Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 25

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mitternacht90 in topic I noticed
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Starter Pokemon/Legendary Pokemon article

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I started to make a Starter Pokémon article, because KfM brought it up a few days ago. I am not sure this will work unless we either:

1. Break it into Evolution lines. (1 article of 12)
2. Split it into Generations. (4 articles of 9 each)
3. Do both. (4 articles of 3)

because putting them all into one article would be 36 BIG entries in one article. As for the legendarys I think spliting by Generation would work as well. (4 articles of 5, 6, 10, and 14) I am not sure if we are still doing this or not, I just wanted to get a better idea of what might work. What are your thoughts? I know I shouldnt be "starting to revive articles again", but I couldnt help myself on at least getting it started. --Blake (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sold on the Starter Pokémon article—I'm not quite sure how Bulbasaur evolutionary line is an WP:OR classification but these divisions would be OK—but I thought of another classification: starter Pokémon evo lines by type (3 articles of 4). This approach can allow comparison of similar Pokémon across generations and consolidating discussion of strengths and weaknesses.
Additionally, the count of starter Pokémon is off by one since Pikachu is a Starter in Yellow. We also need to make note that these are Starters in the main series, as I believe the Mystery Dungeon series refers to your character and partner as Starters. —Ost (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that will be mentioned in the lead if this is done. I like the idea of doing it by type, but I dont think that make sense to split up the same generation Pokemon. --Blake (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I dont think Pikachu should be included in this, since it has its own article, and it was only the starter in Yellow. It will have its mention about replacing them, but it shouldnt have a whole section. --Blake (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I changed up some things and added a good lead. I guess I will be including Pikachu, since it was a very important starter. I am currently writing a "Squirtle evolution line" article to put into the Starter Pokemon article. --Blake (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Did a rough redirect of Gold (Pokémon) earlier, so all either link to now are Red (Pokémon) and Blue (Pokémon). Any objections if we TfD them at this point and replace the templates on Red and Blue's pages with {{Pokemon}}?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me; I'm actually surprised that these three have lasted so long. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. Artichoker[talk] 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Dealt with. Figured AfDing the things would be a pain so just redirected them to {{Pokemon}} and edited the pages accordingly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't {{Manga characters}} be deleted? It has nothing to do with Pokémon and might cause confusion. Theleftorium 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point. A RfD should take care of it readily enough, though it's not really used anywhere apparently either. We could leave it and let someone repurpose it at a later date I suppose.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Source hunting for development information on the anime characters

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As it stands we have very little if any development info for Ash Ketchum, Brock (Pokémon), or Misty (Pokémon). I'm digging up reception to use in their articles (Misty's out of the way currently in that regard), but can anyone dig up any interviews with the developers or even the voice actors regarding the characters that we can actively cite?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a Veronica Taylor interview I used in some other article: [1]. I'll see if I can find some newspaper sources on NewsBank tomorrow (I'm a bit busy today). Theleftorium 10:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
They all need in-universe references surprisingly. I will put that on my list of things to do. --Blake (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, from what I've found all over we might be able to pull off an article for "Jesse, James and Meowth" together as one article (though it could be possible if we get enough material to do Jesse and James we could do separate articles for those two, as Meowth's reception is more diminished).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pokémon Trainer

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI. As posted at WT:VG, User:TTN is looking for discussion on merging Pokémon Trainer into Gameplay of Pokémon. —Ost (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucario

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that Lucario had been made into an article again, but as there was no establishment of notability or consensus to recreate it, I restored the redirect. Feel free to review. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There clearly is notability. He is the star of a Pokemon movie, and he is a character in Super Smash Bros. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
See here for the main discussion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the Lucario article might be ready to come out in the open. It has a few good references. What do you think? Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There's really only one reference for reception. I'd still feel better if we worked on getting the other articles to GA before even pursuing this first to give us a good foundation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, I was just wondering, because I wasn't sure if anybody has seen it in a while. I just added that UGO reference today, and am about to reference that manga part Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to delete the lists?

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

I sure think so. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (461–480). -sesuPRIME 11:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Just as we start to get things going somewhere someone has to slip a gear...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the AfD discussion, these lists arent anywhere where they can be. They just need some help, as they have been ignored for months. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Poxy deletionists. Does this project have a suicide wish or something...? TheChrisD Rants•Edits 16:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon was mentioned twice as something that should be deleted, and I agree: it's kinda a relic and not really needed. An AfD seems long winded, so any objections to redirecting it to the first list in the pokemon list series?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. List of Pokémon is just a collection of names with no content and no real-world, critical discussion. Artichoker[talk] 22:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a very helpful navigation tool. Sort of like a disimbag page. If you dont know the name of a Pokémon, but you want to search it, you can look over this and you might find it. Thats really its whole purpose. A list to navigate the Pokémon articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good point you have there, Blake; the article might be useful for navigation purposes. Of course, one thing I would like to establish is that the list articles and List of Pokémon are certainly not content forks as User:Colonel Warden was claiming in the AfD. Artichoker[talk] 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a redirect should at the very least hold off until that discussion closes (as it may soon per WP:SNOW). That being said, Blake's point noting its use as a navigation list is valid, and I personally am much more likely to use that main list than the others. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the redirect should be held off until the end of the AfD. Artichoker[talk] 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
And on that note... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Didn't we already decide it is a navigation tool? You might have to take the Type column out to make it less bytes, but I think it should stay. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm opting that it should stay. Artichoker[talk] 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

HG/SS

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I see Artichoke's managed to find a bunch of useful dev info for HG/SS. Should we start trying to make a push to re-instate it to it's own small article for the time being? There's only a month to go until the Japanese release, which should add a bunch more information. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 19:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I say go for it. There are plenty of articles out there for unreleased game that only have 1 or 2 references. There are 8 references in this section. I think spliting back to Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver would work. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
(double edit conflict)I actually wouldn't mind making it into a separate article. By the time it's released there will probably be enough info. The only thing that worries me is the lack of current development information. But in the same vein as Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, it could conceivably be its own article. Artichoker[talk] 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Theleftorium 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur with the above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  Done (see Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver) Could someone please procure a box art picture for use in the article? Artichoker[talk] 20:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Added box art. HeartGold is the one that should be used, right? Theleftorium 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes; always default to the first name listed :) Thanks! Artichoker[talk] 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the redirects too. Thank God for AWB! :) Theleftorium 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh, maybe it would have been better to work on the article in a sandbox and edit it there before actually creating it. That would've avoided the mad dash to fix everything and it would've given time to coordinate who would upload the box art (I uploaded the HeartGold box only to realize that Theleftorium had already done so; I've nominated mine for speedy deletion). -sesuPRIME 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. But at least it appears that the mad dash is over and everything has stabilized. The article looks pretty good if I do say so myself :P Artichoker[talk] 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Copying and pasting the bare-bones elements on gameplay from FireRed and LeafGreen should serve to expand the article somewhat, or at least give us a skeleton to work with when we get the game on hand.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think it would be appropriate to use the same gameplay section as in FR/LG? I know that most likely it will be exactly the same, but none of this has been confirmed yet. Artichoker[talk] 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point, it could land up pretty different all around. Alrighty then, nvm, we hold off until we have confirmation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And there go the English HG/SS floodgates...

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

http://www.pokemon.com/#news_/XML/news_396.xml

I sense a huge influx of anonymous IPs inserting speculation soon... TheChrisD Rants•Edits 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If so, we just revert and request semi-protection. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, might I suggest the articles for the games be placed on semi-lock? Evilgidgit (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't do pre-emptive protection, and it hasn't been an issue so far. Fansites are saying the article came out today, but the date used in the reference is August 7th; not sure which is correct, but if it's the latter then I really don't think we'll need to apply. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I was a little confused with the article's dating as well. If anything it goes to show how little anyone pays attention to Pokemon.com! TheChrisD Rants•Edits 09:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to pop in and say that if you havent noticed yet, there is now a very small sub-site. here. So... erm... keep an eye on it? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I say we should. They're bound to update it close to the release of the games. Mokoniki | talk 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge {{Pokémon-stub}} into {{Nintendo-stub}}

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'd like to propose that {{Pokémon-stub}} be merged into {{Nintendo-stub}} as the former only has 16 entries and that Nintendo is Pokémon's parent in a sense. Normally, stub templates should have at a minimum 30 entries as a rule of thumb, which this one doesn't have. Any thoughts/suggestions? MuZemikeUse my VG templates! 05:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it, following your move at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2009/May/30 for Mario. It just makes sense, and then we can more easily avoid shit like The Pokémon Company. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I dont see why we need both Pokemon and Nintendo stubs on the pages. I think there is supposed to be a Stub template for every WikiProject though. So people can see which project to go to if they want to help the stub. I am not sure if that is correct, but it makes sense. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MuZemike. The WikiProject is available on the talk page anyway. Theleftorium 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal bias aside, I support. -WarthogDemon 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Explorers of Sky

