Talk:Bulbasaur

This article has had two peer reviews which have now been archived (2). They may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

NOTE:Please add new topics to the bottom. Thank you.

Random Help

I moved the following from the main page to here:

For more information:

Bulbasaur Pokedex Entry

Pokemon Information

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. -- Zoe

You're right, and I'm working on the rest of the article texts. For now, though, these DO provide the info... AnnieKat

There, first of 151+... AnnieKat

---

If you need more information, pop into this Pokemon's Talk page. - what does this mean? -- Zoe

Heh, I'll link it to this. Since you've stuck the links in here...

Ru/Sa is coming out soon. New Pokefreaks will arise. And perhaps they'll wish to know about pooor Bulbie.

---

Anyone want to help out with developing a standard entry format for Pokemon (like the standard formats for countries, chemical elements, species and the like)? I've converted the Bulbasaur page to a first attempt, but it's a "written at 4:30am" kind of attempt, really, and needs work. ^_~ -- Schnee 02:36, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I don't think it looks good that there are 2 Biology sections. Newguineafan 22:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe a paragraph about its abilities, techniques and attacks with a detailed description could be useful and cool for both the Fan and the non-Fan. 212.98.150.6 13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Names in other languages

It would be interesting if someone adds in this article all the language variations of "Bulbasaur" (German, Korean...). First, few languages have their own names of pokemons, and second, many articles about anime characters include names in other languages (see The Smurfs). CG 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We've got German, French and Japanese... --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the explanation for the german name is missing. Along with the Korean name which you can find it here. CG 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic!! I've just done the German name origin. NP Chilla 11:19, 17 January 2006

Template:Spoken Article

The infobox for signalling that this is a spoken article should be at the top. It's pretty pointless for a blind guy to use a speech synthesizer all the way to the end before finding out theres a recording. I'm not too sure where to put it though, without weirding out the layout. I'll leave this to other guys. - Hahnchen 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - I saw that too. Is there a way of putting it right of the TOC? --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is. Make a table with two horizontal cells. Put __TOC__ in the left one and {{Spoken Wikipedia|Bulbasaur.ogg|2005-12-25}} in the right one.SoothingR 09:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So User:ALoan has moved the spoken article back to the bottom because of whitespace in IE. Is that where it's going to stay? - Hahnchen 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather it was at the top. What do others think? --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules as to the spoken box's location are pretty vague--personally I think they should always be at the top of an article (they require a lot of work, and are way more important than "Links and References"). I'd say put it at the top, but being a featured article candidate, it may be best to leave it just to be sure the article looks the best it can :). -WAZAAAA 01:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do the French and German names keep disappearing to?

How come this is the only Pokemon page without German and French names at the beginning of it? I have tried to put them on at various moments, but they keep vanishing. Why is this? NP Chilla 09:11, 1 February 2006

I suggest you add them in a "Bulbasaur in other languages" section at the bottom ofthe article. CG 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They were removed through a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur. Please comment there if you disagree. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It was argued that names in other languages aren't important information. That's why they shouldn't be put in the intro of the article. But many anime characters have an "in other languages" section (see The Smurfs). CG 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Smurfs are animated, surely, but whatever “anime” is, exactly, I don’t think they’re it. :-P -- WikidSmaht (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is absolutley inconsistent: every single Pokémon has German and French names following its Japanese name, but Bulbasaur is the only one that doesn't. Why is this? NP Chilla 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's the other articles that have a problem - Japanese and English are almost exclusively the names used for Pokemon as they are created in Japan and widely marketed in the US, and this is the English Wikipedia, not German or French. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But why does this one have to be different? This is the only creature out of 395 that has its Deutsch and Français names at the end of the article; whilst all other monsters have theirs at the beginning, where it catches the attention of a browser. (And, let's not forget, it's not a featured article candidate anymore, so it doesn't have to be different anyway.) NP Chilla 20:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, yes it is.--Celestianpower ^háblame 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: change the other ones if there's a problem with this one being different. —Cuiviénen, 14:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the French/Korean/German names from the three Kanto starters and their evolutions. I'm going in order based on the National Pokedex, so this may take a long time. AceticAcid 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By the end of August all Pkemon articles will have their French and German names added at the front of the article. From Wikipedia: Pokemon Adoption Center/ Style -- This should say that the Pokémon is a fictional character from the Pokémon franchise and what its name is in Japanese (and German and French, if possible). --71.193.71.50 16:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add the Frenchor German names to Pokémon articles, they aren't important. English is our language, and japanese is their original name, French and German have little impact. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Twiddly points

Isn't it usual to use "straight" quotes rather than “curly” ones? And shouldn;t the footnotes appear after the puntuation, not before? And finally, can someone convert to the <ref> style (see m:Cite/Cite.php)? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALoan (talk • contribs) .

