Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Digi vs. Poké

I tagged "A debate among fans exists over which of the two franchises came first." from [1] with {{tl|fv} on Pokémon after Tezero included it. Tezero reverted because the quote about Charmander and Wargraymon that I used as an example comes later and wouldn't be related. However, I was using the line to compare how the author used "Who" instead of "Which". I knew this might be debatable—which is why I tagged it instead of removing it—so now is probably a good time to discuss. In my opinion, the statement that people argue over which came first is trivial and possibly misleading. When I read "Who came first", it implies that it is talking about a character, since a series or game wouldn't normally be addressed as "Who". This is seen by how the other "Who" quote that is used in reference to characters. I don't know anything about Digimon, but I think it makes the fans of both series sound ill-informed if they debate over easily found data like release dates; it may actually be a deserved implication, but a better example can be used that doesn't have an uncertain pronoun. —Ost (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like accidentally using "Who" instead of "Which" or "What" would be that hard. If we were to take the quote at absolute face value, it would be asking which of the fans came first. Tezero (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point that I had not considered (I was just confused by "Who" being used on franchise), so maybe I'm splitting hairs if it is referring to the fans—which one may argue arrived with the franchise. I'd still be happier if the example were more abstract concept rather than something easily rebutted with facts, but I have a feeling it's used to setup the next sentence that points out that Digimon came later, so I can understand why it may be desirable to keep it. —Ost (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Gen V citations

Um, where are the citations for all the various new Pokémon on the List of? And for that matter, for the romanizations of the starters and Zorua? Someone needs to figure out how to use the {{Cite}} and {{Cite episode}} templates to properly, or at least poorly, to cite the various CoroCoro issues and Oha Suta episode(s?), or I will scrub all but Reshiram and Zekrom( which have been revealed in English on Pokemon.com) from the article. Oh, I guess I can leave the starters, there is a link to a source for them, but that source does not provide romanizations, so those will have to be removed. --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you admit that there are sources but want everyone to go through the motions anyway? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly valid to point out that we need more citations; verifiability is always a good thing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So you think adding <ref>http://pokemon-sp.jp/series/bw</ref> to every single entry is a good idea, despite that we already know that they've been confirmed? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, but does the average reader? Pokémon should be from a verified source, yes. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Then by that argument, every Pokémon should be deleted until it has its own citation. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
But they are. At the bottom of the List of Pokémon page, it references the entries to the Pokédex of the various games. Since there is not one available for the new games, then we reference CoroCoro and IGN. Remember, not everything YOU find obvious or know is obvious to others. Everything that is not incredibly common knowledge should be cited. Without this, our foundation as an encyclopedia is lost. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The first citation ("最初のポケモン | 『ポケットモンスターブラック・ホワイト』公式サイト" (in Japanese). Nintendo. http://www.pokemon-sp.jp/series/bw/?SP-A-001=main#/partner. Retrieved 2010-05-14.) applies to all of the other Gen V Pokémon as well. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it does not. Some of them, yes, but not all always, until it catches up, which is sometimes slow, and no Romanizations, and the links should be slightly different for different groups. Format correctly. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That source currently has all revealed Pokémon. The trademarked roumaji may need another source, but their Japanese names are all given. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In a word, yes, I DO want everyone to go through the motions. That is what the policies are there for. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done --138.110.206.99 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, we still to cite the appropriate trademark registration records for the trademarked romanizations. With that said, I'm going to look through the Japanese trademark database for records that we can cite. For anyone who wants to help, the Japanese trademark registration records can be searched here. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I added the source for Tsutarja's roumaji. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do the tooltips work for others on that page? For me, the Japanese characters do not display so that Fushigidane has a tooltip beginning with rectangle characters. —Ost (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, squares usually mean you dont have the language packages on your computer. Salavat (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've installed it before and they work fine except in the tooltips. It must be an issue with Chrome; they work fine in Firefox. —Ost (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help me keep an eye on the page? The annoying IP from this conversation, who seemed like a productive contributor for a minute when s/he dug up a bunch of refs, now keeps reverting me and adding back a lot of unsourced info I wiped, without providing sources. Because the last part of his/her IP is not fixed, I don’t think s/he got the talkpage message I left. Or maybe s/he just decided to ignore it. Either way, until sources come along, that info needs to be kept off the List. Thanks for your assistance! --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon should probably be redirected, or turned into a disambag. Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say expand it into a meaningful series overview or turn it into an actual dab since that's pretty much what it is now. —Ost (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MissingNo

So Nintendo is apparently usurping MissingNo.'s number for Victini. Does this need mentioning in the MissingNo. article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ost316 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That’s only in the Isshu ’Dex so far. Until we know it’s National too, I would leave it out or at least not say too much. --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC on romanization of loanwords

There is currently an RFC taking place concerning the romanization of English loanwords in the Japanese language. Input from members of this WikiProject is requested to form a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur article is back and up for deletion again.

Will some experts on Pokemon please contribute to the discussion at the Bulbasaur AFD? Dream Focus 06:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Pokémon Sunday just aired and revealed more information about the Best Wishes series of the anime, including that the main characters will be Iris and ReimuDento. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to use this chance to point out the artcle on this season. Pokémon: Best Wishes! Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The TV Tokyo site was updated: http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/pokemon_bw/ --138.110.206.99 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Gen V Pokémon

Are there enough of the Gen V Pokémon for a list of Generation V Pokémon? --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are waiting for enough information to fill a list. We need more then just a bunch of names. You can help by adding to User:Bws2cool/GenV Pokemon. Don't add anything without sources. Although we normally take characteristics summaries from Bulbapedia, we should refrain from doing that this time. Really, we should use reliable source's descriptions. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No old Pokemon in Isshu Pokedex

[2] - The Gamefreak director's blog has revealed that there will be no Pokemon from older generations in Isshu, to make it feel like Red and Blue when every Pokemon was new. Could somebody add this to the Pokemon Black and White article? It could go in Development. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On it. 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ talk, sign 18:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Haunter coming soon

Haunter got a bit more reception from GamesRadar, and with the Christian books taking potshots at it that I've run across, we'll have just enough reception to let it slide, and with how often it has appeared and in various material, we should have enough to do a GA. I hope.

This is actually kinda cool for me: along with MissingNo., this means my favorite two will finally have some prominent representation on wikipedia!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I added information from the list. I will get to referencing the anime, since you want it to go to GA. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel sad that I never was able to make a Pokémon article. Ah well, at least I have the four Punch-Out!! characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You were close with Togepii, Latias and Latios, and Entei. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Game Freak (magazine)

J4V4 made a Game Freak (magazine) article. What do you think? Should it be merged into Game Freak as a History section? Although, its really just two sentences. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say merge it. We'd play hell trying to flesh it out as it were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I merged it back twice. I keep getting reverted by an IP who says it "Has independent, reliable sources", so its "notable". Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Iris"

Reliable sources are requested to show that the name of the new female character to appear in the new series is called "Iris" rather than "Airisu", the latter of which is a valid girl's name in Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS that "Airisu" is a relatively common Japanese girls' name? I tried several different name services, none of which had any entry for "Airisu". See my talk page and the article's talk page. --70.134.48.188 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sources have been provided at Talk:Pokémon: Best Wishes!#"Iris" to show that the name "Airisu" exists in Japanese. Sources have yet to be brought forward to say that in this instance, the character's name is intended to be translated as "Iris".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, your own source that you provided states that the preferred writing of that katakana in the Latin alphabet is "Iris". --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You are looking through a dictionary. Not a search engine. The first results in that dictionary are always the kana spellings. Not the kanji spellings.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging Pokemon lists

Pokemon Black and White will be out in 10 days, so we need to do this before things get hectic. Should we merge the lists into this? People kept saying they liked the idea of merging the lists, but then every time I brought it up, it gets ignored. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Now because the lists are merged, {{Pokemon directory}} has been nominated for merging into {{Pokemon}}, due to not having as many links to hold, and all the individual species are already on {{Pokemon}}. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
-whipes sweat off forehead- Its all merged now. There are a few concerns I have though. 1. Some species may redirect to the wrong page. 2. What should be done with the talkpages? Should we attempt at merging anything, like the Mudkip debate table? Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations and thanks for the hard work! We'll just have to check all the redirects and fix them as we find problems. I'll start working on it tomorrow. SpigotMap 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the main problem is double redirects. SpigotMap 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a bot that should clean those up in time. —Ost (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No Ost, the bot doesn't fix what I am talking about. Say merged half of 40-60 into 1-51. Now 52-60 all redirect to 1-51 instead of 52-102. I just fixed those 10. There are still a lot more though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. Unless they were fixed by someone else, only the first 150 had some bad redirects. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't clean them up and I honestly hadn't looked at the redirects to personally see the issue. I agree that it makes sense that the doubles wouldn't be completely correctly fixed for the pages that were split—which I hadn't thought of—but most should be ok assuming the old list redirects to the list containing most of its members. After this cleanup, the old list redirects should probably be removed, if only because the split ones are imprecise. As for Talk pages, perhaps links to the old talk pages should be included on the new ones instead of detailed merges, but I'm not sure how this would play out of the old redirects are deleted. —Ost (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Another slight concern is about the details of the merge; the history doesn't specify where the data is being merged from, which may violate aspects of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL that require attribution. I suspect it difficult to do a formal history merge in this situation, but I think that the edit summary should at least name the merged articles. —
What are we doing for the Pokemon Black and White Pokemon? They should be in lists of 52 like (494-545),(546-597), and (598-649), but when should we move the list to the public, so they can add info? The game officialy comes out tomorrow, but some people got pre-orders yesterday and today. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I would hold off until we had official names for them all, but only two lists should cover them. Plus apparently it's still up in the air if Victini is #494 or not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if they are in 3 lists, they are about 52 Pokemon per list, but if we did 2 lists they would be about 77 per list. 3 lists sounds like the better option. Also, they will just be listed in their Ishhu dex number, since nobody will know the national number until a few days from now, when people start completing the game. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Victini is official #494...which makes him probably one of the dumbest marketing ploys ever. As for the list size, three may be good in retrospect given the number of pokemon added in this generation.
One thing to worry about though: these lists might be more easily targeted for removal by anyone overzealous if there isn't enough reception per se...unlike with the previous generations, these new pokemon aren't tied to the older ones as having evolutions/pre-evolutions around, so they're more or less stand-alone characters that may end up propped by their preceding #493+1 brethren.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, before we even think about putting them out there, we need to get lists with every single one named. Who is willing to put all 156 names on the lists I showed?(494-545),(546-597), and (598-649) Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Pokémon articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kyuremu

