "Bulbasar, Ivysaur, and Venusaur", why not just say "Bulbasaur evolutionary line" like the name of the actual article itself? MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct, now, I need to learn how to cerate an infobox.....--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Heres what I added:

Bulbasaur
Pokémon series character
1bulbasaur.png National Pokédex Arceus - Bulbasaur (#001) - Ivysaur
First game	Pokémon Red and Blue

Ivysaur
Pokémon series character
File:002Ivysaur.png National Pokédex Bulbasaur - Ivysaur (#002) - Venusaur
First game	Pokémon Red and Blue

Venusaur
Pokémon series character
File:003Venusaur.png National Pokédex Ivysaur - Venusaur (#003) - Charmander
First game	Pokémon Red and Blue

Um scroll down to the side, right side....This should be fine, 3 small infoboxes--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That might look pretty bad in practice...especially since the article you want to put them in is still mainly about Bulbasaur even down to the reception.

I think it'd be better to have the article still about Bulbasaur, but the different versions still discussed. Kinda like how Nemesis (Resident Evil) is about the primary version of the character while discussing the other forms still as well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Soooo,Me and Matkins addressed your privs Sesu, Can I create the article now?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's an improvement over the current Bulbasaur article, but I want to hear what Artichoker thinks about this before I say okay. I'm also a little worried that interest will die down once this becomes an article. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking...--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 16:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My last remaining concern is the lack of information for Ivysaur and Venusaur in the Critical Reception section. I think what Sesu has done with the infobox is spot-on. I'd like to hear from AMIB too, since he has asked in the past to be made aware of any potential articles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Told him as well.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:36, 19 May 2009(UTC)

Also, I've been wanting to know this for awhile now, (its unimportant, wouldnt be surprised if I get no replies on this one)do you like my Siggy?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Hey, thanks for bringing this article to my attention. I believe it is certainly on its way, but I would like to see more stringent sourcing (as chunks of text remain with out cites or with citation needed tags.) I also, there is an over-abundance of single-line/sentence paragraphs. Most of these sbould be merged in appropriate locations. Also, the lead could use some beefing up. Artichoker^[talk] 19:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thnks Art, I'm on it.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed some of the one liners,(as many as I could without making it look ill-written) but the header might be a slight bit harder.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I beefed it up check it out now--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what makes Ivysaur and Venusaur notable enough to have their own page... TheLeftorium 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you still dont get it do you Left? We're putting Ivysaur and Venusaur with Bulbasaur because Ivysaur is only a little bit notable and Venusaur nearly lacks it completely , so now that I have addressed Artichokers issues I will create the article. You have 5 min after this message to yell at me to stop, but only if you have a good reason for this--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What? That doesn't make any sense.. That's like adding information about a non-notable cookie I baked into the article about cookies (I'm not very good with examples). TheLeftorium 20:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I get the example and he's right. You can't use Bulbasaur to prop up Ivysaur and Venusaur, it won't work. You can *discuss* the forms in the article, but predominantly the notable one is going to land up having to be what the article is about, which is Bulbasaur.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(E.C.): Ivysaur and Venusaur aren't all that notable, especially when compared to Venusaur. However, the information in the lists is proving to be stagnant, stale, and perpetually unsourced. Rather than keeping them in that way, what is basically happening is a reworking of the Bulbasaur article so that the information we do have on Ivysaur and Venusaur is included. It's an expansion of what we currently have in both Bulbasaur and List of Pokemon (1-20), only reworked so that the information in the same evolutionary family is incorporated. Personally I think that the information is more presentable this way than it is in the current lists that we have, and I think it is an improvement on the way it is currently organized. While Bulbasaur has an overly prominant position in the article (something I have previously noted) and does prop up Ivysaur and Venusaur to an extent, I think that having the information on the entire evolutionary family, as demosntrated by the proposed article title, makes it a more coherant piece. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, isnt that why its named Bulbasaur evolutionary line?Bulbasaur is somewhat predominant , but Ivysaur and Venusaur have their parts that make each other better.Also I get your example, but its not like Ivysaur and Venusaur were made by fans etc..We discussed this already.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did we discuss this? TheLeftorium 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure where it was discussed, but I had the same impression as Melican and Perm: that this was now the evolutionary line and we were considering the line to be notable. This shouldn't have to mean that every aspect of each Pokémon in the line is notable. But I don't think it should proclude us from mentioning Ivysaur or Venusaur in the article. The article notes that Ivysaur is in Smash Bros. Brawl (which essentially started this idea) and that it was in voted as one of the top ten Pokémon, helping to make it notable. I see notability as a fine distinction between Bulbasaur and its evolutionary line. It's not as if we plan on have both articles exist simultaneously. We can have a complete Bulbasaur article that ignores its evolution or we can have a broader article that covers the entire topic. To someone outside the Pkmn universe, the distinction between all three is likely minimal and I think the evolutionary line covers the topic better. —Ost (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ost has hit the nail on the head; with this article it is not solely Bulbasaur that is the focus, but the evolutionary line as a whole. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Permethius! The middle of a dispute is NOT an appropriate time to create the article! -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You call this a dispute???I handled it already so did matkins.Man you guys make me wonder.....--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Leftorium and Kung Fu Man are obviously disputing this. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While I think the article is a marked improvement over the old version, I would like to see it paused until additional information regarding Ivysaur and Venusaur is added; where it is most lacking is Critical Reception. The points brought up by TheLeftorium and Kung Fu Man are real and valid concerns, and they need to be addressed properly. Other editors outside of the WikiProject would do the same if it were to be nominated for GA, for example. In my opinion, it is only the disproportionate amount of info for Bulbasaur in this section that makes the rest of the article seem unbalanced. That is what needs to be fixed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. TheLeftorium 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that after page creation of the new article, the old information at Bulbasaur is wiped and turned into a redirect. As a large part of the information seems to have originated from that article, you would need to move the old article and then edit on top of, otherwise you will be breaking the GFDL.--Alf ^melmac 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, when this dispute is over, please message me on my talk page, as I am currently building up my other article Lifeline, therefore I will be busy, as I am bringing that article up to GA status. Also, Sesu yelling at me on my talk page isnt the best thing, instead it stresses me out extremely, as this project is. So again, when the dispute is over message me and I will continue to contribute to this project as I was before. Thanks in advance.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 18:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've waited a bit went to my other articles and AFD, now I'm back. Are you guys ready to let me create it?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, where did everyone go?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. I haven't seen the issue addressed yet, so I don't think it's ready to be built just yet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Conceptual issues

