Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat

This is something that's been bugging me for a while since the flood of new species articles we got awhile back, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it till now. My problem is that several of the articles are propped almost solely on the utility of the subject in question in relation to their particular games, namely the article here. Outside of how the characters are in the games there's next to nothing of actual character reception. Really all we have there keeps saying the same thing: "these species are powerful in the games, and Zubat was annoying to run into constantly". However as fictional characters and reactions to them, there isn't much if anything, which is what the bulk of reception should fall back on.

To paraphrase, telling people these three are tough is something any player's guide can say. The reader isn't given any reason for these characters to be notable outside of their games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...so nobody cares if these bite the dust? Because really I'm leaning towards merging them back in until we can get some real reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I care, but I am not sure what to argue other then I don't see why their reception has to be out of universe praise. A film maker is not notable because the press covered him out getting coffee, but because of the critical acclaim of the film he created. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the article. Similar comments from reviewers, so long as they aren't identical comments (per an Associated Press article, for example), doesn't decrease the importance of those reviews or the notability they confer. It just means that there are certain features or comments that stand out about the subject, so most of the reviewers comment on those points. Again, I don't see the issue. Silverseren^C 03:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My problem is 99% of what's said there for each species is about the gameplay. Them being "strong contenders" and "abundant" in the games says really very little about them as fictional characters. There's at most one or two sentences per species that has nothing to do with them within their games. This isn't telling anyone why these characters are important, it's imparting game guide information at this bulk. How are they significant as video game characters? They're strong at early stages, plentiful, and people said such? Heck in that logic I could write an article about the 10mm pistol in Fallout 3, granted I had enough people to cite.

To someone that's never been familiar with this series at all, how does this tell them "these stand out from the series"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. It's partly why I was resistant to Caterpie getting mainspace all those months ago. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to side with redirecting back to the list. Generally, discussion of its affects on gameplay should stay, but be condensed to a line mentioning the significance of this to the Pokémon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

.... You are saying that significant coverage from 20 reliable sources does not make this trio notable? I think you are drawing a line where there shouldn't be one. I will agree to merging articles like Goldeen and Shaymin, but this is ridiculous. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You've done a great job of showing why they are notable in the context/environment of the Pokémon games. No one is disputing that. What is severly lacking, however, is the context outside of the games and franchise. Notability in the outside world is what determines whether the subject is notable or not. I could use twenty different walkthroughs to reference an article, but that says nothing of its actual notability in the real world. And that notability is what determines the status of an article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So what kind of source would actually make it notable? You are making no sense. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically, a reference demonstrating real-world impact. Nothing there really takes it outside of the franchise. If Zubat was listed among a list of "most annoying characters in video games", that'd be a source to help make it more notable. However, as it is, all of the sources are discussing how good they are or how annoying they are in their own series. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to side with Blake on this one. The article is notable because it's recieved media attention - whether that be as a "really annoying video game character" or as a "Pokémon character with bad gameplay". – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not it's significant if it doesn't cover outside of the games. Mewtwo, Pikachu and others end up clearly examined outside of their titles, with character and design analysis at the basest form. To someone that's only watched the anime though or never played the mainstream Pokemon games and only has a base knowledge of the subject, this tells them nothing other than, again, it appeared a lot and had strengths/weakness as a gameplay element in just those games.

This tells the reader very little if they wanted to know about the character the article is about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly is this policy that requires characters to have coverage outside of their series? I mean, I understand that makes it a stronger article, but it should not be required. Like I said, lets focus on the articles with really weak coverage overall, instead of narrowing it down like this. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I posted some info on WT:VG, but suffice it to say that the info does for reception does not seem to give notability when put to scrutiny. The sites do not seem to show a level of 'significant coverage or their coverage is not discriminatory, ie they cover every pokemon in which case there's no way to discern what pokemon is more notable. The latter is similar to a television guide that gives a brief synopsis of every television program. That doesn't show notability.∞陣内Jinnai 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have asked for clarrification on how to use the sources at WT:N#Pokemon and discrimination by sources when they cover so many pokemon from a single title.∞陣内Jinnai 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012

Does he need to include other quotes from the series in his campaign? Hcobb (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, his writer using a quote doesn't really put it under this category.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuzzy tree

Is fuzzy tree a relevant redirect/dab page? I don't see it mentioned on Sudowoodo and I suspect the source was Google Translate: [1] —Ost (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking Pokémon: The First Movie to Good Article (GA) status

Hello, my name's Nineteen-Eightyit(s). I've recently improved and expanded the article Pokémon: The First Movie, and I wanna take this one to Good Article status. There's currently a peer review for it. What should I do to get it to GA? 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 04:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review link: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pokémon: The First Movie/archive1 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just popping in to comment, the first thing I note is that the lede should be expanded to be a full summary of the article. It's a bit short at the moment. Silverseren^C 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ofcouse, I will do that. And Thanks! 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 16:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See this link: [2] 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And another "diff" link: [3] 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a much better lede, yes, good job. Silverseren^C 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we put English names on Rival Destinies

Because as of 12 February 2012, we do not have all of the English names for the new Pokémon or characters. Really, who thinks that the names of the Unova Gym leaders, Pokemon, and city names are not known in English yet. Black and White have been out for almost a YEAR.--1966batfan (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note

Regarding Pokemon Black and White Rival destinies page :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon:_Black_%26_White:_Rival_Destinies_episodes I changed ref [1] and added the word "trailer" as the link does not lead to the Pokemon company it states but instead leads to a youtube page which has very little info about the show beyond the trailer. I wasnt sure if this was intentional but it was certainly misleading, can someone pls check the link is the 1 intended and not a replacement someone has substituted, ty. despoiler

The title you changed was the title of the actual video. Adding "trailer" is unnecessary. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)