Do we really need an article on Kyuremu. Even if the Pokémon ends up deserving an article in the future, which is unlikely really, I severely doubt that it deserves an article at this point. Heck, I'm not sure if its actually a hoax. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be an article. You act like we know about it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver

I think Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver could possibly be ready for GA. I am going to put it up for review. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I support. SpigotMap 16:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Alright Pokémon Green has been tagged for merging into Pokémon Red and Blue for four years now. Looking through the page histories there seems to have been lots of splitting, merging and reverting. Can you guys discuss what you want to do and either merge it or remove the tag? --Deutschgirl (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One person opted to revive it from a redirect, and there's nothing of salvage in any of that. Just reverted it to a redirect...Green isn't notable by itself above the others (hell if Yellow isn't...)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good thanks. --Deutschgirl (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Apokélypse

It's midnight here, and I've gotta hit the road for work at 6 AM, meaning I need to go to sleep now to wake up in time. This however shouldn't be too hard to flesh out the rest of the way: there's a lot of reception to it flooding in (just need to sort out which sources will be considered reliable, not too familiar with which film sources fit that boat), and all it needs is a description and lead expansion from there. It should be an easy GA. I'll do more work on it tomorrow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Pokemon directory

Template:Pokemon directory has been nominated for merging with Template:Pokémon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Articuno

Wow, I feel silly now. I spent part of the day working on User:Scapler/Articuno, only to find it split without my help needed! Anyway, does anyone have any objections to me incorporating some of the stuff I found into the article, so that it is not just a copy of the other two legendary bird articles? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

-cough- I tried to tell you. I think what you found would be a great addition to the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
My fault for not seeing it. I find the whole thing a bit amusing; I seem to be shaking my head at myself a lot today. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, be my guest. Also, lolz. :v - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

50 Pokémon split

Whoo, and Charmander is the milestone article. In theory, if we added 12 articles of first gen Pokémon, we'll have 1/3 of of the first gen split out (excluding MissingNo. and Mew). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tidying the older articles

Basically I'm going through the older species articles and fixing a few things, trying to get them all to at least B status with proper fixes. However something I've noticed with Meowth I wanted to bring up here. The IGN article states that the character's appearance is based upon the "maneki neko" good luck charm, and I'd like to cite that as a source...but it'd work best in the article if the older Sugimori artwork showing Meowth in that pose. We can't really get away with adding it as a second image due to fair use restrictions. Any thoughts on the matter?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You could cite it anyways. I don't think the picture needs to be there to illustrate it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I found a happy medium, though I'd still like to use the original Sugimori artwork if I can find a good copy of it (it's pose to boot matches the free-use image in the article).
Now something else: Rayquaza. A lot of the bulk I can use to beef up the original 151's development sections I can't use here, and there's very little we can expand it with period. Should we try bulking it up and consider merging if we can't get any material, or just consider merging it now and cut our losses?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the article besides the fact it might never make it past B-Class. Not making GA doesn't mean merge. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Blake, any article worth standing should be able to make it to GA. Size isn't the issue here, it's content...everything said there can really be condensed down to a few paragraphs.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll see if I can't expand it any. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I thought we were talking about Meowth. I agree, Rayquaza isn't very strong as an article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Meowth might not be the strongest but he's perfectly fine. In other news, Lugia is apparently good to go now as an article for those of you following WP:POKE/R.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I threw something together for Lugia here. Looks alright. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good for a start, I'd ditch the subheaders for appearances though since they're both one paragraph. There seems to be some development info for it too I've got to work with, from 4Kids' heads as well as the fact its another Pokemon made without Sugimori's involvement. Oh yeah and Gengar seems good to go for an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
-poof- Gengar article thrown together. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hah, beat me to it. Send it right out there, it should be fine to go and I'll work the rest of the info in later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I must object to the statement that "any article worth standing should be able to make it to GA"; I don't think that statement reflects a general attitude or consensus of th project. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think with GA, that it's more about content and not about size. Rayquaza's size isn't the problem, it's that a lot of the reception is kind of weak. At the very least, it could be improved. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yay, I made my first species article.
But hey, is anyone opposed to returning to the discussion of Metapod and Butterfree with Caterpie? In my digging, the reception for Metapod and Butterfree seem to relate to how Metapod and Caterpie are lame, but grow into a cool Pokémon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Really, I agree with the whole idea of a Caterpie, Metapod, and Butterfree article. Caterpie stands weakly by itself, but including a full amount of coverage of its evolutions it could make it GA without too many problems. I've also noticed an article on Zapdos. While I do think the species is notable, I wouldn't be opposed to merging it with the non-existant Articuno and Moltres articles to make a Three Birds or something article. But that's just my opinion, and if Zapdos has managed to stand by itself, then that's fine with me. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The birds look like they might be able to stand by themselves, at least Zapdos and Moltres.
As for C-M-B...might be best. I know Blake is working on having Magikarp and Gyarados as one article as well, and despite what I said on his talk page it does look like that one can work well as one singular article too, since a lot of the reception is "Magikarp sucks, but it becomes Gyarados so it's okay". Ninetales looks like another possible article to spawn (and has its weight in the Dungeon series to fall back on), if the prose of the reception section can be fixed up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Clefairy's worth a look too...geez that list is going to shrink fast...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Bws2cool/Caterpie. Good to go? or no. I think the reception would need a rewrite to make it establish all 3 Pokemon. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Anyone ever noticed that almost all the notable Pokémon are first generation? Make of that what you will. As for User:Bws2cool/Caterpie, that looks pretty much done. The reception is one of the most important parts of an article (being where the bulk of third-party notability is) but as long as the article's not solely based on Caterpie, the article should be able to simply be editted rather than needing a full-blown rewrite. The sooner we move the page the better, as then the sooner people will start adding in Metapod/Butterfree stuff. I would also fully support a Magikarp and Gyrados article. The two are pretty much iconic in the way they level up/evolve. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In all honesty when the first Pokemon movie came out, people were starting to call the craze "dead" in newspapers and whatnot, and as a result most of the new designs got ignored. Generally the others that get the most attention are from the films, and when you start getting reception on others a good chunk of it is still rooted on that first generation. Even ONM's list of the ten best from gen I-IV had mostly originals.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't help, of course, that most of the iconic ones are 1st Generations that subsequently got repeated in the future generations due to popularity. Very few original ideas that people generally like and are third-partily noted come from the first few generations. A few newer Pokémon, like Lucario, genuinely end up becoming notable, but more sources refer to those good ol' originals. Also, has anyone considered an article for Machop, Machoke, and Machamp? Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
No, we haven't considered an article for them, because none of them have reeled in any reception so far. Even if they are the polar opposites of Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
True, I suppose Machop and Co. really don't have enough reception. Also, just noticed that Haunter and Gengar now have two separate articles. Still, if enough sources differentiate between them, then I suppose that not every Pokémon in same evolutionary line needs to be merged. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm declaring Scyther, even Scyther and Scizor, non-notable articles. While it has a plethora of reception from IGN and GamesRadar, that's almost ALL the reception I could find. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
A plethora isn't bad... and if it's almost all, you might find more by trolling through GameSpot/GameSpy article archives. Tezero (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... is Togepi worth its own article? Not too sure whether it is, but it has appeared as quite a few promotional items, and its appearance on the anime probably boosted its notability at least somewhat. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So...to recap we have the following possibilities at the moment:

