Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

Kadabra?

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

Wasn't that on another card though? And even then it really seems more a controversy for the card game than it does Kadabra itself. Beyond that, I really don't feel too good about propping the whole species article on that one lawsuit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it'd be more of a springboard than anything. It's possible that Kadabra could have some information on its creation, and I'm sure that Kadabra and its bound to have some reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sorry to bump this, but what about the possibility of an Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam article to encompass all three? I really don't want to advocate doing this often (singular articles are always better), but I think this should work as the reception is split in part between the three while also in a few cases covering all three at once.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would they be in separate sections, or merged together like past attempts? It might would help me decide if you put the reception you found in the list article so I can see what they are. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Together would probably work, but first let's compile reception and see if we have enough for a full article for all three before we dive in and facepalm ourselves.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

é

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

I would think that all titles should use the "é", titles with "e" should probably just be redirects. Useight (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He is talking about reference titles for articles on IGN and such. I dont really have a standpoint on this. I dont think it really matters, but if the page doesnt put a dash, then I see no reason to fix it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

hmm, somehow this page got removed from my watchlist today...Thanks for considering this. Anyway, Blake is right about what I was talking about. I wouldn't go out of my way to just fix one page with an accent, but in the course of fixing other typos or making other edits, I guess I'm inclined to. I also envision that I may add a citation and correct the accent without even thinking about it. I think it looks cleaner, it is the correct English word, and it's what the author generally means—unless the title is in Japanese, which I have surmised from examples doesn't use the accent. But since it does seem a minor point, I won't worry too much about the titles; it's probably easier for me not to fix them since they often have URLs containing "pokemon" that AWB tries to fix. —Ost (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A little while back when I corrected the "é"s throughout Category:Pokémon, I intentionally left all the ref titles intact per a discussion I had with Artichoker several months ago. But I think they should be corrected because there's no reason to keep the misspelling intact. -sesuPRIME 01:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to working on correcting the articles outside of and I had originally ignored links and templates, mostly to avoid the suggested edits to urls. I was now taking the time to search the links, too. I didn't notice any resistance until Farix protested about Anime and Editing of anime in American distribution. I tried discussing the trivial spellings point but there has been no response to my last post. I figured it best to get some other opinions and ignore citation titles on general anime pages until there was some consensus. —Ost (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Farix is correct; I'm not sure if there is any Wikipedia policy that really touches the matter, but when referencing for papers it's generally considered more appropriate to leave the title as is, regardless of spelling or grammatical errors. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I could get behind adding [sic] though. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Red and Ash revisited

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

"TIME: The main human guy is named Satoshi. That's your name. Is he your alter ego?

Tajiri: Basically, he's me when I was a kid."

"TIME: His main rival is named Shigeru. That's the first name of Miyamoto, the famous game designer at Nintendo who did Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros. Do you consider him your rival?

Tajiri: No! I really look up to Miyamoto-san. In the TV series, Shigeru is Satoshi's master. In the game, they are rivals. Shigeru is always a little bit ahead of Satoshi."

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

Unfortunately, I'd say not. That's basically reading between the lines of a translated version of what Tajiri said. The bit you bolded does imply they're the same characters, but it's a realistic possibility that the original Japanese wording had no such implication. -sesuPRIME 05:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That'd be kinda a stretch to say in itself though, given that a) well, this is Time magazine we're talking about, with this being a web version of the printed article and b) there's no indication anything was translated to begin with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen these kinds of interviews carry any such indication when they were translated. I know that Shigeru Miyamoto responds in Japanese even when interviewed by someone speaking English, but never in a printed Miyamoto interview have I seen a notice it was translated.
Anyway, I've always thought Ash and Red are the same character similarly to how, say, the comic book version of Wolverine and the film version of Wolverine are the same; two iterations of the same character adapted for the multiple series canons. I'm just saying it's a bit of a stretch to say the quote you provided proves this. -sesuPRIME 06:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's kinda OR to say "the translation might be off", especially considering the source (and not to mention it was fine for his statements on Mew and elsewhere on wikipedia...what's good for the goose should be good for the gander no?). Plus again, we've got nothing saying the opposite, that they're two separate entities. But it seems like we're in agreement on the grounds that they be treated as one entity from what I understood you say above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're essentially the same characters. -sesuPRIME 10:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bulby

