Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Truth behind the merge

I think it's painfully obvious why all the Pokemon articles were merged. It had nothing to do with notability and verifiability. Wikipedia wants to consider itself, and be considered by others, a real encyclopedia. Anyone hearing that line, after laughing heartilly, would simply point to the fact that Wikipedia had an article for each Pokemon. Since no real encylopedia would ever have an entry for each Pokemon, Wikipedia could have no article for each Pokemon. Of course, given that encylopedias can't be modified by anyone, it's a losing battle for them, but there you go. Scumbag (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But why would no real encyclopedia have an article for each individual Pokemon? Oh, right, it's because they aren't notable. -Amarkov moo! 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why no real encyclopedia has nothing to do with notability. It has everything to do with the fact that real encyclopedias don't let everyone edit. When you let everyone edit something, it is no longer an encyclopedia. Scumbag (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to assume that I'm wrong for no reason, I really can't argue. -Amarkov moo! 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mislead people. There is an encyclopedia out there that deals with Pokémon, it's called Bulbapedia. It's a different encyclopedia that deals with Pokémon, and it's as real as Wikipedia, just deals specificlly with Pokémon. Don't forget that there are other encylopedias on the internet that deals more specificlly with a subject. Telling people that there aren't just is misleading. It doesn't belong to Wikipedia, that's the thing that counts. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now, was Wikipedia made JUST to tell people to go to other Wikis?!?!?!?! I know that when you look at Wikipedia, your supposed to go get a way to verify the info, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.26.233 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual Pokemon sections

There is hardly any information in this list as many people have stated. It was mentioned that they weren't important enough or something to that extent. That is completely ridiculous and biased. If that many people are requesting something, it must be important to them. Pokemon's cultural significance can't be denied. I've found myself curious about pokemon that I haven't heard of in 5 years and when I went to check on them here I was very disappointed. I found out nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.194.109 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is quite ridiculous. Some characters on this list (especially the original starting 3: Bulbasaur was a featured article not too long ago!) are are prominent characters in their own right, each far more popular and recognisable than some other fictional characters on Wikipedia who have their own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.83 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At least do this...

If we can't have the individual articles back (quite what harm they posed is beyond me), then at least the link to Bulbapedia should be more prominent, rather than lounging alone at the bottom of the page. The full articles to each still exist, just on Bulbapedia, so I feel it would do everyone a favour if this was made clearer to the casual browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.83 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

External links go in External Links. The End. — TheBilly^(Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, but the articles suck without images, what's the deal with not allowing them on lists? Makes absolutely no sense, because lists ARE articles, whether you wanna believe it or not. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that really relates to where links are supposed to go....— TheBilly^(Talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Seems like there's an edit war starting/happening based on whether Bulbasaur should be a merged article, or a stand-alone like the Pikachu article. Instead of edit-warring, let's have a mature discussion on the matter here first. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu is the most used/recognizable pokemon, his importance to popular culture can not be denigned, I am not sure if the other pokemon have any of this impact at all?  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Most used? Hardly. Bulbasaur's used far more frequently, as it's one of three choices for starting Pokémon in four of the US main series games. Other than that I don't have anything to say about it (yet). Coreycubed (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not "most used" as in the game (though Pikachu does feature in more games than any other Pokemon), I mean all forms of merch contain atleast a pickachu!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A new discussion isn't going to help anything. It's already been discussed on four different occasions, and each time someone decides to wikilawyer over consensus. TTN (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do. The consensus is to have Bulbasaur as a single article and for reasons that are clear and supported by policy. Just because you disagree does not make you right. And does not give you the right to edit war and to peddle your own viewpoint over consensus. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not. Characters need signifcant coverage in the form of creation and reception notes. You never added anything like that to the article. Being mentioned quickly as an example in a couple of articles because it's one of the first three starters is not notability. Is this all because you worked on the article when it first became a FA (at least I think you mentioned that)? That seems like the case because you would be making the same case for the other two first generation starters if you were [User:TheBlazikenMaster|TheBlazikenMaster]] (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom has to do with edit warring to keep wikilawyers at bay and because people don't like articles being redirected, not because I try to merge single articles. Editors currently are working on updating and gaining a new community validated consensus for WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, so that's already being done.