Entei feels like it might still need a bit more, but it's reception is varied. I'm going to be busy this week, but the following seem like possibilities to explore: Deoxys (hell Rayquaza got love, nice save!), Squirtle or Blastoise (there are bits), and Articuno (longshot, but completes the bird trinity). Beyond those though...I'm not sure what else we could cover. The other film-centric Pokemon like Jirachi might have some possibility, but I haven't been able to find too much. Once we get what we can established for now though, we should be able to clean them up and make them uniform for a GA push, and take what's left of the R/B species list to good quality as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think that while we lack the information for Pichu, that it may exist. I'm glad that the Caterpie combo was finally supported - I always felt that together, the article was more informative when it delved into its metamorphosis. Now I just have to find reception. I'll also take on Entei and Togepi. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Pichu probably does have some sources, but I doubt most of them go beyond describing it as a cuter Pikachu. Still, if we do find enough sources, then yeah, it probably deserves one. We really need to find some Articuno sources though. Lacking an Articuno article seems so incomplete when Moltres and Zapdos have one. Of course, notability isn't inherited... Harry Blue5 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You are awesome NARH. All these articles.. @__@ Blake (Talk·Edits) 11:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I threw out Caterpie, Metapod, and Butterfree in the open. Working on making a trio image. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Considering all these articles we've been able to make, I'm now almost certain a Pichu article is definitely something we should at least consider. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
A Pichu article has been considered before. It got shot down. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily mean that it's undoable. It just means that no one was able to find the appropriate sources. We have a decent selection of references for characteristics and creation.
Also, I've reduced the second list to 82kb, which puts it below the "size warning level" (ie, when the list is so big it advises you to split). Hopefully, I can lower the first two lists enough to be able to merge them - and then, dare I say, 151 in one list? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Does the whole HG/SS notched-ear Pichu special event, or whatever it was, count as a promotion for Pichu? Harry Blue5 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deoxys is now up, but I agree Magikarp/Gyarados would be good. Didn't there used to be a Pichu one? Tezero (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Pichu is while there's promotion and development info, there isn't a lot of reception for the runt.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Quickly threw a little reception for Pichu from the old pre-merged article and the list:

In an interview, Masuda noted that Pichu was a pokémon "close to his heart" due to the "well thought out" design process.[1] In another interview, Masuda stated that Pichu is his favorite Pokémon.[2] Pichu has been criticized by IGN, as they had described it as to turning off so many people from the Pokémon series due to its overall "kiddy appearence".[3]

I'm sure that's not enough to prove any notability, but hey, its a start. Harry Blue5 (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources: [1] http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/694081/Junichi-Masuda--Takeshi-Kawachimaru-Talk-Pokemon-Platinum-Particle-Physics-Bridges-And-More.html. [2] http://www.gamepro.com/article/previews/209339/pokemon-platinum-developer-interview/. [3] http://faqs.ign.com/articles/379/379707p1.html.

Harry Blue5 (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually only the last sentence is reception; the other two are development tidbits from primary sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

TCG in articles

I get the feeling that some sort of TCG info should be presented in articles. After all, it is a bigger part of the franchise then the manga. What should we do? Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Been wondering about that myself...in some ways, it seems like it should get a passing note for most of them, with the exception of special event cards or special versions of them. The TCG covers all the Pokemon across the board, so it's a given that to an extent they'd all appear one time or another across the series.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So a list of the expansions in prose, or in list form? Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just a short sentence or two, possibly in the promotion section even?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Like this? [3] Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I did a couple TCG-related things in the Deoxys article. I guess it's... sometimes okay? Tezero (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pokemon spin-off games

Many of the articles in {{Pokémon spin-offs}} are of horrible quality. These articles don't get any work done on them though. I think if somebody did the work, many of them could be GA's. I have tried to fix up a few, but I don't know what to take out or put in the Plot and Gameplay sections. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm working on Colosseum right now but that isn't really a spin-off. Actually, the differences between Pokémon spin-offs and main series games probably aren't great enough to warrant two separate templates. If you're looking for advice, though, I don't know if you're supposed to do this, but it's what I do: look on Bulbapedia and stuff for details, then make it more generic and find reviews and game quotes and that cite what you're saying. Tezero (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats basically what I do for Pokemon species articles. Most of my content is straight from Bulbapedia. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT kind of says that this practice is not allowed though. Also, I would do this for game articles, but most of Bulbapedia's game articles fail too. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd be willing to take on Snap soon, though I don't know how much I can promise; I have experience working with character articles, but have never written an article on an actual game. Go figure. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I fixed up the no-longer-merged Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Generation V Pokémon

(494-545),(546-598), and (599-649) - When/under what conditions are we making these articles? I have added names for the first list, and can easily do it for the others too. Adding unique information under each section will take a lot of people. We need to get these lists out. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

When they get US names, I reckon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That will take months. People can be adding information now. The species exist, just in Japan. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I added the names to the articles. Going to add some reception from here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I really think these lists could be out right now. Like I said, the species exist, and have names in Japan. After expansion(name, basic looks, and pokedex entries) they will be no different then much of the Gen3 and Gen4 lists. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if I got too excited about creating the Pokemon lists. I would be glad to help by expanding those articles, especially I finished the White version. I may add up things I know there. But of course I would need some reliable sources to support those. Thanks.--JL 09 q?c 12:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Haha... can't really be too excited about such a thing. Anyway, you pretty much only have to find reliable sources for Pokémon that will get their own articles, and the only ones I can see that happening to are the starters, maybe. Otherwise, Pokédex and stuff will be fine; the virtue of being Pokémon will make them notable enough to at least be part of the lists. Tezero (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That and the fact that the first list has creation info and reception, the second list has reception, and the third list has a tiny bit of reception. Hopefully more sources come out and talk about more of them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Remakes in the main games

I feel that the remakes feel very tacked-on; in some of the cases, I feel that splitting would be a good idea. Perhaps Pokémon Platinum and Pokémon Yellow would be good candidates. Otherwise, it would be advised for the remakes to become better fit in the articles. For example, in the gameplay sections, we could discuss the changes to gameplay in Crystal, and to a lesser extent, HeartGold and SoulSilver, with a main template. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would think that Pokémon Yellow DOES in fact warrant an article, by the virtue that it was in the Guinness Book of World Records among other notable achievements. We've seen plenty of evidence that remakes, even when the gameplay summary is effectively the same as the original version's, can stand alone. Plus, Yellow has plenty of stuff to say about its gameplay and plot, such as the adaptation of content from the anime to both aspects. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if you can make an article that isn't all copied from it's main duo, then I guess feel free. Thats was the whole problem with third versions and remakes like FRLG, and even Pinball RS. They didn't have enough original content. Blake (Talk·Edits) 11:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Really, Pokémon Yellow is the only one that would deserve its own article. The rest of the third games really don't deserve a page to themselves, IMO. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to moving Pokémon Diamond and Pearl to Pokémon Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum and all that jazz. Harry Blue5 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as how Platinum is post-release, it's a bad idea to make it part of the article's focus. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't played much of Platinum, so if anyone could finish the plot section, that'd be great. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Species importance

A thing that's been bugging me is that some species are considered 'high' importance in our Project template, while others are considered 'mid'. I originally put this down to some of them being legendaries (not that that really makes a difference) but then I noticed that Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan are also 'high' importance.

Of course, Pikachu is 'top' importance, but considering who Pikachu is, his role in the anime, and the numerous marketing, it's fairly justified that Pikachu gets special treatment. Harry Blue5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Well, the Hitmons are notable Pokémon that are considered quite rare. They only appear in a handful of games, and like, say, Snorlax, they are typically only encountered once. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the Hitmons would be high. The Pokemon should have a very important and/or reoccurring role in the games or anime or something. Pretty much, more people would search for Psyduck then say Chansey. Psyduck is high importance due to appearing in so many episodes as one of Misty's main Pokemon. Chansey is mid importance because while it may appear a lot in Pokemon centers, it's role isn't that huge. Charizard, Koffing and Weezing, and Snorlax are all high importance. Charmeleon, Weedle, Kakuna, and Beedrill, and Cubone and Marowak are all mid importance. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Koffing and Weezing are mid-importance, for the record. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA nominating

Well, it looks like we've got three articles up for GA/N. Assuming all of them pass, that will make 17 articles under our project that are good or featured. I say we set a milestone marker! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about putting Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam up for GA, but I am not sure it's ready, and I already put Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, so I probably shouldn't have two up at the same time. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is very close, but would personally like to see a bit more critical reception; I'll see what I can find. Also, after the lead is expanded, does anyone think that Jigglypuff is ready for GA? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Jigglypuff needs sourcing in the manga, and maybe in the games. I guess I will work on that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have beefed up some of the reception in the Abra, etc. article. The other issue that needs to be resolved, however, is reference formatting. What date format do we want to use in that article, do we want it to appear 2010-10-08, 2010-08-10, October 8, 2010, or 8 October 2010? As it stands now, the references use a number of different formats. In my opinion, after this is resolved, the article will be ready for a GA nomination. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the "accessdate" field is always 2010-10-08 for some reason unknown to me, and the "date" field differs depending on how the source formats it. If we are going to make them all uniform, I think it should be October 8, 2010. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I will try to standardize them all today; following that, and unless anyone here objects, I would say it is ready for a GAN. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. One other issue, however: the second paragraph of "Design and characteristics" is unreferenced. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, the guidelines say only material that might be challenged is NEEDED to be sourced. That information is very unlikely to be challenged as it is obvious from looking at the image. Maybe the reviewer will understand that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would source it anyway, just for completion's sake. We don't want to leave any points untouched that may come back to bite us. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know of any sources, primary or third party, that describe the looks of Pokemon. The Gamespy Pokedex of Alakazam mentions that it no longer has the zener markings, so I sourced that. I will try and find more. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing Pokédex entries in Japanese version of Pokémon Black and White