Either is acceptable according to the Manual of Style. I think the curved typographical quotes look more professional, especially in a Featured Article candidate, which, as some of the best work Wikipedia has to offer, may someday make it into print in Wikipedia: 1.0. Most articles use straight marks, but that’s likely just because few contributors want to make the effort.

If you don’t like the footnotes, check the Manual of Style and correct them, as for the citation parsers, I don’t know how to do that, if you do, maybe you could? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Typewriter, or "straight" quotes are by far more common, although there is no consensus on which version to use. Since there is no consensus, a mass conversion is improper unless there is consensus for that particular article to do so. Yes, the footnotes should appear after the punctuation. As for converting to <ref>, that needs to be agreed upon first. Pagrashtak 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ketchum

What’s with the change from “Ash” to “Ketchum”? I can see mixing them up for variety, but as his surname is little-used, it seems inappropriate to me, and frankly sounds a little ridiculous( my opinion). Is there something in the Manual of Style that states a preference for surname even when a person or fictional character is almost exclusively called by his given name? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - "Ketchum" is rarely mentioned - "Ash" is used almost exclusively. Could we change it back? --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Computer worm

If a reference can be found, this would be a good indication of Bulbasaur’s cultural impact, and should be restored. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Google →Symantec:

VBS.Saur.A
... 
Also Known As:  Bulbasaur
Type:  Worm 
...
Number of infections: 0 - 49 
Number of sites: 0 - 2 
Geographical distribution: Low 
Threat containment: Easy 
Removal: Easy 
...
...the worm copies itself to <Windows>\bulbasaur.bat.
Then, the worm creates and executes <Windows>\Bulbasaur.vbs
using a temporary file calld BulBasaur1.vbs...

HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone should restore that, then. Perhaps I will. Or not. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait. A virus with less than 50 reported infections distributed over 2 or less sites? That's waaaaaaaaay below what's worth mentioning even in passing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No Japanese article

Amazingly, this article is a featured article in English but appears to be completely non-existent in the Japanese Wikipedia. Any fellow Japanese speakers care to double-check? I did a brief run through the Japanese version and couldn't find anything under フシギダネ or any other name. Alexthe5th 11:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Japanese Wikipedia has all its Pokemon articles in one great long list; [1]. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 13:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Anime

Can someone cite DVDs or episodes with production numbers, instead of or in addition to the Serebii.net episode guide? I think it is extremely inappropriate for a Featured Article to use a fan site( even a high-quality one like that) as the only source for some of its info. By adding the DVD info, we can cite the episodes themselves as primary sources, and get around that. In addition, the episode summaries, while accurate, are TERRIBLY written, I believe by a non-native speaker of English. I consider the site quality because of its scope and accuracy, but the English is often quite poor. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to go through the articles to find the relevant episodes as references. However I only have part of the first season as the DVDs weren't made available this side of the Atlantic. --

OverlordKain (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They’re listed at the bottom in the notes section, just commented out. Go to the editing page and scroll way down. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article

The quality of the spoken article is VERY VERY bad, with some changes of volume very depleasant. It is almost unlistenable (or more precisily, unundersatndable for a French!)!

I recorded it and yes it is bad: it was my first ever one. I hope to rerecord at some point but don't hold you're breath ;) --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you do, keep in mind that you can’t pronounce Japanese words as though they’re English. Fushigidane, for instance, is more like “foo-shee-gee-dah-nay”( hard g, not sure where to put the stress, but I usually stress the penultimate syllable, as that’s a pretty common stress pattern in the Japanese language). You also nelected to update the file information and the template when you re-recorded it. I fixed it in the article, you might want to tackle the file details. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hadn’t listened to it before today, but yes, the volume thing is a problem, among others. I’ve been meaning to record it myself for a while actually, since it’s changed so radically. It needs it even more now that it’s featured, but I haven’t had access to a computer with a mic. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The fact that it's the first Pokémon in the Pokédexes is mentioned in the infobox.

The translated names aren't really relevant, and it was decided during the FA candidacy to remove them. I feel they're unencyclopedic, and typically, similar articles about other fictional characters don't have this information.

The worm...I dunno. Mention it in the intro or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the first count.