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky have its own page? I would think it would be handled on Pokémon Mystery Dungeon Explorers of Time and Darkness like Pokémon Yellow, Emerald, and Platinum. —Ost (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No. From what I understand, it is the same story as Time and Darkness, but with extra Pokemon and side quests. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It doesn't need it's own page if it has extras, but is still basically the same game. Mokoniki | talk 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged the pages. -Theleftorium 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That had been my plan for today. —Ost (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can I get some help here? I dont see how these articles cant be in the userspace/project space without being notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? This person is now trying to delete every Pokemon article in the project space. Including Bulbasaur. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable articles discussion

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

Here's Blake's comments for reference:

Here's a list of all the articles:

Notability asserted by Blake:


Recent work, possibility of notability:

Non-notability asserted:

For the articles that have been found non-notable by an AfD, or which are unlikely to be notable in the near future, I strongly object to keeping them in the wikipedia or user namespace for the long run. We have an inclusion policy, and if anyone is free to transplant content to another namespace to get around our notability policy, we might as well not have it. Gigs (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They weren't to "get around the policy". What would be the point of that? They were created with good intentions to become articles. Some of them just failed. Others such as Charizard and Jynx succeeded. Anyways, I dont really understand your "Notability asserted by Blake" title. I never "asserted notablity" for Bulbasaur. I just dont think it should be deleted, because it was just barely removed from article status. It just diddn't seem like it had as much good Critical Reception as the other recently upgraded articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
At least some of these have been to AfD and were deleted, right? Gigs (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Most AfD's on these Pokémon were done before they were converted to the new style and highly improved. Blastoise is the only one I can think of that has recently been AfD'ed. I dont get where you are going though. New sources can always come up. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't generally have articles on things that might become notable someday, but aren't notable now, not even in other namespaces. Gigs (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I have put a note requesting history merges on the redirects that I tagged for speedy. Should probably try to avoid copy+paste forks of articles in the future, because of the hassle they create. Gigs (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, actuallly it's happened quite often Gigs where sources have suddenly cropped up years after the existence of a fictional item to discuss, support or criticize something. Case in point: MissingNo.'s existed since the 1990's. However enough sources discussing it only came about in the past few years in the forms of IGN articles and publications. So it is a viable concept that a previously non-notable topic can become notable enough for wikipedia's policies, as Blake is hoping for here and working on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course subjects can become notable. But we don't retain articles on non-notable subjects, in any namespace. If we accepted your argument, then I could go start an encyclopedia article for myself, and stick it in WP or user space, and say, "Well, I'm sure I'll become notable someday". That would be deleted quickly if anyone noticed it. Gigs (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay I honestly don't know of any other editor that would agree with you there. I've seen several cases in my years here where articles have been kept, sometimes for months on end, in userspace while people waited for material to crop up. Even fellows more inclined to delete items that are non-notable have argued that if an editor wishes to work on the subject userspace is the best idea. It's outside of the mainspace and for the most part not known about, meaning its the equivalent of an editor making an essay on the subject. If you're going to target such articles that haven't been worked on in years...you've got a lot more to do than target just these.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I still dont get this whole situation. There are plenty of pages in Userspace or projectspace that dont get touched or used. You know why they arent deleted? Because nobody cares, because there arent rules against it. So why not Ignore all Rules and Use Common Sense and let the good articles stay in the projectspace or userspace? I do agree that deleting some of these pages we dont use might be a good idea. But some of the pages are still being edited. Like Ost said in the AfD, "I'm unsure what the "long-term" argument is". Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The ones that are being actively worked on and that might have notability I'm not interested in deleting. It's the ones where even you guys admit there's not notability that I think should go. Gigs (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but there is a difference between "not being worked on at the moment" and "we're not working on this and it won't ever be notable unless a miracle happens". Can we all agree on that?
I'm also tempted to point out WP:TIMELIMIT on a side note, which is right in that there's a difference between these being treated as "currently non-notable but with potential" and "non-notable, not worked on and they haven't been cleaned out yet."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I still go with my original post.
Keep - Bulbasaur•Kadabra•Lucario
Weak keep/delete - Squirtle•Blastoise•Mudkip
Delete - Charmander evolution line•Jynx evolutionary line•Shroomish evolutionary line•Squirtle evolution line•Torchic•Meowth
I dont think Meowth will be an article. Nothing was really found for it. I just merged the Meowth and Kadabra information into the lists. I still want to keep Lucario though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oooh! I just had an idea. How about history merging most of these articles into the real articles, so the restyled pages can be saved but not "hidden" as you call it? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We would have to history merge them with their corresponding redirects in the main namespace, not into the big list articles. It would be pretty unusual to do that. If you can find an admin to do it for you then I guess I'm OK with that. From what I hear history merges are kind of a pain to do though. Gigs (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't a history merge just merge WP:POKE/Mudkip into Mudkip and then redirecting it again? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand, a history merge doesn't actually move content... I found the place where we can request the history merges though Wikipedia:Cut_and_paste_move_repair_holding_pen Gigs (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am saying if you moved say WP:Mudkip into Mudkip, the history would be merged. Then you fix the page to redirect to the list article. Then you wouldnt have to bother the admins with the job, and do it yourself. Wouldn't it work? The old history would be merged with the new history. It would be like I edited the article at Mudkip. Instead of WP:Mudkip. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If we move wp:mudkip over mudkip, we'll lose all the older history from before it's a redirect, and the history that has happened since it became a redirect. The history of vandalism of the redirect isn't too critical, but there may be some objection to losing that as well. Just moving pages around doesn't merge the history. It looks like there's significant parallel history on Mudkip as well, so it has the same problem as the ones below. I don't think these can realistically be history merged. The only thing I could possibly see doing is moving these forked versions into Talk:Mudkips/forked version lets say, but some people may object to that as well. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kadabra

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WP:WikiProject Pokémon/Kadabra - I just made this a few days ago. It could possibly use something on the Manga and TCG. I heard that Kadabra cards stopped coming out because of the Uri Geller thing. Sources might can be found for that. If you could find anything else to add, that would be great. I'm going to go get Manga info now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda a one trick pony though...if there's more discussion it could work but at the moment it looks like we're propping it up on the statements of one fellow. (Which I know you're thinking should be similar to Jynx, but in that case several folks dogpiled on how bad its look was). Do you see what I mean Blake?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There are also the comments about the star and lightning symbols on its body. Something might can be found on that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon:_Arceus_and_the_Jewel_of_Life#Move.3F

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please participate in the move discussion. Theleftorium 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Pokémon TCG: Diamond & Pearl and Platinum and POP sets

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please participate in the discussion. -sesuPRIME 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Jovi

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please participate in the discussion. -sesuPRIME 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jynx and Charizard histmerge impossible

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I just realized that Jynx and Charizard had parallel development, which makes a history merge impossible. It looks like the only viable course of action is to move the wikiproject space versions into the article talk space for the articles in question, and then link to it from the main talk page and delete the redirect left behind in project space. Gigs (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest I don't see either being that necessary, just delete the redirects. Everything usable is already in the articles or their histories.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I did originally just tag the redirects for speedy, but Blake contested it asking for preservation of history. I was OK with that but now I realize that it's probably going to be impossible. Gigs (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought moving a page to somewhere merged both article's histories. With articles like Abra evolutionary line people were mad because somebody moved Alakazam into the evo line and then the history was mixed together, so it was difficult to see which revisions were what. I am going to preform a test to see what happens. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I made a page called User:Bws2cool/Charizard2 and merged it into User:Bws2cool/Charizard and it came up with this

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. Maybe the admins can only do that, and they did the Alakazam>Abra Evo Line move. I am a little confused. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, moving a page does not merge histories. Like I said our only real option is to archive these versions in the talk namespace of the article, which may still draw MfDs in the future, especially if the archived articles are actively edited after we move them. Gigs (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
We could just hold off on those two pages until someone answers me here. Its not that big a deal, I just want to know if this can be done for in the future maybe. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. 99% sure they will say the parallel history makes it impossible or ill recommended, but we will see. Gigs (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you need to post this on WP:AN/I or the main requested merge page so that you'll get a prompt response. Gigs (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Charizard just got history merged by User:Anthony Appleyard. I am going to ask him how difficult it would be to do Jynx and maybe the other pages. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just make sure the most recent version of the actual article persists after said merge. Had to fix Charizard a moment ago in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but like he said in his talkpage, he was in the middle of the process. He might have been just about to do it. I will make sure it ends up right if he does any other articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Johto gym leaders#Requested move