When citing the in-game Pokédex entries in the Japanese version of Pokémon Black and White, is it okay to use the kanji edition of the dex entries (like I just did here), or are we supposed to stick to the hiragana edition? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have just been using the English translation, since when it comes out in English, we will have to change all of them if they all have Japanese text. That probably isn't what we should officially be doing though. Its a lazy shortcut. I would do what "JL 09" did and use tool tip to show both the Japanese and English versions. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's no English version yet, so the easiest way to cite it from its Pokedex is in Japanese. Also, I found some additions that look very familiar from Bulbapedia and some other Pokemon sites. I guess we should limit doing that.--JL 09 q?c 14:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Applying some good ol Newton here

Okay, so we've got a slew of new character articles, and got a good solid foundation to build on. And while ripping that list to shreds and making it easier to actually detail the generations...we need to make sure these articles stay. We need to improve their quality and aim for that GA status. I'd say do this per generation too: finish tearing what we can out of Gen 1, then build those articles up and start hitting WP:GAN up like hell. Then move on and rip the other gens out that have sufficient reception and material for articles and build from there.

My main concern is that focusing on just getting the articles created is going to burn folks out, especially since a lot of the Gen II and beyond Pokemon have nothing said about them if anything at all. Plus we've still got plenty of folks that feel these articles are on flimsy ground: building them up will quell that a bit more easily.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good goal. Also, I think we should find all the reception and development info we can on the less notable Pokémon to bolster up the lists and see if we can ultimately get some featured lists out of them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed with a lot of lists that they tend to work best as far as reception goes if the reception is globalized, meaning if it covers all characters in that list. That might do well for Gen I given the earlier mentioned concept of combining the three lists into one, especially since we have some development information for how the characters came to be from that generation in particular. Combine that with us getting all the other gen 1 articles to at least GA and we should have a Good Topic on the way in no time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Just curious, does anyone think any of the articles made recently have flimsy standing? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deoxys outright bugs me, especially since one of those sources seems to be Nintendo itself? o_O Cubone feels a little weak as well, though not as badly by far...it's got reception but doesn't feel like there's meat there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to work on Cubone and Deoxys. Also, in regard to the three legendary birds, wouldn't you agree that, in spite of Zapdos having some pretty good unique content, that maybe an article detailing them be better than three separate articles? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd keep them separate: while they're related in a sense and share some of the same reception, they're handled very differntly in different parts of the anime/manga, and it might become extremely confusing for a reader to try and comprehend what they're reading and to which species it applies to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. On a semi-related note, I am beside myself that I could not find more for Lopunny and Probopass. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So, KFM, in your opinion, what articles should be focused on first that are likely to reach GA? Maybe we should coordinate the effort here and have us all focus on a particular article, get it up to speed, nominate it, then move to the next one. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna suggest date of creation be the basis for our focus. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have created User:Scapler/Poketable, which arranges the character articles by date of re-creation and has its current class. According to dates, it looks like Jigglypuff should be next for GA focus. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that my "specialty" is gathering reception; once I'm done with that, I can pretty much just say "alright, Bws, KFM, and Scapler can do the more specific stuff". So I'm going to keep splitting out - in part because the more we split, the more likely the one list for gen 1 will work. I'm thinking I should be able to get a Charmander article out soon. On the flip side, I'm super bummed that I can't find anything more to say on Ninetales. There is only one more thing, but it's in a foreign News article that has to be paid for access, and I'm not even sure that what the person is saying will be revealed to be reception once we actually get a hold of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Got a link to the google search that turned it up?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
[4]
Also, the book that discusses Togepi as a "moon mankin", it also discusses Snorlax and Mew - similarly, it provides insight from the interviewer, which I think could provide for some really interesting analysis of Snorlax. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, I've been working on Oddish, Gloom, and Vileplume; while the reception is a little "eh" in some parts, it's got some decent stuff, like the high value of the Vileplume card and the comment of how common Oddish is (to a fault). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I have access to that article through Florida State University; unfortunately, there is nothing useable there on Ninetales. It only mentions it in the one sentence that can be seen at the Google News preview, so nothing beyond briefly mentioning its ability to curse things. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts looking back over the articles:

  • Charmeleon feels...odd. A lot of its reception feels like it would work best as part of a species article more, but as it stands Charmander and especially Charizard stand perfectly well on their own, making this one more or less the lame duck dragged along by the other two. As it is, the article feels oddly clunky and out of place; very few mid-evolutions get enough meat for stand alone reception it seems.
  • Marowak is in a similar boat: Cubone is dragging it along and would work better by itself. With the minimal reception Marowak has, it makes the reception section feel odd and disjointed, and would be better off not used. Jigglypuff works fine without Wigglytuff, it should be fine to do the same here, no?
  • Deoxys still feels incredibly weak...if there isn't much else to go with, it might be better to put it back in the oven.
    • I think there are about four pieces of reception. I just backspaced about two paragraphs of commenting here because it went into "other stuff exists" territory, but at any rate I think being involved with a real-life organization like NASA is at least as important as having a critic say "this person is cool." Even if I do bring that thing up too much. Tezero (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: the generation headers next to each grouping. I get the purpose of them, but for people unfamiliar to the series, might this not confuse them? Cutting them would hurt nothing and instead save some space.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced...it just doesn't feel like there's enough meat, and instead they're are being dragged around by their stronger, more capable counterparts. More specifically with Cubone, while he isn't a major player in the anime he is strongly received for his character concept, which Marowak doesn't entirely fit into. The related substance shouldn't be used to splice a part onto something that can't carry itself on the same reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Zoroa and Zoroark

User:Tezero/Tempspace is where I am developing their article right now... I understand there's been some problems in the creation of their articles in the past, but am unclear on the reasons. Was it an issue of using two separate articles (which I am not planning to do), with creating articles for characters that have not appeared yet (Lightning (Final Fantasy) comes to mind) or something else? Tezero (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There just wasn't enough sources found. If you can find some, feel free to. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not ready yet, it hasn't been released in the US, and therefore, makes it too difficult to find these sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll continue to look; it's been a few months or so since those articles were deleted, in which time a few more valid sources must have been released. I just don't have time to look as I type now. Tezero (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Since what articles were deleted? It was never created/deleted. It was right here the whole time. There was a random IP trying to take the content and make the page at Zoroark, which was reverted due to not enough sources and being at the wrong location. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That's awkward, heh? My arrogance and impatience are pushing me to go through and create the page myself, but whatever happens we shouldn't make it a competition or anything. Anyway, I'm going to look for more reception now. Tezero (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And... done. Tezero (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about this - it's even weaker than some of my Pokémon articles! *rimshot* But seriously though, I really think it can't be ready until B&W gets an English release and Zoroark some proper exposure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oof. Well, I like to bring articles out as soon as they are likely to not get speedied. Black and White, and by extension Phantom Ruler, are drawing closer, so more publicity is coming. It's kind of subjective, though, I err on the side of keeping because some of the reception from articles like Charmander isn't even actual reception, just basic analysis. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I would hold off on putting it out there just yet...post-release reception is a must. Not to mention it's rather odd since we don't know their US names yet either.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Those all but are the US names. I'm aware that the characters aren't officially out here, but there are articles on WP for Japan-exclusive characters like the chick from Air, and these two won't be Japan-exclusive for long. Plus, with the rising popularity of 5th gen, more and more people will search for these characters. I'd rather them get a correct, even if short for now, article than leave them with a mass of semi-conflicting news stories from all over online. Damn, this is going to be so much easier in a little while. Tezero (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An interview related to Black and White Pokémon designs.

[5] - While it is a forum, if this interview is real, it gives some nice grounding for the starting Pokémon, assuming they get the reception necessary. It just boils down to verifying the validity of the interview and finding the appropriate sourcing information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually from a small booklet called "Pokemon Peer". It should be citable in some format (can't cite that unofficial translation, obviously). As it stands the starters and the first three 'common' Pokemon (the yorkie, the squirrel, and the cat) have some major reception, with the yorkie evo trilogy being the strongest of the three.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's okay to use foreign-language sources as long as you cite them as such. Oh, and you should know what it says. My Japanese isn't that good, and my computer can't process kanji. Tezero (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a small problem.