The names are in many articles, about many different subjects. Perhaps in this case we could have a "The name Bulbasaur" section, like here (sorry, first one that popped into my head.

We could do that, but articles are always being criticised for introducing comething in the lead which is never mentioned afterwards. And what about the name origin? --Celestianpower ^háblame 07:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Line

This line has been bothering me for a while now:

During the grass field battle of the Indigo League tournament, a battle competition that takes place on the Indigo Plateau, Ash’s Bulbasaur defeated two of the opponent’s three Pokémon on its own (a Beedrill and a Scyther), despite little fighting experience as a part of Ash’s team.

I don't understand the last part. Bulbasaur was part of Ash's team for the majority of the first season. If anything, the victories were notable in that Bulbasaur defeated two Pokemon in a row whom he had a type disadvantage against (Bug is strong against Grass). Anyway, I would be bold and change it, but since this is a FA now, I wanted to see if there were any objections first. Acetic Acid 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what it means( how I read it, anyway,) is that Ash didn’t use it in battles very often before the League competition. Though for that matter, Beedrill’s other type is Poison, and Scyther’s is Flying, so they Both had a double advantage! Unless Poison is resistant to Poison... hmm... I think it is, actually... -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It is, partially. In the games, a poison attack like Poison Sting is not very effective on Bulbasaur. He still did use Bulbasaur a bit though. Bulbasaur fought Tangela for the Rainbow Badge, despite losing. Didn't it fight Ditto, too? And then that Rhyhorn, in the episode where it almost evolved. And Venonat, which it beat (again, a type disadvantage). AceticAcid 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In the original Red/Blue/Yellow series of games, Bulbasaur was strong against Poison attacks because it was part Poison itself- this took precedence over Grass's weakness. After Pokemon Stadium and in all subsequent games, the two multipliers simply cancel each other out- Grass type makes the Poison attack twice as effective, Poison type makes the Poison attack half as effective, so the net effect on the attack's strength is zero. The same applies if you use Bug type, since the same weaknesses and strengths apply. Also, as a long term player of the game, I can tell you right now that a Bulbasaur beating a Beedrill, Venonat or Rhyhorn is nothing special- the first two are rather ineffective as offensive players and don't have any moves which are super effective against Bulbasaur, apart from Venonat's Psychic-type moves, which they never use in the anime(IIRC), and Rhyhorn has a double weakness against Grass types, making them four time as effective, and low Special stat/Special Defence Stat, depending on generation. Scyther also has a very sparse movepool that's actually strong against Bulbasaur- Wing Attack is the only one is learns naturally, IIRC, and it doesn't do much good, considering Bulbasaur's respectable Physical Defence stat, and the low base attack of Wing Attack(60, boosted to 90 by STAB)- and this is all academic anyway if that Scyther didn't use it. Scyther also had a *BEEP*ing atrocious Special Stat in the original games, meaning it's resistance, which meant half instead of quarter damage in that generation, was cancelled out, so Bulbasaur didn't really have a net type disadvantage against Scyther in that generation. Anyway, as far as low battle experience goes, maybe Ash had Exp All, or that Rhydon was very high level- I can see Bulbasaur being able to beat a Rhydon that was 15 or 20 levels above it, since it would be a OHKO if the Rhyhorn first attack missed or was just plain rubbish. Also, we don't know how much experience Bulbasaur had before joining Ash's team, and starter Pokemon are always have higher base stats than regular Pokemon, anyway. Signed, Anonymous, who is Legion

Removing of "da ne" interpretation

So...CelestianPower, was it? o.o Why was that removed? And even more strange, why did you edit my corrections to the template:nihongo, which was used incorrectly on every count? urutapu 00:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Because you'd removed the {{nihongo}} completely. Plus, I don't see the characters for "da" or "ne" in the Japanese name for Bulbasaur. Therefore, I thought that it was vandalism. If I was wrong, sorry, but we get a lot of vandalism here - and this is a featured article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 07:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

...I used hiragana as opposed to katakana for the interpretation of "da" and "ne" because katakana are like..never used in that case. And every single template:nihongo was incorrect before I came along.

I'll show them so you can compare...hiragana on left, katakana on right.

だ da → ダ da

ね ne → ネ ne

urutapu 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's rarely used then why would it be used in the name of Bulbasaur?