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please comment there. -sesuPRIME 08:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Move Bulbasaur back to article space?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur should be moved back to Bulbasaur. Either with a redirect or as a full article, I dont care. I dont think anybody is editing it here though, so might as well put it back. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Gym leaders

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone object to merging the lists of gym leaders into the main list? The bulk of the content is superfluous, so trimmed versions shouldn't take up much space. TTN (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I object, but I will probably be overruled. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer merging all to List of Gym Leaders. Theleftorium 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think there is enough possible content to need an entire list. Unless you're planning on keeping the current summaries of their anime and manga appearances, which should be left to the relevant episode and volume lists, there really isn't much to say about them. TTN (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just changed my mind after reading the "List of Pokémon characters" section above. Theleftorium 20:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The Episode lists most of the time dont say anything these characters do. Even then, it is about the plot of the episode, not about what the individual person did. The Chapter lists dont even summarize anything. This information isnt presented anywhere else. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Project Revive Portal:Pokémon

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I have recently been updating the Portal to more recent times, by updating the Selected Pokémon entries, Topics, and such. There is much more that needs to be updated such as News, Categories, and Things you can do. It would be great if someone would help with this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a concern for anyone else, but I dislike pages like Portals simply because most edits appear on subpage transcluded into the Portal; I never know when they're updated. Is there a way to easily watchlist all the parts of a Portal? I think the portals themselves are helpful for readers and my question has no prejudice against the effort to improve the portal; I was just wondering if it a portal could become more accessible to someone like me who forgets to check pages if they don't show up on the watchlist (or if I would have to watch all the transcluded pages). —Ost (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are the Category and Prefix pages. You could copy and paste the links from there. Or you could check this for all the edits done to them. There is something similar for the whole project, based on this page's links. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I was unaware of the Prefix searches and I hadn't noticed the category. I still haven't ingrained using Related Changes into my Wikipedia behavior, so it'll probably be a while before I follow the Portal too thoroughly unless I decide to watch all the pages in the category or make myself a page of links that I want to remember to check. —Ost (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just came up with an idea for Portal:Pokémon/News. We could make the boxes in there for each Pokémon game to be released. It could have the logo and a summary of the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
We definitely couldn't get away with using non-free logos in project space. By the way, who are the portals for? Readers or editors? I never really understood their purpose. -sesuPRIME 15:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yah, maybe Logos would be too much. "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon characters

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

List of Pokémon characters is now over 120kb of space, so I think it needs some splitting. I suggest either:

  • Going with my earlier suggestion here and make it a List of Pokémon video game characters. I mean we do have a List of Pokémon anime characters. Most of the stuff on this list repeats tons of information. Cutting out the duplicate information and only leaving the game info would be helpful.
  • Or we could cut out the Gym, E4, and BF people and make a page for the Pokémon League. This is also a good idea as a large portion of the list is from the Elite Four, and I plan on expanding the Battle Frontier after I finish reading the Emerald chapter. This would bring this article back to what it should be, a list, not a summary of characters.

What do you think? We cant just throw out the list, but it does need a big trim. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather than creating more article, this article should just receive a decent trim. Artichoker[talk] 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What would you trim? Like I said, we could just make it for game characters. That would cut all the anime people, which if they arent already on the anime list, they shouldn't be on here. I wasnt just going to randomly make the Pokemon League page. I would wait to see if we found sources so it could have its own page and not clutter up this list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
For one we could remove all of the incredibly minor characters (I'm talking about ones such as Miyamoto, whose entry reads: "Miyamoto (30 years old) (deceased) — Jessie's (Musashi's) mother and agent of Team Rocket. Disappears while on a mission to capture Mew. Only referred to in the CD radio dramas in Japan.") Artichoker[talk] 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This list still needs help. I still suggest either making it a List of Pokémon game characters, cutting out the duplicate anime characters and such OR Spliting the article to put the Pokémon League on a different page OR Taking out alot of these people since not really any of them are notable. It needs to be significantly shorter and less confusing. Alot of characters are most likely talked about in some sort of official guide. This also needs to be added. The whole list has no references. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, does somebody have a bot that can automaticly go through an article and change Pokemon or pokemon-->Pokémon? I just looked and there are "Pokemon"'s all over the anime characters list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  Done [2] That was my first edit using AWB! I'll be correcting the spelling of "Pokémon" within many more articles in the near future. -sesuPRIME 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Whew! I just finished going through every single page in Category:Pokémon, plus all its subcategories, and corrected the spelling of "Pokémon" where appropriate. Gotta love AWB! -sesuPRIME 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Its nice to know that every page now has its é's corrected. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, all pages in Category:Pokémon. There are still about 250 more pages to be tackled (and these are probably only pages where Pokémon isn't spelled right at all). Great minds must think alike because I had this spelling correction as a pending task I wanted to begin this week. I'm glad the category is clean and I'll keep working on other pages (unless someone beats me too it as I often get sidetracked cleaning the articles or elsewhere).
I'm replying because I noticed sesu's edit summary on Norman J. Grossfeld and it made me wonder what meets the criteria for inclusion in the Category. I had added {{Poképroject}} to Talk:Jamie Owens, but I had not explicitly added the category to the article (until now). She seems to have some longevity working with the series, but Norman's page says he wrote an ending for one movie. Should anyone with any involvement in Pokémon get put in the category? If so, I'll pay more attention to including pages in the category when cleaning up the spelling error. —Ost (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, Grossfeld was actually one of the key people involved with the big North American localization of Pokémon back in about 1998. In fact, I believe it was him who wrote the tagline "Gotta catch 'em all!" after he learned that his original idea "Catch 'em if you can!" couldn't be trademarked. He also produced the anime for many years (both the TV show and films) and co-wrote several of the earlier films. I should really add this to his article, shouldn't I? I'll try and find some sources for all of this. -sesuPRIME 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It sounds like he is much more connected than his article now shows and I'm glad you know more about the history. I'll see what references I can find to add also. —Ost (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a sourced fimography. I may have gone overboard with references, but I wasn't entirely sure which are considered reliable for this information and I wanted to try to have references for all claims made on the page and from pages linking to Grossfeld. The one exception is Pokémon Heroes. The article says he is a writer, but I could not find a source that indicated such. If you could find more information about his ideas, it could help flesh out the article. He has spent a lot of time at 4kids, so I would guess there were interviews out there. I just haven't found them and wasn't focusing on them yet. Making sure I had the right roles for the right projects was enough for today. —Ost (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
While not exactly interviews, he appears in DVD commentaries for the first, third, and fourth Pokémon films, all of which I own. I haven't listened to them in a few years, but I'll try to get to that in the near future. -sesuPRIME 15:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently User:TTN is going to try and summarize all the Elite Four entries on the article to make it more list-like, so I am going to continue making List of Elite Four members or Elite Four in my userspace here. If some of you could grab an Official guide, and source some of the game information, then I will do my best to reference the anime and manga. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need an article/list on the Elite Four? Are they notable? Is the information worth including on Wikipedia? Theleftorium 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. My argument before was:
  • 1. The information is on the character list. It needs to go somewhere else.
  • 2. The Gym leaders have articles with just some manual references. Why not the E4?

Now that both of these statements aren't true, I dont really have an argument. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MissingNo. FAC ongoing

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Forgot to mention it awhile back when I put it up but MissingNo.'s currently undergoing FAC, and at the moment has one comment, one neutral, and two supports. If any other editors here could give it a once over and say something one way or another it'd be helpful, the whole process seems to have slumped for the time being.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I do a look-over on it, but I'm not making any promises; as of late I've been very busy. I'm not sure about omitting that sic thing though... Artichoker[talk] 19:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My main problem with it is it breaks up the quote for a very minor thing...like Soulcalibur where a lot of quotes may have Soul Calibur: it's common enough that readers should be able to assume what was meant without having it pointed out "yes, they typoed".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Artichoker, Tezkag72, and myself agree we shouldn't ignore convention by leaving out [sic]. So, who's going to correct the article? I'd rather not do it; I've already been reverted twice today. -sesuPRIME 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What "convention" though? It's just an "e" instead of "é". Preserving sentence flow I think is a lot more important than pointing it out when a reader is going to notice it outright anyway and keep going.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Its not a real big problem. If you want put a hidden message saying that the source said it wrong, but I dont agree with the whole [sic] thing. At least put [sic] or something. Its very strange and interrupts the flow of the sentence. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Compromise, anybody? I just realized MOS:QUOTE suggests it's perfectly acceptable to correct minor spelling errors in quoted text:
Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment—unless the slip is textually important).
So apparently our Manual of Style says we should just add the accent without any indication in the article that we've done so. I find that a bit odd, but I'm okay with it. -sesuPRIME 14:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If it's what everyone else wants I've got no qualms about it here, doesn't change the meaning in any way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yah, if it was something like the head director spelled a Pokémon's name wrong(Charzard instead of Charizard), then it might be worth mentioning. But just leaving the accent out of Pokémon isnt worth breaking a sentence over. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Corrected here and here. -sesuPRIME 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete "Inactive" members list?