Anyways, try to focus on the matter at hand. Significant coverage is shown within our good articles, and what you provided was never close. TTN (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But not being a good article has never meant not having an article at all, that's just silly. And guidelines have never overruled consensus on individual articles. Here, there are plenty of people (with valid arguments) who disagree with you. And as we can see when you redirect the article, it's nearly always a new person who reverts. You have no consenus, so you can't take the action. It's as simple as that. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And Blazikenmaster, I agree. It's a ridiculous amount of discussion, but what other options are there? —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that it needed to be a good article? No. I said that good articles show what signifcant coverage details. When you provide coverage that actually matches a something on the way to becoming a good article (not that is actually needs to be one), then you and the other people will actually have an argument. Until then, you are just trying to have a page based upon subjective popularity that cannot exist without reliable sources to assert notability. Guidelines (that are based in policy) overrule in this case. TTN (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And can you answer the question of why this single Pokemon is more notable than any other starter or legendary featured throughout the metaseries? In the very least, the ones within the first two generations could easily have the same coverage as what you're trying to pass off. TTN (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're going by TTN's logic then I say Pikachu is the only one who deserves a page. It probably does appear in more media than any other Pokémon. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. It's the only one with any actual information to hold a page. TTN (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia operates, sadly, seems to go against TTN's logic. @pple complain 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For those not following other talk pages related to Bulbasaur, TTN has recently suggested cleaning up the lists, dividing them up between "Lists of Pokémon" and "Anime/Manga characters and gym leaders". He stated that

"All of the anime characters will be merged to one list, giving a brief, concise entry for each one. The major humans and Pokémon will be covered, while the episode lists and the single Pokémon entries will cover the minor ones. Pokémon like Ash's Pikachu, Bulbasur and Charizard will recieve entries, while minor ones that only appear once and awhile (Snorlax, Muk, Corphish, ect) will be covered within the lists."

To date, no feedback regarding this has been posted. I don't know what his idea of a "brief, concise entry" is, but if it involves editing similar to some edits by him (see BTW below) then I think the subject is better off as it's own article.