If they're badly formatted then could you fix them? They didn't look bad to me - they did the job. Don't just remove them please. --Celestianpower ^háblame 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's part of a name. It's difficult to explain--I'd recommend giving the katakana article a good once-over, and any other Japanese language articles that might help. urutapu 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - okay. But bear in mind that many other non-Japanese people mihgt have the same queries. As to the nihongo templates, thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiny Bulbasaur

The Italian version of this page has an image of a shiny Bulbasaur. Could this image either go here or shiny Pokémon? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiny Pokémon is more relevant. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

I just did a copy edit of the article, so please don't revert it without reading this. Generally, what I fixed was the pluralization of the article, Bulbasaur are a species, so from the intro until the end of the videogames should refer to Bulbasaur as a species (from anime downwards, it refers to individual Bulbasaur). Other things fixed are linking, I tried to cleanup the intro, it was a tip. Thank you for reading and harmonious editting, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. People say "tyrannosaurs" when they talk about species. Why doesn't the article use "Bulbasaurs?" --Kjoonlee 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the plural and the singular are the same thing, One Snorlax, Two Snorlax. Red Snorlax, Blue Snorlax. Highway ^Batman! 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why are the plural and the singular the same with Bulbasaur? "One tyrannosaur, two tyrannosaurs. Tall tyrannosaurs, small tyrannosaurs." --Kjoonlee 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And why do we need to refer to it as a species, when it's much simpler to just treat it as a common noun? "One dog, two dogs, red dogs, blue dogs." Treating it as a species just seems to be an artificial distinction. --Kjoonlee 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's like "fish" and "sheep", that is how the grammar works. We are treating it like a proper noun and a common noun, because we are referring to Pokémon called Bulbasaur, and the Bulbasaur. Highway ^Batman! 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And who thought of that? Is it supported by actual use? I think not. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see the games, Nintendo, the anime, the manga and Satoshi Tajiri. It is supported by actual use. I suggest that you stop arguing now, you are not going to change the way we pluralize because you don't agree with the actual system. Highway ^Batman! 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a nasty way of saying things. I suggest you be nicer in the future. If it *is* supported by actual use, then I'll stop. --Kjoonlee 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've been going on, and frankly, I've been dealing with scores of editors who think they have a PhD in Pokémon grammar. You just have to think about it, have you heard Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaurs"? Sorry. Highway ^Batman! 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and you have to understand this: probably all of those people have no experience with Pokémon . I know I don't.

Normal rules of English grammar, and similar words (such as tyrannosaur) suggest "Bulbasaurs" is the "acceptable" plural. If you don't want people changing it back, you might want to mention it in the article instead of including it in the talk pages. --Kjoonlee 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But one more thing: How many times did Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaur" when they met more than two one of them at the same time? --Kjoonlee 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall an episode set in a Bulbasaur ranch. I could be thinking of a different Pokémon, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you check it, to be sure, please? If the answer to my earlier question is either "zero," or "not available — they've only met single bulbasaur Pokémons," then I strongly disagree with the use of Bulbasaur as an uninflected plural. --Kjoonlee 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact the plural of Pokémon is Pokémon. I'm sure someone who feels more strongly about this than I do will be along to confirm or deny my claim about Bulbasaur, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bulbasaur's Mysterious Garden"? The episode that contained the mass evolution ritual, where dozens of Ivysaur and Bulbasaur evolved into their next forms together? I think it's no 51, not sure though. But they never said "Bulbasaurs" in it. Highway ^Batman! 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode guide here]. Highway ^Batman! 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Pokémon names are like this because a lot of the names (Pikachu, Ariados and so on) use names taken directly from Japanese, which has no plural (フシギダネ could mean Bulbasaur or Bulbasaurs). The in-game Pokédexes definitely don't use "Pokémons" or "Bulbasaurs"; Clefairy's entry reads "On every night of a full moon, groups of this POKéMON come out to play. When dawn arrives, the tired CLEFAIRY return to their quiet mountain retreats and go to sleep nestled up against each other". Not tired Clefairies; tired Clefairy. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Portmanteau?