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

I left a comment on your talk page, I know Dream Focus is going to do his gung-ho trick but it might solve all issues relating to this to see just how much we really have to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's deleted again. Hard to say without being able to see it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the article still exists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. If you wish to still try and make it notable then do it there, and contact us when you think you have something. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That one is already notable, although I guess you don't want to hear it. I just checked the RS noticeboard revision history, and I'm the sixth editor on it. I'm not someone who doesn't know their RSs. There was a newer one that had three non-trivial sources. I don't feel like recreating it, though. You got any admins around here to make that page the newest one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Bulbasaur - to redirect or not?

---

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

---

Discussion

• If nothing else, the current article is an absolutely shining example of how to dress an article with perennial non-notability allegations as credible: the awesome use of this reference with a straight face, for instance, is a worthy tribute to the original piece (itself a masterful parody of its own genre). Strip away the primary/non-independent sources and there's not a great deal of substantial material there, at least insomuch as it pertains directly to Bulbasaur rather than trivially mentioning it while addressing more Pokémon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• So leave that reference out. It still has two reliable, independant, non-trivial sources.[1][2] Does that please people, and we can now restore it? Or is the real argument "I feel it should be redirected regardless of its notability". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Out of all the references Peregrine Fisher has tossed up (and I seriously can't believe UGO taking a gander at a Spore creature was proposed by him as a source of reception...seriously dude?), the IGN reference is the one I agree with, but even then there's not enough to satisfy significant coverage. And this is coming from someone that would love to see articles on the original 151+1 climb from their graves on that character list and be represented as full articles here, but there isn't enough third party coverage. Hell, we can clearly say Mr. Mime's got better luck coming back as a full article as he has very clear reception, and two more still to add for 1UP.com. But Bulbasaur? It's too weak, I'm sorry but the material just is not there yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, I truly dislike the implication that people are willfully blocking this article out of personal distaste. Remember that an article is supposed to be based upon independent sources. This article most clearly is not. I'm not sure where the consensus came from that ign.com conveys notability, but the page you refer to is listed as being a "user resource", and invites uploads. Isn't that basically a user-uploaded page? If so, even if ign.com counts as a source of notability, that reference doesn't. The ndsmobserver.com reference does count, but it doesn't say much of anything useful: Bulbasaur is a starter with a bulb on it's back. That fits nicely into the "List of ..." article. The entry in the list nicely represents the material found in independent sources, and there isn't enough independent coverage to justify an enormous article based on primary sources.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • IGN is definitely considered a reliable source, except for their forums/boards and user generated content. I don't believe that "bio" is user generated, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Black Kite has once again destroyed an article, without it going through a proper AFD. There is no history on the article page, just a redirect. This page was a former featured article! It had been around for years, about a very notable fictional character. If you don't think an article should exist, you send it to AFD properly, you don't ignore the process entirely and just eliminated it outright. Dream Focus 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Um...the history was merged with the subpage. It's not "deleted".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• As I have said a million times before... The article is not gone. All the history and everything is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur. Also, just as we have deleted the article with no AFD, you people have been reviving it with no discussion. If you think the article now satisfies notability requirements, then just tell us. Always say on the talkpage of an article or somewhere what you are doing if you are making a major change that consensus might disagree with. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't where it should be, there nothing there but a redirect.Bulbasaur Therefor, its gone. How do you expect people to find it when you hidden it away? You can not eliminate an article, simply because you decided you didn't want it there. You have to send it to an AFD and do it properly. It was good enough to be a featured article once. Dream Focus 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• You aren't listening. Even though Bulbasaur is a nice article, it isn't notable enough to be an article. Once just a thing or two pops up, then it might pass. There just isn't enough right now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you believe that, you may send it to an AFD, and we'll discuss it there. I believe most people will say Keep, and it will be kept, as it has been for years now. Dream Focus 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It has been merged, so it cannot be put up for deletion. It could easily stay within the mainspace, but people keep bringing it back without even trying to assert notability for it (or halfheartedly trying). This is the best alternative to avoid constant edit warring. And really, doesn't it seem sort of odd to be arguing against people who spent time getting a video game glitch related to the series to FA status? They're certainly not going to try to hide this away because they don't like it. It just doesn't assert notability at this time. TTN (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't merged, it was deleted. You can't just ignore the AFD policy, simply because you are afraid of the results being against what you want. You thought other articles should be deleted previously, but in the AFD you don't always get your way. Dream Focus 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it has been merged before, so even if you believe that moving it to the projectspace is deleting it, it still cannot be put up for deletion per the GDFL. Thus, this discussion will have to do. TTN (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Since it has not been deleted (the merged version is here), AfD is irrelevant. AfD is for discussion of article deletions. No-one is suggesting deleting this article. Black Kite 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mewtwo up for GAN