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I think we should. The notice to move your name to the "Active" list was sent out over two and a half months ago. -sesuPRIME 05:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a stink about that awhile back when Blake removed it, wasn't there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about me, Blake? I never removed it as far as I can remember. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? What was the argument for keeping it? I like how membership is handled at the Nintendo task force; every 3-4 months an Inactive list is formed and all members moved to it, a notice is sent out to move your name to Active, then the Inactive list is deleted after a month. Why not follow their example? -sesuPRIME 05:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
If memory serves...and it's 2 AM here so don't hold me to it verbatim, but several editors were annoyed at their names being suddenly cleared out because they wanted their previous contributions to the project to be remembered. I'm pretty sure it's in this talk page's archive in fact somewhere.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I found the discussion you were talking about. I guess they sorta have a point, but I notice a lot of new Wikipedians add their name to the list just because they like Pokémon, then don't do much editing and disappear. There's nothing wrong with that, but those names add up over time and the Inactive list is nearly four times as long as the Active one right now. We should do something with the Inactive list. If we don't remove it altogether, then why not place it in its own subpage, or make it collapsible, having it collapsed by default? -sesuPRIME 06:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Collapsed by default looks to be the best bet, and fairest for all involved parties.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think make it collapsed, and maybe checking the user's contributions to see how much they really helped the project. If its just a random person adding their name to the list and not helping anything, they should be removed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody objected, so I rendered the Inactive list collapsed by default. -sesuPRIME 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kung_Fu_Man/Jigglypuff

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Between the MissingNo. FAC and my push to make something of the Soulcalibur character articles, I've neglected the heck out of fleshing this baby out, so if any of you guys want to help work on it and develop it while it sits there, feel free to. My thinking is once done to have it replace the current Jigglypuff article's setup and then go right to GAN once that quality's been established.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you aren't going to work on it at the moment, then you should put it into the current Jigglypuff article. If you want to remove some things from it because they aren't sourced, then thats a different problem. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Pokémon-stub}} now upmerged to {{Nintendo-stub}}

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per the rough consensus that was established at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 25#Proposal to merge {{Pokémon-stub}} into {{Nintendo-stub}}]], I went ahead and did the upmerge of {{Pokémon-stub}} into {{Nintendo-stub}}. The Pokémon stub template now redirects to the Nintendo stub. So now, even though the Nintendo-stub should now be used to tag Pokémon articles, if someone uses the Pokémon stub accidentally, then there won't be much a problem. But don't use both Pokemon and Nintendo, though.

There is also one item remaining in Category:Pokémon stubs, which is Category:Pokémon articles with sections needing expansion. I don't know if this is used anymore, as it seems pretty much abandoned. What should be done here? MuZemike 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's used anymore (it even references the Pokémon Collaborative Project, a name we haven't used since I don't know when). I say post it at WP:SfD. Or is WP:CfD more appropriate? -sesuPRIME 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur move

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

The article has established notability so why can't it be an article? I see another unanswered question about it above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I know people felt it necessary to merge the non-notable ones, but there's also a consensus on the notable ones? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion here, where the active editors decided to put it away until notability could be established and the article improved. As they are...the sources used currently are really bad. Compare it to any good vg article in their context and even Charizard and it quickly becomes visible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's the greatest article ever, but were you guys aware that I finally found mulitiple reliable non-trivial sources for it? It wasn't easy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you post them here?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)You have? Can you show them to us, or better yet, add them to the project namespace article? If you have indeed found "mulitiple reliable non-trivial sources" for Bulbasaur, then of course the article can be reimplemented into the articlespace. Artichoker[talk] 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It's this and this. They're college newspapers, so they ain't no New York Times articles, but I believe they do count as reliable sources. One of them even gives you half of what you need for Charmander. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think they're refs 42 and 43, towards the end of the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, they are. The problem with both is they're written in a very Screwattack-y tone, and fall back a lot on gameguide content, which would kill things fast in a push for a FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about trying to get Bulbasaur back to FAC. Yikes! If you want it to be recognized, I'd recommend a 1500 word article that covers the plot, production, and reception (or whatever the sections are named for Pokemon articles). That would probably pass GAN. Are you guys only allowing articles with FAC potential? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You're reading into my statements wrong. What flies for GAN is going to be the same stuff that'll fly for FAC, and quality of sourcing has to be considered. A good editor will enforce that at a GAN. I'd say...strictly speaking? You could get a few sentences of reception for each evolutionary line out of there but it'd still result in a very weak foothold compared to the other articles, which was why the move was done in the first place.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really. FAC frowns on small articles in a way that GAN doesn't, and has rules about sourcing that go beyond simple WP:RS. In any case, Pokemon is way out of the scope of what I do on WP. It sounds like I'd have to take it through GAN (which could be done) to convince you that establishing notability is a wonderful thing, because it allows a standalone article. Do what you think is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming across media

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The video games are in the form Pokémon Red, while the anime uses colons such as Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl. Beyond this, the anime articles list Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl: Battle Dimensions and Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl: Galactic Battles as seasons, but the title screens show that these air as Pokémon DP Battle Dimensions and Pokémon DP Galactic Battles. I know the DP stands for Diamond and Pearl, but isn't it WP:OR to expand the title based on that knowledge. Are there sources confirming the long version as the actual name as well as the use (or lack) of colons? —Ost (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that the commercials say "Diamond and Pearl" when referring to the anime. I dont know if that is what you mean. The official website refers to it as "Pokémon: DP Galactic Battles". You would have to dig around to find an official source say the full name with the colons. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think what he means is it comes across as OR to spell out "DP" to Diamond and Pearl, and I see his point. We don't expand "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX" to use "Deluxe" at the end instead after all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's pretty much the point I was making. The use of colons was a minor secondary thought, but it was the two colons in the name that attracted my attention notice the extended DP. I tend to think it should be named as it is on the official website, but I'm torn given that sites from imdb and Anime News Network as well as Froogle hits for the DVDs and all seem to have mostly expanded versions of the title. —Ost (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Red (Pokémon) and Blue (Pokémon)

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Not sure how people are going to feel about this one, but decided to retire both these pages after talking with a few Artichoker and a few others on them. Initially the idea was to merge Ash Ketchum into Red, but it got pointed out that Red really didn't have any reception in the first place, and Ash pretty clearly does. Basically it'd be the equivalent of trying to give a car a jump start when it doesn't have an engine. Not to mention both Red's and Blue's articles actually had their entire contents in the related character lists, making them unneeded.