I can see how the word Bulbasaur would be a portmanteau if it were a combination of bulb and dinosaur, but if it's merely a fusion of the words bulb and sauros, how is this a genuine portmanteau? By the same logic, Dinosaur, derived from combining the words dinos ("terrible") and saura ("lizard"), is a portmanteau. Heck, almost every scientific word is a portmanteau by that definition. I think you've either got the name's etymology wrong, or this is a classic case of misapplying fun terminology like portmanteau through arbitrary overuse. -Silence, 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Page Editing

I am a user who mostly uses wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I don't fully understand how it works and I only contribute through grammatical corrections! However, I was under the impression that Main Page Featured articles were locked, this is why it surprised me when I clicked on the bulbasaur link from the page page at about 01:20 on 28th July to find that the contents of the article had been deleted and all that was left was a hugely offensive message. I would just like to know how this happened - surely it is possible to avoid this kind of thing, as it could cause a hugely damaging media-storm! Madmatt52 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles most certainly aren't locked as a rule. As for a "media-storm" because of some transient vandalism, Wikipedia would long ago have sunk without trace if such things were possible. As you get to know Wikipedia more you'll learn that vandalism is a common problem that we just live with. Revert the page and get on with your life is my advice. 86.136.2.158 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of the little bastards

The front page currently says there are 401 pokemon while the article says 403. No idea which is correct. --72.224.4.179 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, 403 appears to be the correct number. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

You have got to be kidding me. --Mr. Blake 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is on the front page, then the quality of Wikipedia has REALLY declined...

I was so suprised too, I was like "bulbusaur!??".....

Any subject has a chance to become a featured article if it's written and well-sourced. I think it has passed the standards. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about time you changed the rules then because this is making the whole site look like a fucking joke! 86.136.2.158 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fine article that deserves its status. Your claim is an insult to the many editors who spent their time on it. --Merovingian - Talk 01:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, there is absolutely no way this article helps anybody at all. It's a waste of everyone's time and makes it look like Wikipedia caters to 13 year-olds addicted to anime. Were there no actual ENCYCLOPEDIA articles that could have been used? Omnislash 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That, in fact, is the glory of Wikipedia. By its very nature it caters to no one in particular (and anyone, in general), and therefore any subject, including Bulbasaur, is acceptable. --DanielNuyu 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of how well written it is, It's still a fucking joke. People are laughing at wikipedia right now.--Akaces23 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people are laughing at Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia where anyone can sumbit any level of bullshit and no one could ever know. --Macarion 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. --Merovingian - Talk 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...or rather, Wikipedia appeals to everyone. It's as good a resource for main stream things like World War 2 as it is for niche things like specific pokemon. Whether or not people ought to look it up is one thing, but people do look it up, regardless (just look at this pages history). If they didn't do so at Wikipedia, they'd do so elsewhere. So why not have it at Wikipedia?

Anyway, pursuant to that, I think all articles ought to be treated equally when being considered for the frontpage featured article of the day. To parade Wikipedia around as a more main-stream encyclopedia is to ignore one of the things that really makes Wikipedia stand out, imho. TerraFrost 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't think there is something mildly stupid about the fact that this article is longer and more than 10 times as many sources as most articles about important events in world history? Go compare this page with the one for the Battle of Hastings, for example and then tell me that the fact that this article is somehow not only more detailed but also FRONT PAGE MATERIAL is a strength of Wikipedia. I am anxious to hear your stirring defense of Bulbasaur. Omnislash 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an article on The Guardian a while ago that suggested that 1% of people who visit a website actually contribute. If that 1% amounts to more edits for Bulbasaur then it does for the Battle of Hastings then that means, quite simply, that more people are interested in Bulbasaur than they are in the Battle of Hastings. It might not be fair and it might not be right, but whomever said life was either of those two things?

Feel free to call it a problem with Wikipedia. I'd rather call it a problem with society, in general. It's for this same problem, imho, that people who watch the news would rather hear about the latest celebrity scandal than they would about something more relevant.