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

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

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

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

Pokemon names

How should they be introduced in the lists?

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

Some list entries are listed as

• Piplup, Pochama (ポッチャマ, Pochama) in original Japanese language versions

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

• • Piplup has the right idea. Basically you shouldn't use the English name in {{nihongo}} if its heavily different from the Japanese version, like how Jigglypuff is to Purin.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You lost me... I am just wondering how I should put the name entries in the lists. Usualy I shorten it to something like this _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Piplup (ポッチャマ, Pochama)

What I mean is do this:

• Piplup, known in Japan as Pochama (ポッチャマ, Pochama)

That's generally the best way to do it in situations like this. If it's a similar name (Pikachu, Mewtwo) leave it be, but if it's different like that one, Charizard or Jigglypuff, go ahead and do it like the example I gave. Make sense?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Pochama" isn't a very good transcription of ポッチャマ. "Pochama" would be "ポチャマ". "Potchama" or "Pottyama" would become ポッチャマ. Google tends to favor "Pochama", but a quick scan tells me that a big reason for that is people copying Wikipedia's spelling.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Only the English name should be bold per MOS:BOLDTITLE; "do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology." -sesuPRIME 05:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mime

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

Nice, but what's up with the picture? It's a red link. Mokoniki | talk 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its not a real article yet. It shouldn't have a picture. non-free images cant be used in Project space or User space articles. By the way, the old article of Mr. Mime has some interesting information that would be great if it could be sourced. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I found another place that has the same information, but I don't think it could count as a reliable source. http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/mr/mr._mime.htm Mokoniki | talk 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just a wiki that copies articles from Wikipedia. I dont even know why those exist :/ _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. Mokoniki | talk 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically they're mirrors of wikipedia, meant to be backups. I'll add two more references there in a bit both from 1UP, should give us enough to split the reception paragraph into two. Its no Jynx, but we should be alright to roll with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

"Concept and Creation" has nothing on it's creation. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We could rename it to "Concept and Characteristics" until we find development info. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Concept" shouldn't really be in their either, since there's no information about it's original concept after the first sentence. Just "Characteristics" is probably best. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I remember what its called now. "Design and Characteristics". The first few sentences is the design(what it looks like), and the rest is the characteristics(what it does). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Conception and design" is generally what I use in cases like this. Btw Blake, we should have enough sources for that Abra/Kadabra/Alakazam article I mentioned above, just have to finish up the reception. Mime's good to go in that regard now at least--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I put out the article. Should I start working on an Abra evolutionary line article, or work on the lists. (I have an urge to do the Eeveelutions.) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to deleting project articles.

• Jynx evolutionary line - Made ages ago. Will never ever be used
• Pokémon Pinball - Failed article merge.
• Shroomish evolutionary line - Epic fail much?

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

Sure, you may as well delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Charmander evolution line and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Squirtle evolution line too, as those will never get created. Theleftorium 15:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they could be used in the future if we ever get the concept right to use them. Also I made the Squirtle line article so I could make it and then put it in User:Bws2cool/Starter Pokémon. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists of forty