SmackBot just fixed up some talkpages, and in doing so, changed "PCP" templates to "WikiProject Pok" because it stops at the é. So now lots of templates are broken, and they will be taken off our project's article list. I will try and fix what I can, but there are likely more pages broken that aren't on my watchlist. We might have to monitor Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pokémon articles by quality log to see what gets removed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we can change Template:WikiProject Pok into a redirect. I will do that, and then we can see what links to it with this and fix it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, done. Forget I ever said anything. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitmonlee image

Main page: User talk:Bws2cool § Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan image
Main page: User talk:New Age Retro Hippie § re:Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan image

NARH thinks that Hitmonlee's current image does not accurately display the species, due to the angle, and another image such as anime artwork from the first generation should be used in it's place. I think that the FRLG image does not hide much, and the image shouldn't be changed. What do the people of the project think? Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Point is, though, that it's enough to make a Pokémon fan who knows Hitmonlee's appearance up and down to be able to say that someone who doesn't know Hitmonlee may not understand its depiction. There is no harm in changing it - you may feel that the depiction is good enough, but there's nothing wrong with improving it more so. For example, the Mario image has had several images, most of them were great, but I would venture that the current one is the best due to perfectly depicting him. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Plus, the Mario image is a somewhat new image, and shows the current style. I think the difference between the quality of RB anime artwork and FRLG game artwork is a lot. Also, where would this image be? Would it be merged with the FRLG Hitmonchan, or merged with the RB anime Hitmonchan? Or should FRLG Hitmonchan be in the infobox, and RB Hitmonlee be in the design section? Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree. The quality between Cammy's Street Fighter design is significantly improved in IV over II, but that doesn't mean that it should be used. The older image, while less detailed, does exactly what it's supposed to. And if we do use the image, making a combination image of Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan would be best. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why we are talking about a random C-class article. Show me a GA+ with an old image on it, and you can use that as an example. The reasoning of things on one article differs from things on another article though. So examples don't help much. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kung Fu Man was responsible for the image changing, so logically, as someone who has made a decision and has made both GAs and FAs, such a decision should be taken as one that would be ideal for a GA/FA. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed...a few of the GA articles I have under my belt use older artworks for characters because that tends to be the best rendition of that character, the one most commonly associated with it. There are a few cases here where I'd rather use older artwork myself too to be honest.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, do you think Hitmonlee needs older artwork? The only artwork that would be better would be the anime artwork. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The anime artwork is perfectly acceptable - it doesn't have to be the same artwork, or recent artwork, it just has to be acceptable. If it was blurry, or muddy, it'd be one thing. However, the anime image fits in as "perfectly acceptable", while the current one is merely better in regard to shading. The angle gives people an awkward perspective, that provides less of an understanding - how much less is debatable, but it is less so. It's not about needing older artwork - it's about needing the best image. The older artwork happens to be the best artwork. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
To reinvigorate discussion, KFM upholds my argument of quality versus consistency, and as such, I argue that the increased perspective available for the anime pictures improves readers' understanding of the subject. Age and lack of detail shouldn't be a factor. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
KfM has not said whether or not he agrees with it for THIS article yet. He just said that the practice of doing it has been used in the past. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
He did denounce the primary argument for not changing the image. Again, as someone who knows what Hitmonlee looks like, that I can understand how someone could be confused says something. The main reason was originally that no other images showed Hitmonlee in a non-kicking pose; when one was shown, it changed to that we should use the video game's image to be consistent; however, there is no argument to say that a series of characters' images should share the same art style or image origin. Again, you have to view the quality of the image from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what it looks like otherwise. There's really no point in keeping it the way it is, other than due to ideas of how an article should be that are not based in guidelines. Using what KfM said, he opposed Cammy's SFIV image on the basis that it provides an awkward angle that doesn't get a frontal image of her. Logically, that logic applies here. An image should be of the Pokémon's front, not its side. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To try and reel this in some (and kill the indent before it eats the article), the "anime" artwork while an option...feels like it might be a bad idea by all means, even though it shows its front. The reason I'm putting it in quotes is because I've always been iffy on just how official that artwork is, especially when you compare some of it. If you had to go with different artwork, I'd stick with Sugimori's confirmed art, and by that I mean either R/B's or just use what we have instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yah, a lot of anime artwork is the Sugimori artwork traced over and done in a different style by some unknown art team. Having the real Sugimori artwork is best, as it displays the character in how the creators of the series want it to be displayed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there some kind of policy where official artwork is preferred as long as it exists? Tezero (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been new artwork released for the "Dream World" for Black and White. It somewhat is the same style as the anime artwork, but looks a bit nicer. I looked at Hitmonlee's artwork, and it displays him in a way that does not hide his body.Hitmonlee image I suppose we could use both Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan's Dream World artwork if you insist that it needs to be changed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looker

Where can I find Looker, the character from Pokémon Platinum and Pokémon Black and White here in Wikipedia?--JL 09 q?c 14:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Looker in Black and White? Awesome. I don't think we actually have anything for him, as we don't appear to have a List of Pokémon video games characters. I might be wrong, though. Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Looker has recently been added to List of Pokémon characters#Games. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Looker is in BW. Not to spoil you, he will upgrade your dex to National Dex after the first battle with the Elite Four and he'll give you the one and only rod in the game. You'll never get a deep water Pokemon unless you finish the E4 and obtained rod from him.--JL 09 q?c 11:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Eevee Page + Evolutions?

I created the Eevee page, however I was wondering if whether its evolutions should be incorporated into the page as well. I managed to put quite a bit of references on Eevee though it would seem that the article would become more notable if its evos (the main highlight of Eevee) was also added. What are your opinions? User:GS Sentret 00:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RetroHippie tried making an article for them earlier this year, and it didn't work out too well. It is a huge mess for one thing, and also there may not be enough reception about them to make it not WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If you can though, it would probably make the article better and more complete. Blake (Talk·Edits) 10:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Right now there isn't enough reception for just Eevee, even with the bit I just removed...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should maybe mentoin eevee's forms in the article, like maybe adding a small section with a picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by nguinn97 (talk • contribs)

Eevee's forms ARE mentioned in the article. Also, a picture with all the forms would be way too large and not necessary. Although Eevee's whole character would be better displayed if it's forms were included like that, we would need to make the whole article about the species line, and we can't do that without the proper coverage of them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon (anime) broken table

Currently Pokémon (anime)#Movies has a broken table, and I am unsure as to how to fix it. I went back in the history to as far as March, and it was still broken. I don't actually think it has been broken that long though. Did something in the how the code works change, or is it just my computer showing it broken? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Banging that drum again

Okay, so going through what we have, we have some problems with the species articles:

  • Charmeleon needs some beef: a lot of the reception for it still feels very passing, and there's not enough stand-alone for Charmeleon itself. It's not one that should be sent back to the oven yet (though I think it might be a good idea to consider it), but it needs more bulk if it wants to survive a possible AfD swipe. Charmander (though it needs cleanup) and Charizard by far blow it out of the water.
  • Grimer and Muk feel strong, but there's cleanup needed badly, the reception section is hard as heck to read.
  • Going to repeat what I said about Marowak before: it doesn't fit in Cubone's article and Cubone can stand perfectly fine on its own. With what little is added by Marowak, it feels more like a fifth wheel.

And that's really it, which given the number of articles we have is saying a lot. I'm digging through a few more pieces of reception myself, and we might be able to do something with Arcanine as things go. But we do need to try and clean up the prose by far here, as it feels hard as hell to read a lot of times...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally doubt that Charmeleon can stand properly as its own article. Just because Charmander and Charizard are notable, doesn't mean Charmeleon is. I have to say that Cubone probably can stand on its own without Marowak as well. There's really no need to expand it to cover Marowak as well, IMO. (For instance, we have an article on Pikachu, not Pichu and Pikachu or Pichu, Pikachu, and Raichu, though in all fairness Pikachu is hugely notable, so its a bit unfair to compare Cubone and Marowak to him). Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Edited Grimer and Muk#Reception to (hopefully) make it easier to read, but I daresay it still needs a bit of a clean-up. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My main problem with Marowak's coverage in the article is it kinda skirts a little to WP:UNDUE: one subject is carrying the other on its back more or less completely. It's a little different than with the Butterfree/Beedrill evos and their handling of Metapod and Kakuna respectively is to a point where one can't be discussed without the other. Here...it feels like Marowak is stitched on, and the effect Cubone has overshadows it completely. It'd be like if Jigglypuff's article discussed Wigglytuff in great detail, or how Mr. Mime's can't really have Mime Jr. combined into it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Made a typo in my last comment. I agree with you. Blake was the one that put Marowak in, right? We should probably tell him before we make it Cubone-centric again, and see if he has a good reason why they should stay together. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you look a the article history, you will see that NARH expanded it to include both. I personally don't think it fits very well, and Cubone steals the show. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So we should contact him about it, then? Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading this discussion from the start; I just don't have a huge interest in this right now. I trust you guys to make the best decision regarding what's good and what isn't; I was just helping out in terms of man power and initiative. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
So, shall we put Marowak back in the lists? Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Apokélypse's GAN

Kinda nudging, but since it's not covered under WP:VG, I have the feeling it won't actually be reviewed anytime soon...would anyone here be up for giving it a once over for the GAN?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask WP:VG to give it some help? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It has now been reviewed, apparently. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pikachu