Kinda feels "end of an era-y", but in an odd good way gives set us up with one interesting feat: every remaining character and species articles clears notability, meaning the sky's the limit for them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the RSN thread about Bulby? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda already gave my thoughts on that though Peregrine. That combined with User:Hanchen on WT:VG pretty much confirmed that they wouldn't be taken seriously as sources by established editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess it had to be done? I have sort of gotten tired of trying to fight for articles, so I wont object. Any info was plot info or repeated info. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the second comment that gave it the OK, depending on Pokemon experts taking a look? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yah, they said that if the information actually is real and truthful, then its alright. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
But think that statement carefully: Wikipedia, which goes to great lengths to shoot down editors coming to their own conclusions on something without backing them up, has an editor on it advising someone to look at a source and come to their own conclusion whether the writer of the article knew what he was talking about. Do you really think that'll fly at a GAN? :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure what horrible experiences you guys have had at GAN, but I find it pretty easy to get stuff passed. Heck, I guess if you guys want to work on it, I'd help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As I look at it, some of the non-independent sourcing isn't ideal. phttp://www.pokemon.com/Pokedex/flash.asp This] ref is used to support "In the Pokémon franchise, Bulbasaur are small, squat, vaguely reptilian Pokémon that move on all four legs, and have light blue-green bodies with darker blue-green spots. As a Bulbasaur undergoes evolution into Ivysaur and then later into Venusaur, the bulb on its back blossoms into a flower." Maybe it's just for the second sentence, in which case some of the article is unreferenced and ORish. A lot of it describes Bulby like it's a real animal, which is what's going to be the major hickup in a quick GA pass. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of demographic on several Pokémon manga articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a notice to inform this project of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Removal of demographic on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu over the repeated removal of Kodomo (or children's manga) from Pokémon Pocket Monsters and Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu by a dynamic IP editor. —Farix (t | c) 12:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I dont know if you noticed, but Bulbasaur has been revived by User:Colonel Warden because "re coin + citation &c.". If the article now is notable, then it needs to be history merged again. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "re coin + citation &c." mean? -sesuPRIME 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
He added a citation about a promotional currency featuring Bulbasaur on it, the same kind Mewtwo got I think. It's *still* not notable because that was something pushed by the company, not an actual bit of reception...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Red and Ash revisited

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I was digging for an old source for information that I recalled to beef up Ash Ketchum, and I found something interesting here on page 2 of the interivew:

"TIME: The main human guy is named Satoshi. That's your name. Is he your alter ego?
Tajiri: Basically, he's me when I was a kid."
"TIME: His main rival is named Shigeru. That's the first name of Miyamoto, the famous game designer at Nintendo who did Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. Do you consider him your rival?
Tajiri: No! I really look up to Miyamoto-san. In the TV series, Shigeru is Satoshi's master. In the game, they are rivals. Shigeru is always a little bit ahead of Satoshi."

Before this we had nothing to really confirm Ash and Gary = Red and Blue or if they were just inspired by them, but this is straight from the horse's mouth, and it's hard to take differently. Before I move ahead with anything though does everyone else agree with this?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd say not. That's basically reading between the lines of a translated version of what Tajiri said. The bit you bolded does imply they're the same characters, but it's a realistic possibility that the original Japanese wording had no such implication. -sesuPRIME 05:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That'd be kinda a stretch to say in itself though, given that a) well, this is Time magazine we're talking about, with this being a web version of the printed article and b) there's no indication anything was translated to begin with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen these kinds of interviews carry any such indication when they were translated. I know that Shigeru Miyamoto responds in Japanese even when interviewed by someone speaking English, but never in a printed Miyamoto interview have I seen a notice it was translated.
Anyway, I've always thought Ash and Red are the same character similarly to how, say, the comic book version of Wolverine and the film version of Wolverine are the same; two iterations of the same character adapted for the multiple series canons. I'm just saying it's a bit of a stretch to say the quote you provided proves this. -sesuPRIME 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel it's kinda OR to say "the translation might be off", especially considering the source (and not to mention it was fine for his statements on Mew and elsewhere on wikipedia...what's good for the goose should be good for the gander no?). Plus again, we've got nothing saying the opposite, that they're two separate entities. But it seems like we're in agreement on the grounds that they be treated as one entity from what I understood you say above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they're essentially the same characters. -sesuPRIME 10:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulby

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So I found a third non-trivial, reliable, independant source and added it. We should let the article exist as a standalone. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment on your talk page, I know Dream Focus is going to do his gung-ho trick but it might solve all issues relating to this to see just how much we really have to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's deleted again. Hard to say without being able to see it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that the article still exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. If you wish to still try and make it notable then do it there, and contact us when you think you have something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That one is already notable, although I guess you don't want to hear it. I just checked the RS noticeboard revision history, and I'm the sixth editor on it. I'm not someone who doesn't know their RSs. There was a newer one that had three non-trivial sources. I don't feel like recreating it, though. You got any admins around here to make that page the newest one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo up for GAN

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated it after some tidying and expansion, I think everything's covered at this point. If all goes well I think we can get Jigglypuff up there next, though the GA process has hit one helluva slump lately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work as usual, Kung Fu Man. :) Theleftorium 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Should reception determine what subject an article is more familiar under?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a subject of interest to the people of this project. Please join in the discussion here so it can be at one place.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon names

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

How should they be introduced in the lists?

  • Charizard (リザードン, Rizādon, Lizardon in original Japanese language versions)
  • Charizard (リザードン, Rizādon, Lizardon in Japan)

Some list entries are listed as

What is the official way to do this? Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is do this:
  • Piplup, known in Japan as Pochama (ポッチャマ, Pochama)
That's generally the best way to do it in situations like this. If it's a similar name (Pikachu, Mewtwo) leave it be, but if it's different like that one, Charizard or Jigglypuff, go ahead and do it like the example I gave. Make sense?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Pochama" isn't a very good transcription of ポッチャマ. "Pochama" would be "ポチャマ". "Potchama" or "Pottyama" would become ポッチャマ. Google tends to favor "Pochama", but a quick scan tells me that a big reason for that is people copying Wikipedia's spelling.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Only the English name should be bold per MOS:BOLDTITLE; "do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology." -sesuPRIME 05:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Bulbasaur - to redirect or not?

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

This WikiProject earlier reached consensus to redirect the article Bulbasaur to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur. The original version was moved into projectspace. Recently, the article was revived (minus the history) by other editors who had added more content to it. The question is whether the additional content is enough to override the consensus that had recently been reached, and whether the article should thus be unredirected to a stand-alone. WP:BRD was not followed; after the restoration was reverted, discussion should have been the next stage, but unfortunately an edit-war ensued. I have merged the history of the "new" version into Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur, so GFDL attribution is now correct, and reverted it to the version before the edit-war broke out, so we are now back to the point before this issue arose. The redirect at Bulbasaur remains to the merged version. Discussion should now take place here. I have left Bulbasaur unprotected for now, relying on editors' good faith that an edit-war won't break out again. Black Kite 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
  • If nothing else, the current article is an absolutely shining example of how to dress an article with perennial non-notability allegations as credible: the awesome use of this reference with a straight face, for instance, is a worthy tribute to the original piece (itself a masterful parody of its own genre). Strip away the primary/non-independent sources and there's not a great deal of substantial material there, at least insomuch as it pertains directly to Bulbasaur rather than trivially mentioning it while addressing more Pokémon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Out of all the references Peregrine Fisher has tossed up (and I seriously can't believe UGO taking a gander at a Spore creature was proposed by him as a source of reception...seriously dude?), the IGN reference is the one I agree with, but even then there's not enough to satisfy significant coverage. And this is coming from someone that would love to see articles on the original 151+1 climb from their graves on that character list and be represented as full articles here, but there isn't enough third party coverage. Hell, we can clearly say Mr. Mime's got better luck coming back as a full article as he has very clear reception, and two more still to add for 1UP.com. But Bulbasaur? It's too weak, I'm sorry but the material just is not there yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • First, I truly dislike the implication that people are willfully blocking this article out of personal distaste. Remember that an article is supposed to be based upon independent sources. This article most clearly is not. I'm not sure where the consensus came from that ign.com conveys notability, but the page you refer to is listed as being a "user resource", and invites uploads. Isn't that basically a user-uploaded page? If so, even if ign.com counts as a source of notability, that reference doesn't. The ndsmobserver.com reference does count, but it doesn't say much of anything useful: Bulbasaur is a starter with a bulb on it's back. That fits nicely into the "List of ..." article. The entry in the list nicely represents the material found in independent sources, and there isn't enough independent coverage to justify an enormous article based on primary sources.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Black Kite has once again destroyed an article, without it going through a proper AFD. There is no history on the article page, just a redirect. This page was a former featured article! It had been around for years, about a very notable fictional character. If you don't think an article should exist, you send it to AFD properly, you don't ignore the process entirely and just eliminated it outright. Dream Focus 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I have said a million times before... The article is not gone. All the history and everything is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. Also, just as we have deleted the article with no AFD, you people have been reviving it with no discussion. If you think the article now satisfies notability requirements, then just tell us. Always say on the talkpage of an article or somewhere what you are doing if you are making a major change that consensus might disagree with. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't where it should be, there nothing there but a redirect.Bulbasaur Therefor, its gone. How do you expect people to find it when you hidden it away? You can not eliminate an article, simply because you decided you didn't want it there. You have to send it to an AFD and do it properly. It was good enough to be a featured article once. Dream Focus 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You aren't listening. Even though Bulbasaur is a nice article, it isn't notable enough to be an article. Once just a thing or two pops up, then it might pass. There just isn't enough right now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It has been merged, so it cannot be put up for deletion. It could easily stay within the mainspace, but people keep bringing it back without even trying to assert notability for it (or halfheartedly trying). This is the best alternative to avoid constant edit warring. And really, doesn't it seem sort of odd to be arguing against people who spent time getting a video game glitch related to the series to FA status? They're certainly not going to try to hide this away because they don't like it. It just doesn't assert notability at this time. TTN (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It wasn't merged, it was deleted. You can't just ignore the AFD policy, simply because you are afraid of the results being against what you want. You thought other articles should be deleted previously, but in the AFD you don't always get your way. Dream Focus 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has been merged before, so even if you believe that moving it to the projectspace is deleting it, it still cannot be put up for deletion per the GDFL. Thus, this discussion will have to do. TTN (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it has not been deleted (the merged version is here), AfD is irrelevant. AfD is for discussion of article deletions. No-one is suggesting deleting this article. Black Kite 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to deleting project articles.