This starts out as a bad idea for an article and never improves. The myriad lesser issues all stem from the problem that there is no topic here. There is no published source written about this topic. I could go into detail with each source, but each of them deals with a part of this topic as part of some other topic. We have sources covering Ash's Bulbasaur in the anime. We have sources mentioning Bulbasaur as one of many Pokemon toys. We have sources mentioning Bulbasaur as an example of the character design or non-violence or whatever. Not a single one of these sources deal with the Bulbasaur evolutionary line as a whole. This is telling; the sources say so little about this non-topic that we can't even use them to come up with an article name.

There's no article here. I'm sorry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Read Up AMIB, read what Ost said. We're dealing with this with Left already.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here,

I'm not sure where it was discussed, but I had the same impression as Melican and Perm: that this was now the evolutionary line and we were considering the line to be notable. This shouldn't have to mean that every aspect of each Pokémon in the line is notable. But I don't think it should proclude us from mentioning Ivysaur or Venusaur in the article. The article notes that Ivysaur is in Smash Bros. Brawl (which essentially started this idea) and that it was in voted as one of the top ten Pokémon, helping to make it notable. I see notability as a fine distinction between Bulbasaur and its evolutionary line. It's not as if we plan on have both articles exist simultaneously. We can have a complete Bulbasaur article that ignores its evolution or we can have a broader article that covers the entire topic. To someone outside the Pkmn universe, the distinction between all three is likely minimal and I think the evolutionary line covers the topic better. —Ost (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) --Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, and it's one of my qualms too: the sources aren't supporting a discussion of the whole evolutionary line, just Bulbasaur. You can discuss Ivysaur and Venusaur with that material, but to do so you'd be best off making them very subdued portions of the article noting it's alternate forms. The article's focus ultimately should be Bulbasaur.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you don't even have enough direct coverage of Bulbasaur to writ an article about Bulbasaur. Expanding the topic further in order that more sources might make it more notable is missing the point: you need direct coverage of the subject, whatever the subject is. You have none. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

AMIB, what you've failed to understand repeatedly is that these are essentially list articles, but just broken down in a more logically coherent way. Finding third party sources on the topic "Bulbasaur evolutionary line" is no more necessary than finding sources for the topic "Grade I listed buildings in Bristol". -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? That's so flat out wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