Pikachu really is not up to GA standards. Some of it isn't sourced, and some of what is sourced is in the wrong format.(not using {{cite web}}) This should be our best article, but I think we are scared of breaking it, so nobody messes with it. I just cleaned up the Video games section a bit, but the article still needs more help. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I attribute it more to the sheer difficulty of "completing" the reception. It'd take many hours to scour our source searching options until we've milked them dry. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It isn't just the reception. Its the whole article. Much of what is there was written years ago, and hasn't been updated to new standards. Heck, the lead still uses the content we deemed unnecessary and obsolete over a year ago.
The article needs a rewrite, or copyedit, or something. Also, I understand that fleshing out every single manga's plotline like Charizard#In printed adaptations is a bad idea for Pikachu, but what we have right now is pathetic. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fictional species

The current lead sentences show that they are "Pokémon species in Nintendo and Game Freak's Pokémon franchise." A user showed concern that we aren't allowing the reader to know that the species is fictional, and is part of a video game. What do you think? I think it is fine, and saying they are "fictional species" makes it sound like they are fakemon. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying fictional species over Pokemon species should be fine: it's a small cosmetic change and one I've used in a lot of my character articles (as "fictional character" in those). It won't imply that the character in question is fake.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. I will do it tomorrow if nobody does it before then. Or do you think I should wait for more comments before we have to revert 40 articles? Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait for more comments, though it's a slow time of year too. Jimbo's face asking for donations on people's watchlists isn't helping activity either.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the change. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Template deletion

Old, unused templates, {{Pokémon character}} and {{Poke-expand}} are being discussed for deletion. Put in your input here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon weight and hight

I was thinking if maybe we could add the weight and hight of the Pokémon into the lists. I'd suppose that it should go in the box thing where it says the evolution, etc. --Parasect (Discuss) 22:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That information is hardly relevant. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
More game-guidish or trivial then encylopedic. Wasnt that the reason why we replaced the Pokemon infobox with the Infobox VG character. Salavat (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List trimming

I feel that we really need to cut out the mini-boxes. A lot of it seems to be cruft; the only thing that really needs to be mentioned is the number (for reference purposes), which can be said in the content. What it evolves into should be mentioned in the first place. It merely adds to the kb use and makes the list seem bigger than it should be. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How would the number be shown in the text? I think these infoboxes are helpful enough to keep. They are the ONLY thing showing what most of the GenV Pokemon are. Plus, do you really want to have to insert the number and evolutions into over 500 sections? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Ivysaur (フシギソウ, Fushigisō, Fushigisou), known as the Seed Pokémon, is the evolved form of Bulbasaur, and the second Pokémon in the National Poké Dex.
The infoboxes amount to nothing more than fancruft. And the reasoning of difficulty in implementing this information is not something that should be considered. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that looks very good, and would be annoying to have in every entry. I don't see a good reason for removing them. Size isn't a big issue as the only list over 100kb is (252–319), because it has 68 entries. The "type" is the only thing you seem to think is cruft, which could be true. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
We're also attempting to merge the three lists into one, remember. Removing those infoboxes would make great strides in trimming the size down for such a merge. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
On a related tangent, is it necessary to have these tables on sections that lead people to split articles? If they want this specific information, they can go to the main list, which is far more convenient than looking through every list to get either the number of a Pokémon or information not important enough to mention in the article's body. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Woah, what? What lists? Like make a List of Generation 1 Pokémon list? I doubt this would be possible unless we split a lot more. If we eventually make the entries top quality, they will be too big to be in one list. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found that the removal of 20 Pokémon would be fairly adequate in trimming it down to a reasonable level. This is, of course, assuming that these 20 Pokémon can in fact muster the appropriate amount of information to split, but it's still the hoped plan. Gyarados, for example, could probably be split simply by searching for sources; I'd be flabbergasted if they did not exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Some other good choices are Blastoise, Ninetales, Oddish, Gloom, and Vileplume, Poliwhirl, Scyther and Scizor, and Magmar. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
So what do you think about trying to split some more species? Along with the ones mentioned above, Probopass and Lopunny are also good candidates, both having 4 good sources. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird old redirect pages

I found some weird, super old(2002/2003) pages that were possibly the names of actual Pokemon articles, but naming conventions caused them to move.

After looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Pokemon/, I see there are more of these. Should we delete these since they have no "potential search" value, aren't liked from anywhere, and have no history(history was moved)? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Very unlikely search items. Delete the lot of them I say. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeh delete them all. Simple as that. Salavat (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple IMDb links

I know it hasn't been discussed much in the past, save for here in Archive 22, but I wanted to let people know what I'm doing. For Pokémon that have voice actors and character pages on IMDb, I'm adding relevant {{imdb character}} entries at the "External Links" section of some of the Pokémon "mon" articles. In the past, I believe consensus was that IMDb should not be used as a cited source for information. I agree with this. However, who is to say that an informative link to a relevant character article is not out of the question? This way, people can click through to see who voiced a Pokémon and in what media that Pokémon appeared. dogman15 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see much problem with it. I would like input from others though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
IMDB is a good external link. But not a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree; it is used as an EL for plenty of other articles across the site. —Ost (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pokéthulhu

Pokéthulhu is being nominated for deletion. Your input would be helpful. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam

I nominated Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam for GAN. If you can, fix any errors you see, and maybe try and source their design in the Design and characteristics section. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Misty/Brock (Pokémon [character])

The "(Pokémon)" vs "(Pokémon character)" debate is back, and this time has been brought up at WT:VG. Care to settle this again? Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

species

I was questioning one time why there is so many links of species are on the Pokémon template when there is already a seperate template for that and I was recommended to weigh in here. Here's where the discussion was at. It's not too much of a bother but what do you think about it? Jhenderson 777 02:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

English dates in film infoboxes

Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) removed the English release date from Pokémon: Zoroark: Master of Illusions's infobox, citing WP:FILMRELEASE. I reverted, stating that makes no sense, and guidelines don't have to be followed(even though it is a template documentation), and they reverted me. So I took it to his talkpage. What do you think about the matter? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The dates as they are now follow the guidelines determined by WikiProject Film, specifically WP:FILMRELEASE. The film is a Japanese film and, although the topic may be of interest to people in the United States, that does not make the release date notable. (And I'm male, Blake, its alright to use "he" ;) ). BOVINEBOY2008 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon on "List of fictional x"