Also, I might add that the article on the Battle of Hastings mainly suffers because it covers something that is old. When something is current it is covered in such detail that it makes this Bulbasaur article look like nothing. Consider Category:2003_Iraq_conflict. Fifteen subcategories. Does that mean the 2003 Iraq conflict is one subcategory shy from being as important and as influential as that which Category:World_War_I documents? No. It means that old events are simply harder to write about then current events are. And Bulbasaur, like it or not, is more current than the Battle of Hastings. TerraFrost 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your response was a stirring defense of the principles of democracy and the spirit of Wikipedia and blah blah blah, but you completely avoided my question: Do you think that an article about Bulbasaur is worthy to be on the front page of Wikipedia? You blamed a lot of people: some magical 99% of "people who contribute", society, "people who watch the news" (as if that was some special class of people), etc etc. The fact of the matter is that when people visit Wikipedia - and I myself visit it at least once a day, on average - they are going to see a foolishly grinning cartoon animal whose entire genealogy has been mapped out in such detail that it would seem like teams of researchers have been giving it the attention you would give the human genome. Who the fuck does this help? How does this serve a single person? How did Wikipedia's front page become devoted to a flash-in-the-pan CHILDERN'S CARTOON SHOW to such an extent that it has members vociferously defending the right of "the people" to make it a feature article? I'll ask the question again: do you PERSONALLY think that this is worthy of such an honor? I know you can defend the process, now defend the results. And why, to address your red herring, isn't the Iraq conflict feature news? Surely it's more important than Bulbasaur. Besides, I think that the literally thousands of books on English history would make it just as easy to write about, as if that made a difference. Omnislash 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think the fact that this article is being featured on the frontpage demonstrates what Wikipedia really is. I think it demonstrates some of Wikipedia's strengths, but I guess you disagree. And if you don't like the fact that people can spend such time on childrens' cartoon shows, THEN LEAVE and go back to your online Encyclopedia Britanica's. You clearly disagree with how Wikipedia fundamentally works and are only get more and more frusterated with it. You can try, all you like, to get Wikipedia misrepresented on the frontpage, but as you delve deeper into it, you'll see what Wikipedia really is. So like I said, how about you save everyone the trouble, AND LEAVE.

And btw, you're wrong when you say my post was about the "principles of democracy and the spirit of Wikipedia". My point about how the number of people who edit an article is proportional to the number of people who read it, for instance, isn't some democratic principle - it's a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of how Wikipedia is run. Maybe you should go back and REREAD my post instead of throwing out RED HERRINGS. TerraFrost 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you say so little reveals what you are really saying (i.e., not a whole lot of substance). Go read http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 and then tell me that it doesn't contain some truth. The Bulbasaur page right now is even a picture of a gaping vagina, which also "demonstrates what Wikipedia really is", in case you cared. Your "love it or leave it" attitude is pretty unpleasant as well; I suppose you support deporting people who disagree with unpopular presidential decisions? Omnislash 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Only addressing half my response, I see. Are your points really that weak? Regarding your supposition that I'd support deporting people who disagree with unpopular presidential decissions - how hypocritical of you to accuse me of red herrings when YOU DO THEM YOURSELF. Just because I think you should leave doesn't mean that I would support you being forcefully removed. Similarily, if you really disagree with how the place your employed is run, I think you should leave, but I do not think you should be forced out. Atleast on that basis, alone. Leaving the country, unfortunately, is not quite as easy as any of the above. If it were and you disagreed with how the country was run, enough, yeah - I'd probably think you ought to leave. TerraFrost 06:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on; you edited your response. Expecting someone to frantically refresh the page to see where you corrected yourself is a bit weak and shows that you don't really have a point and are just arguing because you have nothing better to do. But, in any case, you didn't contradict a single thing I said; how is it not democracy when people's choice of article reflects their contributions? You made several appeals to society and so forth; that sounds like an appeal to the masses if I've ever seen one. Similarly, you didn't understand my analogy. I am not an "employee" of Wikipedia. I don't get paid, you don't get paid, no one gets paid. Cries of "If you don't like it then what's keeping you here?" are exactly the same thing that any partisan says when their allegiance is threatened. No one is telling you not to like Wikipedia as a resource, so why the hostility? I ca;;ed your red herring about the Iraq article a red herring because it was: it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

I can't help but notice you STILL haven't answered my original question. Omnislash 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your original question was "do you think this ought to be a featured article on the frontpage", which I have indeed answered. Yes, for reasons I've already elaborated upon and that you (apparently) think aren't relavent. So basically, you'd rather have me say "yes" or "no" without elaboration or justification, because any sort of elaboration I might do is off-topic? Yet the elaboration you do isn't? There's a word for that that I've mentioned before. Hypocracy. And given how much of it you have, I think I'm through participating in this debate (lest it even be called that). TerraFrost 07:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that you didn't even SAY a single thing before, like I said. All you did was blame "the people". But hey, good luck and more Pokemon to you. If you think Bulbasaur is such a valuable resource to humanity then no one should say any different. Shine on, you crazy diamond. Omnislash 07:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleh. I know I said I'd stop participating, but I also don't like being misrepresented.

