Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Style

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 20 October 2007. The result was keep, but mark as historical. Xoloz 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Name origin and TOC

Can we reach a consesus on wherther we want the name origin in the introduction or a separate section and subsequently, how we want to align our Table of Contents? Some users are doing it one way, some the other, can we decide 1 distict way please? --Celestianpower ^hab 17:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not too fussed about the name origin but the {{TOCleft}} looks highly out of place and unecessary. --Celestianpower ^hab 17:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been consolidating Name Origin because two-sentence headers look ugly. Personally, I like TOCleft but I wasn't going to put it in the Style Guide; it's a personal style thing (that I don't mind if you revert if you don't like it), not something all the articles need. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In the video games/anime/manga/TCG

The "In the" comment is pointless, and would actually provide to lessen information; in the video games would imply content that's found inside of the video game itself, and not information referencing one of the Pokémon found in the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The header is phrased that way to make it clear that the section is in reference to the particular Pokémon's role in the video games/anime/manga/whatever, as opposed to the article being about a video game/anime/manga/whatever named, say, Charizard or Clefable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion on that. In the video games doesn't reference information that isn't in the video games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:08, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the headers are "In the (whatever)" because they are referring to the subject's role in the (whatever), rather than (whatever) of the same name as the subject. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It could create a dispute over if content can be added. I doubt anyone will have a problem if it's referred to as "Video games". I think this is an unnecessary precaution. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

How could it possible create a dispute over whether content could be added? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In regard to content about the anime that's not in the anime, someone could argue that the title disallows the inclusion of content about something from the anime.

On a related note, do you think all of these variations of the list of Pokémon should be moved to Wikibooks? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that that happens, the person making that argument can easily be refuted by pointing out the fact that these sections are about the subject's role in the anime rather than simply collections of info from the anime.

As for the lists, yeah, I think it's Wikibooks material. If you want to get started transwiking them, I won't protest, but others might. You might want to bring it up at WP:PAC and/or WP:PCP instead of just being bold and doing it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Italics for TCG name?

Should "Pokémon Trading Card Game" be italized when mentioned in the "In other media" section? I.e.: Pokémon Trading Card Game. In the Style guide, it is not italized. Should it be? I have been italizing it in articles. -WindFish 08:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• Bulleted lists look awful.
• They encourage random addition of information, with no flow.
• They encourage crufty, unencyclopedic trivia ("Beedrill appears in the background of episode #451.")
• Anything that could go into a Trivia section could go into a pre-existing or new section, or doesn't belong in the article at all.

That's why. And a FA with a "Trivia" section is totally inappropriate, since it's one of the most common objections on WP:FAC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent but where do we put the name origin and nomes in other languages otherwise? We could do like they do here possibly? I'm not enamoured with a trivia section myself either but I couldn't think of a better way of doing it. --Celestianpower ^háblame 07:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nowhere. That table there is pure cruft, and isn't a mistake we should be making in Pokémon articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to say something about the "Other Languages", I really don't think they should be around. I say this because mainly we're an English encyclopedia, and if you wanted the other language details, it'd be good to make interwiki links. The Japanese names are significant enough as Japan's the origin. I only followed the idea when it was illustrated in the Bulbasaur article merely because it was the article we were basing off. Some of the text put in there in the Marshtomp article though would be better suited to the introductory paragraph and relevant games, other media, manga and movie sections. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"The" issue

Recently there has been an issue of editors repeatedly deleting "The (insert Pokemon name here)" from the start of each Pokemon creature article (see edit history of Dorapion for an example). I am trying to insert a policy voiding/defending "The" in hopes that it will tone down the issue, and am hoping that a discussion will take place concerning this. All thoughts appreciated. Erik the Appreciator 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it looks far more professional and consistent if the sentence starts "Donphan are" not "The Donphan is". The policy is to refer to the Pokémon as plural most of the way through, so why should this be any different at the beginning? Thanks! —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it's now as good to use "Cherimu" in the plural sense as "The Cherimu" in the species sense, as seen here:

Cherimu (チェリム) are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise – a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media, created by Satoshi Tajiri. The Cherimu is famous for being one of the Pokémon revealed before the Japanese release of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, alongside the Pachirisu and the Dorapion. The purpose of the Cherimu in the games, anime and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon, untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and tamed Pokémon owned by Pokémon trainers.

If this is what's decided, that's fine. Once we have decided on something final, we should focus on implementing it into the style page so that we know how it should be done and that we have a page that we can redirect noobs to whenever they complain. Erik the Appreciator 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. We have to be consistent. It's "Cherimu are" in the first line, so it should be "Cherimu are" throughout, except of course when it's a single Chreimu. —Celestianpower ^háblame 10:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, Cherimu are throughout the article. But does that mean that it applies to all the sections? It might mean that video game sections have to be written along the lines of "Cherimu are good at using Solarbeam because their appearance and power increase under Sunny Day" and anime sections are written as "A Cherimu appears in episode #460 under the ownership of (insert girl's name here)." Erik the Appreciator 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your example seems good to me. —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how I wrote Torchic, and formatted Bulbasaur to follow. Highway ^Batman! 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's decided. Let's make sure that's reflected in the style page (if it isn't already) and write all the articles in that style, and the next time someone writes "Cherimu is", we just redirect them here. Erik the Appreciator 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the above decision is still in effect, the sample introduction needs to be fixed: it uses the singular instead of the plural throughout, and also uses the unnecessary "the" in a few places. I also think it's worth mentioning here that a number of individual Pokémon articles use the singular instead of the plural. Does this decision still stand, or has a new consensus been reached?~e.o.t.d~ 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The singular has its advantages; for example, some species are described in the fiction as unique. Peter O. (Talk) 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

And everywhere in the text of those articles besides the introduction, they are referred to with the singular. The introduction, however, refers to the species in general (even if there is only one member of the species), and should be in plural.

Also, consider that legendaries are one-of-a-kind within each save file, but are certainly nothing of the sort in the world at large (our world), since everyone seems to catch the legendaries. Describing them in the singular (and, therefore, as the only member of their respective species) in the introduction is could technically be considered an in-world POV - a definite no-no. ~e.o.t.d~ 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)