Thibbs (talk · contribs) has removed Pokémon from the lists of fictional birds of prey, penguins, and ducks stating that it is original research to put Pokémon species on these lists. Now, I think this is silly, because how do you tell that any other characters are in fact ducks/penguins/whatever? They look and act like them. If it is OR to put Pokémon on the list, then all others should be removed, unless sourced by something actually stating it. Now, some Pokémon have the name in their species name. For example, Squirtle is the "Tiny Turtle Pokémon", Pikachu is the "Mouse Pokémon", and Vulpix is the "Fox Pokémon". Should we only list the Pokémon that say things like this, or do you think any Pokémon that resembles it should be listed? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, see here for a list of Pokémon with their species names. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. In an attempt to clean up the "List of fictional x" lists, I have removed all fictional species, robots, aliens, mythical creatures, etc. from these lists. The lists were in terrible shape and they had been the target of countless Requests for Deletion actions. To improve these lists I was very strict with the inclusion criterion.
If it was a duck, for instance, it stayed on the "list of fictional ducks." If it was a duck-shaped robot or a race of duck-shaped aliens, or if it was a duck-like fictional species or a duck-like beast of myth then I removed it. The primary criterion for inclusion on that list is simple: it should be a duck. I have no prejudice against pokemon or any other fictional species, but the fact remains that they are not actual species. They are Pokemon. Even "tiny turtle pokemon" are not turtles. Any herpetologist would tell you the same.
The problem is that if you allow some of these fictional creatures to stay in the list then soon you have to figure out where to put half-way things like Ninetales and Slowbro and Dodrio. And then what about Mr.Mime and Chansey and Muk and all the rest. By the same logic that makes Psyduck into a duck, we would have all of the other Pokemon listed at List of fictional animals (other). I don't think that would improve the article at all.
The same would have to be allowed for digimon and for the monsters from yu-gu-oh and I just don't know where you draw the line. I've worked hard to get these articles into good shape and I really don't want to see them go back to the terrible state they were in before.
I've said before that sources are the ultimate final answer so if anyone can source the fact that Pokemon are considered real Earth species within the series then so be it. I'm not against the inclusion of anything questionable so long as it has a reliable source for verification. Otherwise, though, I think we're embarking down a slippery slope. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You have "Bean the Dynamite" on your list. What makes him more a duck then Psyduck? Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually know much about the individual creatures listed on the list. I am only interested in keeping rigid guidelines inclusion criteria so that the list doesn't degenerate into a massive collection of unverifiable trivia and original research. So if you think that any of the members of the list do not meet the criteria then please feel free to remove them. -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (struck through "guidelines" to reduce confusion -Thibbs (talk))
I just don't get why you are excluding Pokémon from the lists, when they are no more or no less the species then other characters. I am not suggesting you remove every single character on the list, which is what will happen with your "guidelines". Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The difference is that whereas Donald Duck is described as a "duck," Psyduck is described as a "Duck Pokemon." Pokemon as a whole are fictional species. Psyduck is not actually a duck. He is a "duck pokemon." Pokemon means "pocket monster." Perhaps you could make an argument to include Psyduck in a list of monsters, but I have not seen any sources that indicate that Psyduck is a duck in the same sense as Donald Duck is. If you can find such sources then feel free to add the character. -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't get the issue here. Like said above, Pokémon such as Squirtle and Pikachu are called a turtle and a mouse. What could possibly be less clear than this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that a list of fictional ducks should not include a list of fictional duck-like-things because whereas there is a definition for duck there is not a definition for "duck-like-things." What this means is that if all duck-like-things are allowed, then the list has the potential to become an Indescriminate collection of info. "Species: Mouse Pokemon" is not the same as "Species: Mouse." If we say that all pokemon are animals then that means that all of them that don't find homes in specific "list of fictional x" articles should go into list of fictional animals (other). Look at "list of fictional animals (other). Do you see what kind of a problem this would create? We could rename the "list of fictional ducks" to "list of fictional ducks and duck pokemon" perhaps, but that would have to have consensus first. -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
All the different species of Pokemon do not need to be in these lists. It isn't an "all or nothing" case. But if there is going to be a "List of fictional ducks", then things like Psyduck need to be included. I think you are making a distinction where there doesn't need to be. Just because its a Pokemon doesn't mean it is a completely different thing then every other character that resembles a duck. Do ducks talk? No, but Donald is still a duck. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But Donald Duck is actually described as a duck in sources. In fact, apparently he's meant to be a Pekin duck. On the other hand, Psyduck is described as a "duck pokemon." What is a pokemon? The Pokemon article describes it thus: "Pokémon ... collectively refers to the 649 fictional species that have made appearances in Pokémon media." The main article on Pokemon describes them as members of a fictional species. In other words it is not a real animal that is represented in a fictionalized form, but a fictional creature that can only be classified as an animal if there are sources to back the claim up. Is there a problem with finding sources for this information? -Thibbs (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen these fictional lists and have questioned their value, but I disagree with your rigid guidelines (though I understand your semantic argument) as I think that they make the lists less useful. Are you WP:OWNing them or is there a discussion that has consensus for this removal? Rather than removing entries, I'd be more inclined to do something like merge the list of ducks and birds to List of fictional avianoids since characters like Donald Duck are in the List of avian humanoids. —Ost (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Please be careful not to confuse ownership with stewardship. It could be construed as a bad-faith assumption and it is truly discouraging to editors who, like me, are simply trying to maintain an article in good working order. What you call "[my] rigid guidelines" are in fact Wikipedia's rigid guidelines. Just because I am the only person enforcing them doesn't mean that I care a whit for the content of the articles. I don't. I am only interested in keeping these articles free from cruft, not in OWNing them. According to WP:LIST and WP:LSC, a stand-alone list should be properly defined to avoid it becoming an indiscriminate collection of information or becoming Listcruft. WP:LIST states that the definition of the list (i.e. the explicit inclusion criteria) should come in the lede paragraphe. WP:Featured list criteria states that the lede must "define the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." The ledes that exist on all of the "list of fictional animals" articles are clear and unambiguous. In list of fictional ducks, the lede states "This is a list of fictional ducks. This list is restricted to notable duck characters from the world of fiction." To avoid confusion, the word "duck" is linked so that curious editors can investigate what a duck is and thus be able to determine whether what he/she is considering adding to the list in fact meets this inclusion criterion. I am unable to find any policies/guidelines that recommend keeping lists vague or allowing entries into lists that do not meet the inclusion criteria even if they are covered by popular wikiprojects.
As for your suggestions for merging these lists, please feel free to suggest it at the appropriate board and let me know when you do so that I can give my enthusiastic agreement. I would be very glad to see these lists combined if at all possible. -Thibbs (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you are trying to help and I applaud the goal of adhering to list inclusion requirements. Above that you said that you were making an attempt to clean lists, which I took as you were acting alone. I apologize for the implied accusation in posing to you the extreme of acting unilaterally, as I could have simply asked if there was consensus for the removals. I too agree with having good list inclusion criteria, though that does not mean that the lede was well-thought out when it was written nor that all lists are appropriately named. I was trying to suggest that the problem could be fixed in more ways than just culling the list. The criteria for inclusion may be clear to you and the authors of the ledes, but a number of previous editors across multiple lists seem to have seen it differently. Maybe it's that I don't understand what makes, for instance, a list of fictional ducks more notable than a list of characters that seem to be ducks and I wonder if someone will end up duplicating the lists with the removed entries. —Ost 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no one discussion that I can point to as the definitive place where consensus was formed with regard these cleanups, but there have been a number of localized consensuses that have formed between other editors and me as I have gone about the clean-up process. I have ruffled some feathers with editors who view my removals as biased attacks on their favorite fictional animal, however I have always been able to assure these editors that I am completely without bias with regard the content of the articles. My only concern is that the contents of the list meet Wikipedia's requirements for members of a list. One of these requirements is the meeting of the list's explicit definitional inclusion criteria which is found in the lede. Currently the ledes for these articles are clear and unambiguous and they limit the list to fictionalized representations of actual biological animals. I think this limitation is very reasonable because once the door is widened to allow fictionalized representations of all things resembling biological animals, then we introduce complete uncertainty into the inclusion criteria. You folks seem to think that Psyduck is more-or-less a duck. That's not a very controversial assessment perhaps, however what about Primeape? Is he a pig? Is he a monkey? What about Slowpoke? He looks kind of like a hippo, but is that what he actually is? Is Muk an invertebrate? Is Voltorb an arthropod? All of these questions and more come up if we allow Psyduck (who Pokemon literature describes as a member of the "Duck Pokemon" species) to be considered a duck.

This isn't just about Pokemon. These lists are very popular among fly-by-night IP editors who wish to see their favorite animal characters' names in print on Wikipedia. If "animal-like" creatures (like Pokemon) are allowed in these lists, then this gives a good argument to others who have interpreted another animal-like thing in such a way that they consider it to belong on the list as well. How is a steward for one of these articles to argue when the jackalope is listed in the list of fictional deer article, or when pegasus is listed in the list of fictional birds? Although there is a strict definition for what makes something a bird, there can be no definition for what makes something "bird-like." The maintenance of these lists would degenerate into a battle of conflicting original researches.

The other option is to be strict with the definition and require sources to back up questionable claims such as the hypothetical claim that Primeape is biologically a pig. Doesn't that seem to be a better solution to the problem of creeping listcruft? -Thibbs 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, it doesn't have to be "all or nothing", but if there is a "List of fictional ducks", then Psyduck should be on the list, Piplup should be on "List of fictional penguins", and Ekans should be on a "List of fictional snakes". The half and half Pokemon can just be listed nowhere. Your Psyduck is a "duck Pokemon not a duck" argument makes no sense, because plenty of other characters are half duck, half whatever in their universe, but they still deserve to be listed. Also, these lists are mostly cruft anyways, so you might as well list all the cruft if you are going to list some of it. They will never make it to FL status because they are forever incomplete. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
But it is "all or nothing," though. That's the way strict definitional cutoffs work. Either something is a fictional duck (and it belongs on the list) or it isn't (and it doesn't). I understand the way you and other members of WikiProject Pokemon feel about Psyduck, Piplup, etc. But I think that when you say something like "if there is a 'List of fictional ducks', then Psyduck should be on the list" without providing any sources for your implicit claim that Psyduck is biologically a duck then you are making an argument based on Truth and not Verifiability. Many of these "list of fictional x" articles are filled to the brim with unspeakable amounts of cruft. You are certainly correct about that. The solution, however, should be to clean up the other lists and not to start filling in the ones that have been cleaned up with yet more cruft. -Thibbs (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't saying it in that context, but that just because Psyduck and others are on lists doesn't mean things like Muk need to be on a list. Also, I want to reiterate my point that these lists are doomed from the start. It is either "complete" and without sources, or incomplete with sources. They will never be Featured Lists. A "Ducks in popular media" would make a better chance at being an good article, because it would be in the form of prose, only listing a few examples. I don't understand why you are protecting the articles when really, there is nothing to protect. Also, may I throw WP:IAR in here? If having to be verifiable means the list will be incomplete, then you should ignore it, and just let unsourced things in. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize that maybe you, Blake, wouldn't add Muk to any of these lists, but what does a steward for one of these articles do when some other well-intentioned editor tries to add Muk to the list of fictional animals (other) under "slime mold"? And as I keep repeating, this problem is not limited to Pokemon. What if someone were to add Pegasus to list of fictional birds? If a steward were to challenge him, he could say "But pegasuses are bird-like and bird-like things are always allowed. Look at Psyduck. He's merely duck-like and we allow him in the list of fictional ducks." You're asking for a set of inclusion criteria that allow complete open-ended editorial discretion. That's fine if it's your own personal wiki, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia and so arguments will flare up over and over and over again unless there is a clear-cut definition in place or unless everyone decides to turn a collective blind eye to the article and let it degenerate into useless original research and fan speculation.
I know these lists aren't very nice but that's no reason to give up on them if they've gone through the AfD process and have been declared "keepers." Articles like these lists are one of the main reasons that third parties look at Wikipedia as a useless collection of fancruft and garbage. In trying to keep them clean and strictly within Wikipedia's guidelines, I am thinking of Wikipedia's image as an encyclopedia. If you wish, you can re-nominate these lists for deletion. I consider myself an inclusionist here generally, but these lists really are a black eye for Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No one would argue that Pegasus is a bird any more than they would argue that a flying squirrel was a bird. However, when the source material specifically calls Squirtle a "Tiny Turtle", calls Pikachu an "Electric Mouse", I do not see any reason to be skeptical of how well they fit into these lists. They fit the exact nature of the list - fictional depictions of this species. That they have qualities to them that clearly fit in these lists, and they are certainly not as light as being a bird because it has wings. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you think so, but that's really just a personal judgment call by User:New Age Retro Hippie. Incidentally, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that suggests that Squirtle is a "tiny turtle" although I have seen several sources that list him as a "Tiny Turtle Pokemon" (emphasis added). The same goes for Pikachu. I don't think that there is a good reason to deviate from the clear-cut inclusion criteria that currently heads-up the lede, and I strongly doubt that there are any good reasons that Pokemon should be given special status on lists like these. -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Or rewrite the lede to have the inclusion criteria match the current state of the list. I don't get why your opinion trumps the editors that have expanded the lists and those that have expressed dissatisfaction with your edits; you may not have a bias against certain animals, but you have a bias against using the list for an intention that you don't agree with. —Ost (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well yes, of course. Feel free to make a suggestion for how to rewrite the lede at the appropriate talk page. The ledes as currently written do not allow for the inclusion of fictional species, robots, aliens, mythical creatures, and the like. But if you think that the lede needs to be expanded then please suggest it at the talk page. I'm opposed to loosening the lede to the point where any random piece of cruft can slip into the list, but if a tightly-written, clear, and unambiguous definition can be found to expand the scope of the article, and if there is consensus for it, then I'll try to steward the expanded article according to the new inclusion criteria if I possibly can. -Thibbs (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Being a "Turtle Pokemon" is merely a way of saying it is a Turtle in the Pokemon universe. They are their own species, but are still turtles just as much as any other fictional character such as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. There is no reason to remove these from the list, when they perfectly fit the description. You are looking too deep into things. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Then why does the Pokemon article describe them as "649 fictional species that have made appearances in Pokémon media?" Why not simply "649 species that have made appearances in Pokémon media?" If they really are intended to be real animals (i.e. members of kingdom Animalia/Metazoa) and the only difference is that they are in the Pokemon Universe then they belong on the list. No questions about that. From what I see, however, they appear to be a fictional species of organism like Mr. Snuffleupagus or Snorks or Alf. If I'm wrong about this then I'd be happy to see Pokemon on the lists. It would certainly strengthen your claim if you could provide a single source that backed this claim up, though. -Thibbs (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It's called an adjective, people. Batman is not a bat, he is bat-like. "The mouse pokemon" means it is the Pokemon with mouse-like qualities. Adjective-noun. Can anyone point to anything in the Pokemon universe that says Pikachu is a mouse, or do they say it's a mouse Pokemon? There is a difference, that's how adjectives work. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't real. You people are all just... Terrible. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.138.194 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon Professors