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can I place a delete notice on these? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you may as well delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Charmander evolution line and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Squirtle evolution line too, as those will never get created. Theleftorium 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, they could be used in the future if we ever get the concept right to use them. Also I made the Squirtle line article so I could make it and then put it in User:Bws2cool/Starter Pokémon. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of forty

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

None of the lists are really that large in size (and the ones that are too large can probably stand to lose large chunks of cruft), so does anyone think merging them into lists of forty would be problematic? TTN (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be a problem with some depending on exposure in the anime and manga series.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sort of confused by the wording of that comment. Do you mean that you think it would be hard to keep the combined articles at a reasonable size due to the anime and manga information? TTN (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the 1-20 list is 76kb and has 92 refs. I don't think doubling that would be too big of a deal. It just wouldn't be very necessary. Do you want to do this to make more legs to stand on? So it will be easier to revert vandalism? What? Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That one can easily be cut down by a ton. The unnecessarily large plot summaries can be condensed, the gameguide information can be cut, the section on Charizard can be reduced to a couple of sentences, and other minor things can be tweaked. It can allow them to become more focused, it would help with upkeep as you said, and in general, the less articles, the better. TTN (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
@TTN: Pretty much my concern (sorry I'm at work and having to dash in and out).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
As with my above comment, most of the plot information is currently very unwieldy, so after being trimmed, I can't imagine that it would be a problem. The only things that need to be noted are the general origin, role, and any personality quirks. The rest of the specifics can easily be forgotten. TTN (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose some of it does need to be cut such as Butterfree. I tried to summarized them as much as I could, but its hard. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I just cant imagine the mess this will make. Merging the talkpages, fixing links, etc. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The bots that deal with double redirects would take care of fixing the links. Other than that, the only thing that would need to be decided is if both pages would be merged and redirected to a new article or if one of them would simply be renamed. TTN (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If we do do this, going to suggest splitting them up by generation. That's going to make it a *lot* easier to get the original 151+1 to a Featured Topic, since in order to make a FT currently with what we have, we'd have to get every sublist to GA or higher...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying make this?

Or something along the lines of List of Generation 1 Pokémon (1–40)? Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The first example would work best, the latter might confuse a casual reader unfamiliar with Pokemon or video games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I wish I was here when all the Pokemon had their own articles... Anyways... I think moving one page, then merging the other would do best. Then there would only be one article to history merge, instead of two. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good. And for the record I wish a lot more of them were talked about, especially from the originals. We're basically stuck on a "waiting game" for most of them to get enough sources to satisfy notability. What I wonder sometimes if instead of the article routes you had going, if we should have a master page to collect reception on, kinda like what I do with my sandbox page. Would allow us to pool resources better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to do it that way, we may as well try to fit as many within each list as possible. I don't know if it would look good, but I imagine the fourth generation could probably fit into one list if done correctly. TTN (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
They would fit, but it would look horrible and would be hard to navigate. I already think 40 is a little too much. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggested a similar mass reorganization of the lists back in May, and everyone seemed pretty enthusiastic about it, but it didn't end up happening. My idea would have condensed the 25 lists into 9 or 10 with approximately 50 Pokémon per list. My only real concern with this plan is the file size of the merged lists. -sesuPRIME 06:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/ReceptionArchive

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Kinda self explanatory, the idea is that we have such a large volume of characters that doing this will enable us to get a better idea of what may or may not work as an article, and steadily build upon each section and add those as needed for subjects without articles so that once one hits sufficient size, we can full develop a subject and give it proper treatment. I realize this won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a lot better to make this work as an organized effort.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, is this the reception from every Pokemon without an article? I like it. I might be able to help. I think the ones that are in only one "Top # ugly Pokemon" shouldn't be included though. Only if it is multiple places that have done it. Know what I mean?Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well keep in mind Blake that they're building blocks: every little bit helps. Take Koffing for example. While it currently just has that, I've got a bit from InsertCredit to cite also praising the character. Some will ultimately go nowhere of course but it at least gives an attempt.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying if one person thinks they are ugly, then it is bound that others will as well? I suppose. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Something like that. I'm saying basically reception shows the subject was discussed and how people reacted to it. One editor might find it gross, but another might praise it, like with Mr. Mime above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am finding alot of Development info in the sections as well. Such as in Dragonite, Pichu, and Sudowoodo. Should we put that in there as well? Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt to, Meowth more or less makes it clear there's a distinction in there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

é

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I've made a fair number of recent edits correcting Pokemon->Pokémon across the 'pedia. Most were in prose, but a few now are in citations as article titles. Is the spelling in the titles supposed to remain unaltered or do they also follow the WP:MOSQUOTE logic for fixing trivial spelling? If they do not, should {{sic}} be included? I was discussing this with User:TheFarix and I understand the argument for keeping the title exact, but I also haven't seen a section in a guideline that explicitly addresses titles for citation—though maybe I missed it. It may not matter either way, but it would be nice to know what good practice should be so I can align my edits. —Ost (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that all titles should use the "é", titles with "e" should probably just be redirects. Useight (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
He is talking about reference titles for articles on IGN and such. I dont really have a standpoint on this. I dont think it really matters, but if the page doesnt put a dash, then I see no reason to fix it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
hmm, somehow this page got removed from my watchlist today...Thanks for considering this. Anyway, Blake is right about what I was talking about. I wouldn't go out of my way to just fix one page with an accent, but in the course of fixing other typos or making other edits, I guess I'm inclined to. I also envision that I may add a citation and correct the accent without even thinking about it. I think it looks cleaner, it is the correct English word, and it's what the author generally means—unless the title is in Japanese, which I have surmised from examples doesn't use the accent. But since it does seem a minor point, I won't worry too much about the titles; it's probably easier for me not to fix them since they often have URLs containing "pokemon" that AWB tries to fix. —Ost (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A little while back when I corrected the "é"s throughout Category:Pokémon, I intentionally left all the ref titles intact per a discussion I had with Artichoker several months ago. But I think they should be corrected because there's no reason to keep the misspelling intact. -sesuPRIME 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I finally got around to working on correcting the articles outside of Category:Pokémon and I had originally ignored links and templates, mostly to avoid the suggested edits to urls. I was now taking the time to search the links, too. I didn't notice any resistance until Farix protested about Anime and Editing of anime in American distribution. I tried discussing the trivial spellings point but there has been no response to my last post. I figured it best to get some other opinions and ignore citation titles on general anime pages until there was some consensus. —Ost (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Farix is correct; I'm not sure if there is any Wikipedia policy that really touches the matter, but when referencing for papers it's generally considered more appropriate to leave the title as is, regardless of spelling or grammatical errors. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I could get behind adding [sic] though. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have left some new feedback about the ongoing redesign at Talk:List of Pokémon, thought you should know in case it’s not on your watchlists. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kadabra?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I thought that we could perhaps create an article about Kadabra, seeing as how it had a $100 million lawsuit on top of major controversy over the purported swastika on its Pokémon card. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that on another card though? And even then it really seems more a controversy for the card game than it does Kadabra itself. Beyond that, I really don't feel too good about propping the whole species article on that one lawsuit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it'd be more of a springboard than anything. It's possible that Kadabra could have some information on its creation, and I'm sure that Kadabra and its bound to have some reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this. Feel free to edit the article I made for Kadabra last month. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bump this, but what about the possibility of an Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam article to encompass all three? I really don't want to advocate doing this often (singular articles are always better), but I think this should work as the reception is split in part between the three while also in a few cases covering all three at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Would they be in separate sections, or merged together like past attempts? It might would help me decide if you put the reception you found in the list article so I can see what they are. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Together would probably work, but first let's compile reception and see if we have enough for a full article for all three before we dive in and facepalm ourselves.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I created a Abra evolutionary line article in the project space. I need to do more to the Anime and manga sections, and maybe make a second pharagraph for the lead, but other then that, hows it look? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mime

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

With all this talk about Mr. Mime having good reception, I created an article. Feel free to add what you find to it. Sorry if someone else already made the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but what's up with the picture? It's a red link. Mokoniki | talk 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Because its not a real article yet. It shouldn't have a picture. non-free images cant be used in Project space or User space articles. By the way, the old article of Mr. Mime has some interesting information that would be great if it could be sourced. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When Pokémon first appeared, it was believed that Mr. Mime was an exclusively male species because of the "Mr." honorific being part of its name (and being a counterpart to Jynx).