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

It could be a problem with some depending on exposure in the anime and manga series.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused by the wording of that comment. Do you mean that you think it would be hard to keep the combined articles at a reasonable size due to the anime and manga information? TTN (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 1-20 list is 76kb and has 92 refs. I don't think doubling that would be too big of a deal. It just wouldn't be very necessary. Do you want to do this to make more legs to stand on? So it will be easier to revert vandalism? What? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That one can easily be cut down by a ton. The unnecessarily large plot summaries can be condensed, the gameguide information can be cut, the section on Charizard can be reduced to a couple of sentences, and other minor things can be tweaked. It can allow them to become more focused, it would help with upkeep as you said, and in general, the less articles, the better. TTN (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@TTN: Pretty much my concern (sorry I'm at work and having to dash in and out).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As with my above comment, most of the plot information is currently very unwieldy, so after being trimmed, I can't imagine that it would be a problem. The only things that need to be noted are the general origin, role, and any personality quirks. The rest of the specifics can easily be forgotten. TTN (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose some of it does need to be cut such as Butterfree. I tried to summarized them as much as I could, but its hard. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just cant imagine the mess this will make. Merging the talkpages, fixing links, etc. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The bots that deal with double redirects would take care of fixing the links. Other than that, the only thing that would need to be decided is if both pages would be merged and redirected to a new article or if one of them would simply be renamed. TTN (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If we do do this, going to suggest splitting them up by generation. That's going to make it a *lot* easier to get the original 151+1 to a Featured Topic, since in order to make a FT currently with what we have, we'd have to get every sublist to GA or higher...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying make this?

• List of Pokémon (1–40), List of Pokémon (41–80), List of Pokémon (81–120), and List of Pokémon (121–151)(31/40)
• List of Pokémon (152–191), List of Pokémon (192–231), and List of Pokémon (232–251)(20/40)
• List of Pokémon (252–291), List of Pokémon (292–331), List of Pokémon (332–371), and List of Pokémon (372–386)(15/40)
• List of Pokémon (387–426), List of Pokémon (427–466), and List of Pokémon (467–493)(25/40)

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

The first example would work best, the latter might confuse a casual reader unfamiliar with Pokemon or video games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I was here when all the Pokemon had their own articles... Anyways... I think moving one page, then merging the other would do best. Then there would only be one article to history merge, instead of two. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. And for the record I wish a lot more of them were talked about, especially from the originals. We're basically stuck on a "waiting game" for most of them to get enough sources to satisfy notability. What I wonder sometimes if instead of the article routes you had going, if we should have a master page to collect reception on, kinda like what I do with my sandbox page. Would allow us to pool resources better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do it that way, we may as well try to fit as many within each list as possible. I don't know if it would look good, but I imagine the fourth generation could probably fit into one list if done correctly. TTN (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

They would fit, but it would look horrible and would be hard to navigate. I already think 40 is a little too much. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a similar mass reorganization of the lists back in May, and everyone seemed pretty enthusiastic about it, but it didn't end up happening. My idea would have condensed the 25 lists into 9 or 10 with approximately 50 Pokémon per list. My only real concern with this plan is the file size of the merged lists. -sesuPRIME 06:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/ReceptionArchive

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

So, is this the reception from every Pokemon without an article? I like it. I might be able to help. I think the ones that are in only one "Top # ugly Pokemon" shouldn't be included though. Only if it is multiple places that have done it. Know what I mean?_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well keep in mind Blake that they're building blocks: every little bit helps. Take Koffing for example. While it currently just has that, I've got a bit from InsertCredit to cite also praising the character. Some will ultimately go nowhere of course but it at least gives an attempt.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying if one person thinks they are ugly, then it is bound that others will as well? I suppose. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Something like that. I'm saying basically reception shows the subject was discussed and how people reacted to it. One editor might find it gross, but another might praise it, like with Mr. Mime above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am finding alot of Development info in the sections as well. Such as in Dragonite, Pichu, and Sudowoodo. Should we put that in there as well? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt to, Meowth more or less makes it clear there's a distinction in there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon

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

How much reception is enough?

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

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

And from what I can tell only the R/B and D/P Pokemon have any reception from GamesRadar's articles, which sucks a little but can still assist in some cases.