Currently, List of Pokémon characters#Pokémon Professors and List of characters in the Pokémon anime series#Professors both contain different information about both the games and anime. This is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and has been bothering me ever since I layed eyes on it. One of two things needs to happen.

  • 1. The main section should have all the information, while anime has a {{main}} link with no content.
  • 2. The main sections have Game and Manga info, with a short blurb about anime and a link to each professor(similar to the protagonists linking to other forms of media). The anime section would have only anime info, and would have a {{See also}} link.

What do you think? I would have just done it now, but my mind was in a fog, and I couldn't think. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Legendary pokemon promotion

Dont no if this is worth mentioning in the articles so ill let someone else decide. But over at Nintendo.com.au they are having a special promotion that allows you to get a shiny version of Raikou, Entei, and Suicune. Also if you then send one of those over to the new Black and White games it can allow you to catch the pokemon Zoroark which you apparently cannot get through normal gameplay.

So yeh not sure if this is important enough to add into the articles so ill let someone else decide.

Link: http://gamesites.nintendo.com.au/pokemon-heart-gold-soul-silver/#/news/trio/ ( did try to webcite the reference but all i got was black). Salavat (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is already in the articles. I don't think the AU promotion is notable in itself though. We shouldn't clutter up these articles with every single promotion in every single country, but only list the original Japanese one and the English one. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Colosseum

So, I don't feel like putting this up for Peer Review, but I've been working on it on-and-off over the past almost-a-year whenever I haven't been doing anything else. It's not the same as a main-series handheld Pokémon game so I can't quite measure it against those articles. I'm wondering if it looks like it's almost ready for GAN, or if not, what else needs to be done. Thanks in advance everyone. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Two things I noticed: Gamerhell is not a reliable source (at least according to the current Video game reliable sources list), and it lacks reception outside of reviews. Consider adding previews and other such articles. I suggest you search on the VG project's custom Google search for reliable sources, Google Books, and Google News. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's listed there with a green checkmark next to it. You just have to look for "GamersHell.com" rather than "Gamers Hell". Will do about the more news and stuff, but what do you mean by "reception outside of reviews"? Tezero (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks surprisingly nice at first glance. I think that with a GAR, it will get some tweaks, but could very possibly pass. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Gen V poke reception from GamesRadar

Have fun with this one folks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

oh, dang. Thats awesome. I have a feeling Cofagrigus will be getting an article in the future. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Cofagrigus? I have a feeling that it will be totally trolled in many ways. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'd love to see Probopass split out. I just need one or two more good sources for reception and I think that it might be able to stand on its own. Especially good if it's a bit more serious of an analysis of the species. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Cofagrigus and its evo's Japanese names start with "desu" ;)
yes, I think Probopass and Lopunny are close to splitting. Also, like I said in a previous conversation 2 months ago, some other good choices are Blastoise, Ninetales, Oddish, Gloom, and Vileplume, Poliwhirl, Scyther and Scizor, and Magmar. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Scyther and Scizor and Lopunny suffer from a lack of unique sources - both rely on only two sources. And while Oddish, Gloom, and Vileplume have a decent number of unique sources, they're not very significant in their coverage. Blastoise, Ninetales, and maybe Magmar are close, but still need more references. The only Pokémon I can think of that would likely have content out there is Gyarados. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As it stands Gyarados still surprises me for lacking reception, especially considering it was one of the first generations' "big guns".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I added what I could find. I might go outside of the Custom Search/News/Books this time to find some additional reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Added to Victini. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Victini actually looks about all right for an article... you'd just have to add some cruft. Tezero (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While I originally was going to split off Gyarados as an April Fools joke, I noticed it had a significant amount of coverage. After a quick search, I found two more sources,(one of which was written last month) which further solidifies it notability. The one source I added would make good material for Pokémon Snap. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • One slight problem. While there are 12 sources, they are really 4 websites. Most of the sources are from GamesRadar or IGN. I hope this won't be a problem. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulbasuar, Ivysaur, Venusaur

FYI, the draft article User:Permethius/Sandbox3 is tagged for deletion. Have all valid sources into Bulbasaur? —Ost (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect

See Talk:List of Pokémon (599–646)#Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect to explain my recent edits to the project to remove any reference of these three Pokémon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IGN's Pokedex features these Pokemon. Can I get some more feedback here whether that would be enough to include them in the list? Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IGN Top 100

IGN is doing a reader's choice top 100 list of Pokémon. [6] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the reception will be useless...the ranking on the list certainly won't be reliable given how it's being conducted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if they provide their own commentary on each Pokémon, wouldn't this be acceptable reception? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Er, meant to say useful, sorry. And yeah that's what I'm hoping for. What peeves me off about it is the handling, since calling it a "top 100 list" when clearly some are appearing more than others feels very awkward.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that's true; Pokémon like Blastoise definitely get a lot more early attention. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I see someone named Blake Kimber giving feedback on it on IGN; I wonder...? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope you aren't wondering if "Blake Kimber" is me, because you would be wrong. Or are you wondering if we can source his feedback? Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I was just wondering if that was you. I mean, a Pokémon fan named Blake? Seemed almost too coincidental! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

65 Pokémon split

Whoo! And 50 of those are from Red/Blue. Hard to believe that the 100 milestone is within reach, huh? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is awesome. List of Pokémon (1–51) is so small now because 20/50 of the species are split. ha. I hope we split more articles. Out of these many articles though, 5 are GA and 5 are B-class.(plus MissingNo's FA) We should work on improving the overall quality of the articles too. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'd like to see how many of 1-51 I can do before I begin working on GAing stuff. Good job on making Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam and Charizard GAs! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I recently buffed up Lucario, and made him more worthy of being B-class. I hope to fix up some of our newer articles, and maybe try Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan for GAR. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Padilla, Raymond (2009-03-17). "Junichi Masuda & Takeshi Kawachimaru Talk 'Pokémon Platinum', Particle Physics, Bridges, And More!". G4. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
  2. ^ Noble, McKinley. "Pokemon Platinum: Developer Interview!". GamePro. IDG. p. 2. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
  3. ^ http://faqs.ign.com/articles/379/379707p1.html#
  4. ^ "Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire Review (page 1)". IGN. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_27&oldid=1142517310"