...no. Not only can I find you sources on each of those buildings trivially easily, not only does each building merit its own article, but I can also find a ton of sources about the practice of listing buildings. This proposed Bulbasaur article isn't a list article, and the subjects of the list are neither the subject of individual commentary nor are they the subject of commentary as a whole. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

finding a source on the practice of listing buildings is not the same as finding a source on the subject Grade I buildings in Bristol, i can find sources on the practice of listing pokemon... Prima. if you look at the sources used in that example, they are all on the individual buildings - no source was used as a background on the topic of "Grade I buildings in Bristol". interestingly, i would love to see the source so dry as to be about the practice of listing buildings ("People like to list buildings based on location, height, etc. They first began doing this..." that must be a great read - looking at sources used, it seems we rely on examples of this practice, but no sources on it). The evo-line articles are list articles as described by the guidelines on fictional secondary characters, minus the actual word "list" - reducing your viewpoint to an argument of semantics. Your other argument about the elements not being subjects of commentary as a whole is one i have repeatedly answered as false when you take into account third-party published gameguides - the commentary itself might not encyclopedic, but that is not a requirement as described in WP:V, WP:OR, or WP:RS which are the core content policies.

Kung Fu Man: while forum-style glib remarks might save you some time, it is more helpful to articulate your objections when working with other people on a project of any sort, although perhaps in less verbose vernacular than mine. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

rereading this discussion I'm wondering if i just wasn't very clear, based on your response. I am not saying you don't need sources for the article we have called "List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol". I am saying that there's no source like a newspaper article, or book, or whatever, that grouped all the Grade I buildings in Bristol together and then talked about them as a collective - rather the sources used were comprehensive lists of buildings that wikipedia editors then broke down into smaller, more manageable chunks. similarly, there does not exist a source that has grouped Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur together and talked about them as a collective, but rather we have sources which talk about the comprehensive whole and we are breaking them down into smaller more manageable chunks. We could name the article List of Pokemon #1-3 but it just makes more logical sense to name it something familiar and easily understandable - that's why on the english wikipedia we use common names for species which have them (Canis lupus redirects to Gray wolf). -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so... Should I delete this subpage as there are too many opposers? I find no point in keeping it if this is gonna be archived with no final decision--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

to be honest i'm not sure what you should do, b/c the main critics of reorganization have repeatedly dropped out of discussions. the two main arguments still stand that:

1. 1. multiple reliable sources independent of the subject have information on seperate pokemon (regardless of the encyclopedic value of those sources, this satisfies WP:V
   2. in practice, elements in list articles do not need to grouped solely in ways that they are grouped in sources used (an odd arguement seeing as how there is no 3rd party source on the topic "Pokemon 1-20")

while opponents have argued that reorganization would not make things any better in their view, they have failed to make any argument as to how it would make the encyclopedia worse (so, i assume, they beleive reorganization would not affect the quality of the encyclopedia). since there at least exists some editors who believe reorganization would improve the quality - there's no really good reason to not do it. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Only reason I have not created it is because I think Sesu or Matkins would yell at me then revert it. But hey, what have I got to lose, right?--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 13:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If this article is kept merged, then Pichu and Raichu needs to be merged into Pikachu (which means we would probably lose a GA), and Wigglytuff and Igglybuff into Jigglypuff. TheLeftorium 13:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Its merged and done, so we will have to find out how to put those pokemon into them. Another long process I suppose, and it wont lose it's GA either.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur evolutionary line. TheLeftorium 14:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is heading toward Merge into Bulbasaur, for those who are interested, and I gotta say I support that. Everyone has presented good arguments, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of interest is and will be in Bulbasaur, not Ivy, Venus, or the evolution thereof. You can see that pretty clearly in the Bulbasaur evolutionary line article - most of the major information concerns Bulbasaur. Really, then, the discussion of the evolved forms boils down to a (large) section or subsection in the main Bulbasaur article. The main argument that I feel has been missing from this conversation is that of WP:N. The information in the evolution article is highly verifiable, and an excellent job has been done there, but a lot of it just isn't that notable and isn't necessary for inclusion within Wikipedia. If we remove the Bulbasaur-specific and non-notable content, we're liable to end up with just enough for a section within Bulbasaur, not a separate article. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed as a merge, and the article has been redirected. I reccomend interested editors here to salvage anything worth taking from the evolution article, and place it in the Bulbasaur article. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)