So, for the record, I never said Bulbasaur was a valuable resource to humanity. Neither did I say that the main article on the frontpage had to be a valuable resource to humanity. TerraFrost 07:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Bulbasaur was an encyclopedia article! Also, what's wrong with being addicted to anime?  :) --Merovingian - Talk 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If any subject has the chance to be featured on the frontpage, what if we expand the article on Penis, or Nazism, or Depictions of Muhammad? In my opinion, I think although an article can achieve "Featured Status", it doesn't have to be featured on the front page. The front page is the face of the site. There should be special considerations for adult or offensive materials placed on the frontpage as one can't put a warning on the frontpage. I think we should separate featured articles from featured frontpage articles. And I do think Bulbasaur is a bit non-serious to be placed on the front page. --70.18.248.120 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored]. Any of those could be FA if they were written well enough. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, seriously? This is a well-written article. --Liface 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One, how does this relate to Bulbasaur? Two, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --Merovingian - Talk 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was going to be any Pokemon you would think it'd be Pikachu lol

This is in fact a notable decision. Many television episode articles now have this article as a defense, being that most can be sourced through the website, podcasts or interviews with creators and actors and merchandising guidebooks, much like the idea of a bulbasaur or whatever. This is also an example of the "rich, white, male and bored" bias of wikipedia.66.41.66.213 03:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon seeing this article featured, I was very pleasantly suprised! Very interesting! Way to go, Bulbasaur! Also, I find it ridiculous that people are saying this is ruining wikipedia's image. Wikipedia is not some obscure site. It's everyone's refence on the internet and millions of people are dependent on it. This article is of very high quality and I'm glad it's on the front page. Xioyux 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

same, I like it. Seriously, ask any average wikipedia user and they'll probably not even care about the featured article. I doubt mobs are outside right now protesting this. You people overthink this whole thing. It's a featured article, yeah, it isn't "ruining" the image of the encyclopedia, you know, where you get information and such. Seriously, I'd go as far as make a poll on all forums that I can and I'll bet you that most people would say something along the lines of "So?....". It isn't "ruining" anything. I could've never guessed that people could ACTUALLY get pissed off at a feature article. If you think the others don't have enough info, go on, you're registered (probably), go on and add something if you care so much.EAB 06:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad to see Bulbasaur on the front page. People worked hard to make it a great article and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around and listen to people say it is ruining Wikipedia's image. ANYONE can look up ANYTHING, regardless of what YOU think. Wikipedia isn't controlled by you, you whining little brats. Bulbasaur is a wonderful article and is deserving as a featured article. The fact is that it is a featured article, and unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing you can do about it. DEAL WITH IT AND GROW UP. Also, please stop cursing so much. There are other words you could use in place of "fucking" or "bullshit".

Pokemon on Wikipedia

I like the idea of having Pokemon featured on the main page on Wikipedia. Do you think more video game/video game characters could be featured in the future?

Perfect Dark was Wikipedia's featured article on May 12, 2006. This is not the first video game article to be featured, but one in a line of many. 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget about Final Fantasy X that was featured recently. 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's awesome! H2P 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's disturbing! :) Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here really cares that you think Bulbasaur is "disturbing". Jerk.

403 Pokemon?

To the best of my knowledge, there are only 386 pokemon, rather than 403. Either this article or the wikipedia page on pokemon is wrong. - Mr Awesomeness 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say one of the 403 known species of Pokemon? Pokemon is a man made thing, people know how many there are currently... --CrazyCasey 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It says there are 403 Pokémon because with the continuing information being released about Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, there is constant information relating to new Pokémon that is released to the public, and so far there have been 17 new Pokémon, sixteen of which have been named. For example, see Bonsly, Lucario, and Munchlax. Ryūlóng 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find the "403 known species" comment a bit odd, not because I dispute the number but because it implies that there 'exist' spicies of pokemon that no one knows about. Since Pokemon are fictional creatures they surely only 'exist' in that they have been invented by the shows creators, pokemon that are not known about even by the shows creators surely can't exist! That said I understand the point that the sentence is trying to make which is that within the fictional pokemon univerce there is a (fictional) posibility that more pokemon may be discovered.--JK the unwise 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Geez how are these featured articles chosen?! Bulbasaur of all things?! NSD Student 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)NSD Student

Quiet. Bulbasaur is a god among Pokemon. --Captain Cornflake 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, strange. Oh, and someone put "FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG" right in the midde of the artice, in the intro. Took it out.EAB 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I can't stand pokémon.They are strange but like I said, I didn't do it.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are based on the article's writing and style, not specifically based on whether the article is about something extremely notable or likable to all. --WillMak050389 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Talk pages of articles are for discussion on improving the article, not for discussing the content of the article and (in this case) complaining that this particular article is now featured. Ryūlóng 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that talk pages should be restricted to one goal. It is through the freedom of creativity that people thrive, and as such, I think as long as a discussion is going on about the damn green plant thing, it deserves to be going on.--ttogreh 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. One could argue that by us questioning whether this article has merit for being "Featured" status is as much as important as making the article factually accurate.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Idiotic Vandalizing

Who the hell is Jamie? This moron did something that corrupted the portal to the Bulbasaur article! Something about Bulbasaur being "fucking gay" or some crap like that. Whoever you are, "Jamie" or whatever", you are an IDIOT! Fix the portal!

