Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 28) (bot |
|||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Does anyone know why all the pages listed at [[:Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles]] are talk pages instead of article pages? Seems a bit strange. [[user:Jodosma|Jodosma]] [[user talk:Jodosma|(talk)]] 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
Does anyone know why all the pages listed at [[:Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles]] are talk pages instead of article pages? Seems a bit strange. [[user:Jodosma|Jodosma]] [[user talk:Jodosma|(talk)]] 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Jodosma}}, that's how all articles in all WikiProjects are categorized by class and importance, as far as I'm aware. It's because the WikiProject banners are placed on talk pages, not articles, and these banners include code to add whatever pages they're on to the appropriate categories. [[User:Tezero|Tezero]] ([[User talk:Tezero|talk]]) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
:{{u|Jodosma}}, that's how all articles in all WikiProjects are categorized by class and importance, as far as I'm aware. It's because the WikiProject banners are placed on talk pages, not articles, and these banners include code to add whatever pages they're on to the appropriate categories. [[User:Tezero|Tezero]] ([[User talk:Tezero|talk]]) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Pokemon species lists - the [[WP:POKEMON]] saga continues == |
|||
So, I've been over at [[WP:VG]] talking about getting rid of the goshawful [[List of Pokémon (1–51)]] to [[List of Pokémon (650–721)]] series of listcruft articles; the discussion [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Pokemon_species_lists_.28a_perennial_discussion.2C_I.27m_sure.29|here]] goes into my rationale as to why. |
|||
So far, consensus seems to indicate an opinion that we don't need the "detailed lists", and the [[List of Pokemon]] article will suffice-- thus, I'm making preparations to mass-AfD the "detailed" listicles. I'm going around a few more related Wikiprojects to sample opinions, to see if this is going to be at least ''mostly'' considered a good idea-- thoughts? [[user:Dracolych|ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ]] - [[User talk:Dracolych|<big>✉</big>]][[Special:Contributions/Dracolych|<big>✎</big>]] 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:58, 8 October 2015
Template loop detected: Template:Todo
Pokemon Crystal and Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 articlesI'm thinking of creating these. Would anyone be interested in helping out? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for informationHi, everyone. I know there was a debate a few years ago about whether extensive information about trading cards, battle tactics, movesets and so on should be included in articles, with the consensus being "no". Can someone with more knowledge than me point me to the discussion? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Pokémon up for GA reassessmentPokémon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. On behalf of @DragonZero, czar ⨹ 10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC) RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articlesPlease come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Talk pages in Category:Top-importance Pokémon articlesDoes anyone know why all the pages listed at Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles are talk pages instead of article pages? Seems a bit strange. Jodosma (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Pokemon species lists - the WP:POKEMON saga continuesSo, I've been over at WP:VG talking about getting rid of the goshawful List of Pokémon (1–51) to List of Pokémon (650–721) series of listcruft articles; the discussion here goes into my rationale as to why. So far, consensus seems to indicate an opinion that we don't need the "detailed lists", and the List of Pokemon article will suffice-- thus, I'm making preparations to mass-AfD the "detailed" listicles. I'm going around a few more related Wikiprojects to sample opinions, to see if this is going to be at least mostly considered a good idea-- thoughts? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 FFA archive 1 Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Pokemon Crystal and Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 articles
I'm thinking of creating these. Would anyone be interested in helping out? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you've considered this, but why would they stand up against re-merging this time when they haven't before? Tezero (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think B2/W2 got a fair shake originally, and neither one of them had me try to find a gaggle of sources (mostly kidding :P). I definitely feel as though B2/W2 should be made into an article though. I'm sure that there is stuff to add about development, it definitely got attention from reviewers (who likely discuss the idea of the first direct sequel), it has a new story (which could make one, perhaps two paragraphs), and if I recall, it has new gameplay elements to discuss. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with B2&W2 having a separate article. I can contribute with a review infobox. For now I'll put it under the B&W article but then you can move it for your new article. Expect it by the end of the week. Jotamide (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think B2/W2 got a fair shake originally, and neither one of them had me try to find a gaggle of sources (mostly kidding :P). I definitely feel as though B2/W2 should be made into an article though. I'm sure that there is stuff to add about development, it definitely got attention from reviewers (who likely discuss the idea of the first direct sequel), it has a new story (which could make one, perhaps two paragraphs), and if I recall, it has new gameplay elements to discuss. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Request for information
Hi, everyone. I know there was a debate a few years ago about whether extensive information about trading cards, battle tactics, movesets and so on should be included in articles, with the consensus being "no". Can someone with more knowledge than me point me to the discussion? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pokémon up for GA reassessment
Pokémon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. On behalf of @DragonZero, czar ⨹ 10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles
Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk pages in Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles
Does anyone know why all the pages listed at Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles are talk pages instead of article pages? Seems a bit strange. Jodosma (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jodosma, that's how all articles in all WikiProjects are categorized by class and importance, as far as I'm aware. It's because the WikiProject banners are placed on talk pages, not articles, and these banners include code to add whatever pages they're on to the appropriate categories. Tezero (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Pokemon species lists - the WP:POKEMON saga continues
So, I've been over at WP:VG talking about getting rid of the goshawful List of Pokémon (1–51) to List of Pokémon (650–721) series of listcruft articles; the discussion here goes into my rationale as to why.
So far, consensus seems to indicate an opinion that we don't need the "detailed lists", and the List of Pokemon article will suffice-- thus, I'm making preparations to mass-AfD the "detailed" listicles. I'm going around a few more related Wikiprojects to sample opinions, to see if this is going to be at least mostly considered a good idea-- thoughts? ᴅʀᴀᴄᴏʟyᴄʜ - ✉✎ 15:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)