However, later games Pokémon Gold and Silver introduced genders to the series. In Japan, Mr. Mime's Japanese name, Barrierd, gave no bearing to its gender, so the developers naturally made half of the species female. This was a problem for the English translation, however. The developers eventually decided to keep the name 'Mr. Mime', despite the fact that half of them are now female[citation needed]. In the Pokémon Gold/Silver/Crystal generation of games, the Gym Leader Sabrina in Saffron City, Kanto uses a female Mr. Mime, one of the most noticeable examples of this mix-up. Her Mr. Mime is female in Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen as well.

I found another place that has the same information, but I don't think it could count as a reliable source. http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/mr/mr._mime.htm Mokoniki | talk 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That is just a wiki that copies articles from Wikipedia. I dont even know why those exist :/ Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok. Mokoniki | talk 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Basically they're mirrors of wikipedia, meant to be backups. I'll add two more references there in a bit both from 1UP, should give us enough to split the reception paragraph into two. Its no Jynx, but we should be alright to roll with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr. Mime is ready to come out. There are 6 different reliable sources giving Mr. Mime Critical Reception. Anybody disagree? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Concept and Creation" has nothing on it's creation. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We could rename it to "Concept and Characteristics" until we find development info. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Concept" shouldn't really be in their either, since there's no information about it's original concept after the first sentence. Just "Characteristics" is probably best. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I remember what its called now. "Design and Characteristics". The first few sentences is the design(what it looks like), and the rest is the characteristics(what it does). Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Conception and design" is generally what I use in cases like this. Btw Blake, we should have enough sources for that Abra/Kadabra/Alakazam article I mentioned above, just have to finish up the reception. Mime's good to go in that regard now at least--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I put out the article. Should I start working on an Abra evolutionary line article, or work on the lists. (I have an urge to do the Eeveelutions.) Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wiki

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know we have enough to do here, but I just wanted to remind you about Pokémon articles over at Simple Wiki. I recently saved some of the species from being deleted. There are currently, MissingNo., Charizard, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, Mew, and Lucario. Mewtwo got merged with Mew though, and I just recently discovered that KfM made the MissingNo. article. Since alot of Pokémon now have a bit of reception, I think a handfull of Pokémon can have articles there. But aside from the species articles, there are alot of games and such that don't have articles as well, such as the Mystery Dungeon games and Pokémon Ranger games. So if anybody feels like they have nothing to do here, you might want to try simplifying articles for Simple Wiki. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't do that article, just corrected it a tiny bit. I'm not too wild about the simply wiki as they're not really congealed yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yah, their system is a little bit un-coordinated. I posted a message there saying pretty much what I said here. That alot of species have reception and can have articles there. I dont think anybody edits Pokémon articles there, though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How much reception is enough?

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

After seeing the reception some Pokémon have, I think Meowth, Bulbasaur, and Snorlax have quite a bit. But is it enough? What exactly is the dividing line? I know these probably wont get to Good Article status with this much reception, but that shouldn't keep them from having an article. I know KfM said that we should work with what we have out to get to Good Article, and I think every article can, but I am just wondering for afterwards. How much reception is needed to be notable for an article? Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur's still needs a cleanup definitely, but the one Peregrine Fisher found and GamesRadar's bits might put it over the top. The GamesRadar "pokedex" I found is awesome as heck for reception, though doesn't given it for all of them (Munchlax's was more for Snorlax, Charmander and Charmeleon are better for Charizard). Still it's given a serious perk to a few articles. I think if we can enough sources discussing a subject (and clearly discussing the subject), we can consider spinning it out. What we could do is go through what we have and make out what could work as articles. But yeah, I really think we should focus on what we have now first.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And from what I can tell only the R/B and D/P Pokemon have any reception from GamesRadar's articles, which sucks a little but can still assist in some cases.

Alright, looking over the sources here's what we can plan towards if we can get more reception for them down the line:

  • Koffing, Lucario, Meowth, Psyduck, Snorlax

Other than that there isn't much yet. The refs I was thinking of for Bulbasaur are in fact pretty weak: IGN's states that he's the most famous grass type, and GamesRadar basically calls it a favorite but emphasized more how Pokemon evolution goes from cute to beastly, and what is currently there feels weak as hell compared to the others. And yeah, Koffing threw me for a loop too but it does have some real reception. But we can push it further I think once the others have hit GA status. Thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am too surprised Koffing has that much reception as well. So is the standard now "At least 3 different reliable sources talking clearly about the subject" equals separate article? Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Quality of the discussion plays a big part too. It's kinda a case that after writing the reception you can look at it and go "if I knew nothing about video games, would this inform me this character is important in a real-world aspect?" If you can at least develop a moderately-large paragraph and add some development info in there to boot it should work. But I wouldn't base this on a number. If anything look at the ones we have out already as a guide.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here's what things look like and seem to be for down the road for species articles, and the current status of them:

Of these, Lucario's the weakest, though he's also the only one from D/P or even R/S to have a ghost of a chance of an article. The reception archive is still growing and there's some things for Pichu and Unown I've got to add in there, plus go through the rest of the GamesRadar entries. But from the looks of it, if anything crawls back out of that list it'll be from the first generation most likely.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm astounded that nothing has been found on Porygon given the scale of the controversy it was in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that too, even IGN mentions it briefly. From what I can tell the episode itself ended up getting most of the notability, probably since it wasn't Porygon that was responsible directly for the controversy (unlike Jynx or Kadabra/Alakazam, whose appearance sparked theirs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Of DP/RS ones, I'd say Deoxys and Manaphy are the only other ones that may have a chance, due to the "mystery" of them, and also, Deoxys was given away at a NASA thingy. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so here are the articles getting made, and where they are being built.

I have some questions though. Why is it called "Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam" instead of "Abra evolutionary line"? and why is Weezing included with Koffing? Only the one thing addresses them both. The rest is all for Koffing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually both the GamesRadar and book references cover both Koffing and Weezing, so it seemed better to cover the two (especially since both the anime and electric tale of pikachu Koffing evolved into Weezing and remained as prominent for the remainder, no?).
As for Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam vs. Abra evolutionary line, I think that'll be simpler for readers not familiar with Pokemon but familiar a little with the characters: we have to remember that folks won't know what "evolution" means in this context and it might readily confuse them. Having the three like that seems easier for folks to work with. Also, I think we should be fine putting that one out there now: Mewtwo's GAN is still up in the air, but I think it'll pass.
Other than that, Haunter's more a personal project for now: I've got one more source for reception I know about to dig up (which compared Haunter's design to those of a few digimon, calling it superior) but I think we'll still need a bit more before I can safely say "this baby's good to go". It's just a matter of time there at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yah, I suppose "Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam" could also help familiarize their names with the magic words. Also, yep once I put Haunter on there, I realized I would have to add Magikarp, Gyarados, and a few others with it... I would remove it, but then people would wonder what we are talking about. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I created Psyduck cause you were too slow. Still needs loads more information before it can be an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I was kinda busy Blake: girlfriend, trying to find a job, birthday, wading through more IGN stuff (that Pokemon of the Day guy really did go nuts shortly after he started sadly, still it looks like it gave a boost to Eevee and Squirtle in the process). I'll start on Snorlax during my break tomorrow at work, but I'll probably go ahead and focus on getting Koffing/Weezing GAN or at least B-class ready right out of the box. Only concern I have across the board with these is citing merchandise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I was going to do the IGN reception too, but got lazy. Heh. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