He was probobly pissed that a Pokemon was the featured article. How is Wikipedia gonna convince the world that it's a legitimite source/Greatest Achievment of Mankind if we have friggen Bulbasaur on our front page?

In case you haven't noticed, it isn't all over the page and it isn't the background either. I also didn't know people cared that much about the feature article, much less even read it. Besides, I thought wikipedia has already set itself as a reliable source of information. Just cause it isn't some dead guy/an old builduing doesn't mean it should be take off.

It isn't the only video game article that was a featured article. Can someone please fix the Bulbasaur article? Some immature moron changed all the "Bulbasaur"s into "ballsasaur". Idiot...

What the hells the problem with it being featured? Seriously. I really don't get it. Do people care about their precious encyclopedia that much? Oh wait, it ISN'T theirs.....EAB 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think we should get the page locked; its too much hassle and its not fair on the people who have to watch this page every two minutes just so some asshole can have some fun... (Daydreams21 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

I know some of the people that are idiotic vandals, and that's a great description of them. Vandals pay more attention to the front screen than other people, because they feel it their moral duty to let everybody know what is, in their opinion, rubbish.--The last sheikah 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for the people who worked really hard to make this article what it is: great. No, great is and understatement. Brilliant is more like it. I feel so bad right now. All that work and people can't even stop to THINK about appreciating it. All you vandals, go the hell away! You aren't helping to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information! You are only hurting yourselves and for that, I laugh at you. HAHAHA!

"THE ONLY PLACE YOU NERDS WILL SEE ONE OF THESE IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!"

heh, WHAT an assumption. Sh*t, I'm using long words, only geeks use long words. Iim goin to fall for a rough trick namd Jim.EAB 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone can count to five without using their hands doesn't mean that they're geeks. By the way, ever heard of spellcheck, loser? You can't even capitalize; I wonder what you CAN do...

More vandalising, yayyy...

This time, people thought it would be funny/gross, to put a picture of a vagina on the page.

How immature, evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? -- Megalomania

I wonder...were the other featured articles about games vandalised also?EAB 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone actually put a picture of a vagina here? Ugh... the vandalizing is so bad that the article is now sprotected. My God, how some people can be so idiotic I will never know... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? Swish. Pokemon articles get vandalised more, becuase they're so unpopular with charvers and the like. They want everyone to know they don't like uncool stuff.--The last sheikah 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon is cool, though. The vandals probably think that they did something biblical by ruining the article, but let's be serious. You morons aren't doing anything helpful. Go the hell away and stay the hell away. Wikipedia has enough vandals and we certainly don't need anymore. Besides, Bulbasaur's my favorite Grass starter!

Pokemon is cool, though.Depends on your definition of cool. It definately isn't popular with the average teenager.--The last sheikah 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not the average teenager then! Yay! :)--Cherimu is beautiful! 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

sprotected

I have sprotected the article. Currently there were about 3 vandals per minute, and the article was more often vandalized than not. I agree in principle with Raul that main page articles should not be protected, but i would go for an exception in this case. I have no problem with the article being unprotected in an hour or so to see if the vandal(s) have left. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Using Geography as a guide, I'm guessing people are bandalising as soon as they see it, in the morning... at the moment, it's round about the right time in Europe, and soon it will be morning in the middle of the atlantic, so there'll be a low point then, then a massive boom as America wakes up. Or I could just be being paranoid.--The last sheikah 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. You aren't being paranoid. If anything, you could be an oracle. ^.^ I just hope that all that hard work put into the article won't be for nothing... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is one scary History log. I doubt we'll be getting another Pokémon on the front page after this. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right... hopefully, you are wrong. (Sorry if that sounded rude!)

If (when?) it gets unprotected, it might be worth it to report blatant vandals straight to WP:AIV at the same time they are given {{blatantvandal}} warning. Admins may not block as it's out of process after first warning, but if they do vandalize a second time before an admin investigates, blocking will probably be immediate. Just a thought.--Kchase T 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...It seems to have been unsprotected. EDIT: No, it's back.--The last sheikah 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)