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

• Koffing, Lucario, Meowth, Psyduck, Snorlax

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

Sounds good. I am too surprised Koffing has that much reception as well. So is the standard now "At least 3 different reliable sources talking clearly about the subject" equals separate article? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality of the discussion plays a big part too. It's kinda a case that after writing the reception you can look at it and go "if I knew nothing about video games, would this inform me this character is important in a real-world aspect?" If you can at least develop a moderately-large paragraph and add some development info in there to boot it should work. But I wouldn't base this on a number. If anything look at the ones we have out already as a guide.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• Template:NA-classicon Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam
• Template:B-classicon Charizard
• Template:C-classicon Jynx
• Template:B-classicon Jigglypuff
• Template:NA-classicon Koffing and Weezing
• Template:NA-classicon Lucario
• Template:C-classicon Mr. Mime
• Template:NA-classicon Meowth
• Template:GAN-icon Mewtwo
• Mew (Pokémon)
• Template:FA-icon MissingNo.
• Pikachu
• Template:NA-classicon Snorlax

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

I've got to say, I'm astounded that nothing has been found on Porygon given the scale of the controversy it was in. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too, even IGN mentions it briefly. From what I can tell the episode itself ended up getting most of the notability, probably since it wasn't Porygon that was responsible directly for the controversy (unlike Jynx or Kadabra/Alakazam, whose appearance sparked theirs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of DP/RS ones, I'd say Deoxys and Manaphy are the only other ones that may have a chance, due to the "mystery" of them, and also, Deoxys was given away at a NASA thingy. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so here are the articles getting made, and where they are being built.

• Template:NA-classicon Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Haunter (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Koffing and Weezing (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Lucario (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Meowth (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Psyduck (built here)
• Template:NA-classicon Snorlax (built here)

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

Actually both the GamesRadar and book references cover both Koffing and Weezing, so it seemed better to cover the two (especially since both the anime and electric tale of pikachu Koffing evolved into Weezing and remained as prominent for the remainder, no?).

As for Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam vs. Abra evolutionary line, I think that'll be simpler for readers not familiar with Pokemon but familiar a little with the characters: we have to remember that folks won't know what "evolution" means in this context and it might readily confuse them. Having the three like that seems easier for folks to work with. Also, I think we should be fine putting that one out there now: Mewtwo's GAN is still up in the air, but I think it'll pass.

Other than that, Haunter's more a personal project for now: I've got one more source for reception I know about to dig up (which compared Haunter's design to those of a few digimon, calling it superior) but I think we'll still need a bit more before I can safely say "this baby's good to go". It's just a matter of time there at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I suppose "Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam" could also help familiarize their names with the magic words. Also, yep once I put Haunter on there, I realized I would have to add Magikarp, Gyarados, and a few others with it... I would remove it, but then people would wonder what we are talking about. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple Wiki

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

I actually didn't do that article, just corrected it a tiny bit. I'm not too wild about the simply wiki as they're not really congealed yet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yah, their system is a little bit un-coordinated. I posted a message there saying pretty much what I said here. That alot of species have reception and can have articles there. I dont think anybody edits Pokémon articles there, though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

May and Dawn

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

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's not a valid argument. Also this was an abuse of WP:TWINKLE. Artichoker^[talk] 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Brock and Misty have critical reception which provides notability; May and Dawn do not. The only thing in their articles is cruft, and this is not what makes an article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF; however, when two articles are about essentially the same topic, the same standard must be applied to both articles (or, in this case, all three). ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The same standard is applied. May and Dawn do not have critical discussion, whereas Misty does. That's all there is to it. Oh, and this was a disruptive WP:POINT violation. Artichoker^[talk] 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because since they are all protagonists in the same series, either they all deserve articles or none of them deserve articles. ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the way Wikipedia works, and if you can't acclimate to its policies, perhaps you should go over to [3]. Artichoker^[talk] 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my comment above; that's the reason, pure and simple. Your argument does not have merit. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The only paragraph on Misty (Pokémon) which has external sources is the last paragraph; the rest is just cruft and must be removed. However, there isn't enough for a full article then so it must be merged. ----J4\/4 <talk> 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, no... There is a whole reception section as well as a design section. The rest is permitted to provide context to the character within its universe. And now you are being purely disruptive. Stop the editwarring or you will be blocked. Artichoker^[talk] 19:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is about as ridiculous as arguing "all Pokemon articles should be merged because they're not all here". Should we merge Mario simply because all Mario characters don't have their own articles? Yeah I think not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:J4V4 has been reported for edit-warring. Let the admins handle this now. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

I like it!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the image has already been in existence, and I found it on Minun's userpage. Setting up the template pages was the hardest part :P.

So just put {{subst:Barnstar Pokémon|Your text saying why Barnstar was awarded}} onto someones page to use it! _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 12:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)