May and Dawn

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

They should have their own articles as well, since, after all, Misty has her own article and whatever logic would allow Misty to have her own article should also allow May and Dawn to have their own articles. ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's not a valid argument. Also this was an abuse of WP:TWINKLE. Artichoker[talk] 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Brock and Misty have critical reception which provides notability; May and Dawn do not. The only thing in their articles is cruft, and this is not what makes an article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF; however, when two articles are about essentially the same topic, the same standard must be applied to both articles (or, in this case, all three). ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The same standard is applied. May and Dawn do not have critical discussion, whereas Misty does. That's all there is to it. Oh, and this was a disruptive WP:POINT violation. Artichoker[talk] 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No, because since they are all protagonists in the same series, either they all deserve articles or none of them deserve articles. ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not the way Wikipedia works, and if you can't acclimate to its policies, perhaps you should go over to [6]. Artichoker[talk] 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Read my comment above; that's the reason, pure and simple. Your argument does not have merit. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The only paragraph on Misty (Pokémon) which has external sources is the last paragraph; the rest is just cruft and must be removed. However, there isn't enough for a full article then so it must be merged. ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, no... There is a whole reception section as well as a design section. The rest is permitted to provide context to the character within its universe. And now you are being purely disruptive. Stop the editwarring or you will be blocked. Artichoker[talk] 19:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This is about as ridiculous as arguing "all Pokemon articles should be merged because they're not all here". Should we merge Mario simply because all Mario characters don't have their own articles? Yeah I think not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
User:J4V4 has been reported for edit-warring. Let the admins handle this now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  The Pokémon Barnstar
Congratulations!, WikiProject Pokémon now has a Barnstar template!

Award it to users who have done a good job working on Pokémon articles! Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, the image has already been in existence, and I found it on Minun's userpage. Setting up the template pages was the hardest part :P.
So just put {{subst:Barnstar Pokémon|Your text saying why Barnstar was awarded}} onto someones page to use it! Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rayquaza

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Some guy named Scapler found reception for Rayquaza and made an article. Add it to your watchlists and fix anything you see that needs fixing. ;) Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he should've waited a bit to be completely honest...it was off to a good start, but I'm not sure it's ready for the mainspace.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I see Lucario's back too, though no qualms there...it needs more bulk but it has a good start.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I had exhausted the resources from where it occurred to me to look already. I figured it had enough real world info to qualify for inclusion, and the move to articlespace would have the benefit of more collaboration from people who know where to find other info. Hope you're not right and that it doesn't come back to bite. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Split off more Pokémon

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I think some of these articles should be out in the mainspace. They are definatly notable. We are holding them back making them sit in our project space. Other editors could be improving them. Here are the articles, and what needs to be done on them.

What do you think? Other possibilities are Snorlax, Haunter, and Meowth. Articles don't need to be GA worthy before they make it out in th open. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd really wait on Haunter and I've still got to start on Snorlax. Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam should be fine, and I think I've secured Psyduck and Koffing/Weezing in terms of reception.
However I'm really not wild about article quality. For instance I think designing the leads more like MissingNo.'s and Mewtwo's will work better (I've never quite understood why pointing out the series as a "multi-billion dollar franchise" has been important for example), and focusing more on the real-world aspects first for the characters in their design sections should give a smoother feel to the article and deter naysaying. We have to by all means avoid just cranking out articles because they've reached reception and seriously focus on quality, otherwise we're going to fuel the people that believe tighter restrictions on notability guidelines are a necessity and find much of our work vanishing once more.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wasnt suggesting throwing out Haunter, Snorlax, and Meowth just yet. They still need to be written into articles. They are just possibilities for the near future. I do get what you are saying though. If we end up having like 20 species articles out there, someone is going to try and say some of those references arent reliable or something and bring us down to like 10 articles. So we have to be careful.
Are we going to put Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, Koffing and Weezing, and Psyduck out, though? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold off on Koffing/Weezing and Psyduck for right now, but the other should be fine. If we focus from this point on getting the rest improved and another to GA that should buffer things, and I'd say bring Psyduck and Meowth out together (since the main part of their appeal comes from the anime, so they'll support each other).
Btw Lucario should be fine where it is, really some promotion info and possible one more bit of reception should solidify it since it's one of the few with a lot of dev info.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Koffing and Weezing exists now...the lead needs bulk though, and I'm too damn tired to work on it anymore tonight. I'll have Sunday free to really give it some attention probably.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Why diddnt you move the page though? Then all the history would have went with it D: Now we have to do a history merge. I am going to request one for Lucario now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyways, because of your findings on Unown, I have made an article. Feel free to add to it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I never really bother with that histmerge stuff: way I figure it's ready when it's ready, and there was nothing else there anyway. Glad you noticed Unown though, it looks like they and Sudowoodo are our best bets to get something from GSC out there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright, the Abra line is out, I'll leave the artwork up to you guys. Psyduck and Meowth should work side-by-side...we've still got a lot of work ahead of us though...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone created Pichu. Should we re-redirect it? Theleftorium 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be redirected if nobody adds reception. I dont think it has any. It just has good development info is all. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected it, we're going to have to keep an eye on it though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merchandising information

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would someone be interested in gathering merchandising and promotion info from reliable sources here for the articles we have currently out, as well as those on the way (Psyduck, Meowth, Snorlax, Unown)? It'd actually help immensely and allow wiggle room for other editors to stripmine for reception where possible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pikachu Virus

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suppose we have another Pikachurin on our hands. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewer

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I found this cool peer review tool that automaticly checks your articles for different things. I used it to improve some of the species articles, but it could be used for ANY article. Just type the name in and it will review it. Here are what still needs to be done:

 MissingNo.

  • Expand lead. Article is short. Fix contraction "can't"

 Charizard

  • Add infobox?(Some error)

 Pikachu

  • Expand lead. Remove/rename "Pikachurin" heading. Needs more references.

 Jigglypuff

  • Expand lead. Unlink dates. Fix contraction "aren't"

 Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam

  • Add image

 Koffing and Weezing

  • Add infobox(again? wth?). Needs references.

 Mr. Mime

  • Shorten lead. Article is short

 Jynx

  • Expand lead. Fix contraction "Can't"(its in a quote)

 Mewtwo

  • Expand lead.

 Mew (Pokémon)

  • Expand lead. Weasel word "many scientists believe". Redundancies " Many, all , all , all , all , any , any , any , many, many,some ". Needs references

 Rayquaza

  • Article is short. Needs references

 Lucario

  • Expand lead. Needs references

I plan on making a To-to list and adding these to it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done!Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record the peer review plugin doesn't check contractions like it should (i.e. not in quotes), and the lead length thing is...well, editor preference.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Pichu lives again.

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Pichu has been remade again, this time with some reception. It might work this time, but I dont know. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

With the creation and reception info, it looks like it has just enough to stick. In any case, if it went to Afd, I would vote "keep", and unmerged at that. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of the references are either primary or beyond trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears I commented too soon; upon closer view, I found a fan made FAQ on IGN right away, so the sources need further scrutiny. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've only got a bit from 1UP FM I can work in there, but it's a very brief comment about how it's a favorite due to being cute. The article really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If anyone wants to work on it, User:New Age Retro Hippie/Pichu has all of the contents. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Um...Ugh....

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Whats been happening in PCP? I havent edited since like 5 months ago,so could I get informed of the things that have happened since? ThanksÞέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here! 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back! :) A whole bunch of articles have been created in the past months (see Template:Pokemon directory). Theleftorium 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back! Like he said, lots of articles have been created. Most of them are C-class with the exception of the newly created Unown being Start-class due to its' lack of bulk. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Great to have you back, mate. I don't think there's really anything for me to add that the other's haven't said already, but the Project's been running well. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, I'm gonna look up and try to add info to those created pokemon articles :).Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ Hit Me!Sign Here! 14:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I cannot believe it, no one has mentioned Looker (Handsome) anywhere on Wikipedia, unless I missed it... :O (He's probably my favourite character now)! Someone should at least add/mention him... --HoopoeBaijiKite 08:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, he only appeared in Platinum. So that could be why. Really, he doesnt contribute much to the plot though. He just runs in and says "omg! Team Galactic! omg!" and runs away. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Looker doesn't really contribute much to the plot. He has very little information on him, and I don't really think he needs mentioning. I heard he's supposed to be in the anime sometime, and maybe then he might be able to get mentioned, but you never know. Mokoniki | talk 13:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
He appears in DP130, 136, and 150. DP130 will actually appear tomorrow. ha Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I knew it was coming on soon. Mokoniki | talk 13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
We really do need to compile more reception on Jesse and James speaking of series characters, they'll work well alongside Meowth (we still need to develop the articles too, I'm just shot on time...).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh all right, that's fine... I guess you're right... --HoopoeBaijiKite 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_25&oldid=1089827551"