BTW, I never got feedback about why TTN removed the cite that gave the names of the wiki-linked voice actors.Barnyard animals (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brief and concise means enough for an encyclopedia. Ash and some other main characters will probably have up to three paragraphs, and the others will have between one and two paragraphs. As the English Wikipedia, we only cover relevant voice actors (the original language and the most signifcant English dubs). I removed the Spanish one, and assumed that the link following it only had to do with the Spanish voice actor. I believe I already explained that a while ago. TTN (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You believe wrong then, you have never previously stated that you assumed the link following it had only to do with the Spanish voice actor, you only wittered about Eduardo Garza not being worth mentioning, despite the fact he appears notable to already have an article. "We only cover..."? on what exactly do you base your opinion that we shouldn't mention voice actors that have article to link to?--Barnyard animals (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, TTN, as always, you're not listening. Wikipedia is based on consensus of editors, above anything else. Above policy. Above literally everything. There are many respected users arguing against you, so you don't have a consensus. It has nothing to do with "significant coverage in external sources" or whatever. If a consensus (or as close as possible to one) thinks an article should stay. That should be the end of the debate. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And as to "While the entry will be increased, it will not be above three paragraphs", how on earth can you make such a definite judgement like that? It's not solely up to you; you don't own the article (or any article). —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is based upon arguments, not the number of editors trying to assert something. Otherwise, we would still have articles on all of the other Pokemon. Your argument is not strong at all (if you don't believe me, try getting comments from the video game or Nintendo projects), so it does not overrule the others. One to three paragraphs is the proposed and obvious format of the entries, so that's how I can tell. TTN (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is based on arguments. However, as far as I can see, you give no arguments on your part, except for vainly negating other arguments by incessantly producing unhelpful PoVs. Before accusing others' arguments as "not strong at all", please give us your self-acclaimed so-called strong arguments rather than push us finding the answers from somewhere else. Anyway, we are willing to get comments from the video game or Nintendo projects. Ask them to join as long as no ignorant views are added to the discussion that is inherently full of those ones. @pple complain 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see some characters like Gary, Tracy, and Ash's notable pokemon having one to three paragraphs. But for characters that have been in the series for a while (oh, say, Ash) I don't think we can really say that three paragraphs is the 'obvious' format. As for Bulbasaur, though, it really doesn't merit it's own article if it's going to be covered on the lists and on this character page. Ageofe (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected until agreements can be made. bibliomaniac15 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any agreement can be made. The scope of this discussion is no narrow that the talk may go on forever with same users saying the same things all over again. Please unprotect the redirect and the list, restore them to the former and non-controversial state, bring Bulbasaur to AfD or RfC or something, then get a consensus there. I might as well unprotect the page if no one objects. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was sent to DRV here, redirection was overturned by the closing admin, so I've unprotected this page. Discussion is now held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination), if anyone is interested. - PeaceNT (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have one thing to say, Ash Ketchum should be more than three paragraphs, I really find him notable enough to have his own article. I mean common, he is the main character. And I do believe there can be real-world information about him. As for the rest of the characters, they are probably not notable enough. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about "more than three paragraphs" or so. Article's length has no role in determining the existence of the article. Notability and verifiability are the decisive factors. If you "do believe" that only Ash Ketchum is notable while the rest are not, justify your stance and the discussion will end here if your point meets consensus. @pple complain 13:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I already typed everything I wanted to say. Besides I said "probably" that means I'm not 100% sure. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it was

Why on earth was this changed? It doesnt seem to contribute anything, and I do not seem to find any reason to get rid of the Pokemon Pages as they were. Before, it was easy to use Wikipedia to find Sugimori Art of the Individual Pokemon needed, and to look up facts on the myths and legends behind these creatures. Now these pages are useless, and serve no purpose, so why not bring back the old individual pages and revert it back to the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHTR (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should bring this to WT:PCP, that would be better than copying this to many talk pages at once. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to see Sugimori art? You want to see facts about them? Go to Bulbapedia. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulbapedia is ridiculously slow, especially for Non-Broadband users. It seems discriminatory towards us if we are expected to waste half an hour or more just to view one page, when it could be on Wikipedia and would take about 2 minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHTR (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this already several times before on other pages, but the reasons why images aren't allowed can be found at User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation (especially 6.10). MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this being constantly discussed? Whenever I see a debate about keeping the articles, someone always goes "This has already been discussed." Frankly, I don't see why people who don't care about Pokémon tries to tear down the articles about Pokémon. If a Pokémon's not notable, and doesn't deserve it's own article, then what's the point of a list (with no pictures, making it even more irritating)? Wikipedia's strength ARE fans, as I see it. The Pokémon articles were never in the way for anyone. - Jetro (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I already made a video about my opinion about the pictures. Agreed, it is irritating to see the list without pictures. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This list of single one paragraphs is completely absurd, the articles should be reverted to the way the used to be giving each pokemon is own article. Nothing useful can be found on this list the articles that were here before used to have information that even someone who has never seen or heard of Pokemon could use, an encyclopedia is supposed to allow someone to pick and article read it and leave with some understanding of what the just read but by looking at this pages nothing can be gather from it and no information may be gain. All the pokemon articles should be reverted to the way they were before or at least group them by family (i.e. Charmander with Charmeleon and Charizard, Squirtle with Wartortle and Blastoise etc...), also by not having a single picture of any of the pokemon in the list it makes it even less readable or helpful. WhiteStrike (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a damn good reason why the pictures can't be in the lists. I can't argue with that part. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous and unfair. As has already been stated, Wikipedia has endless room, and has room enough for many stubs about places most people will never ever see again (For example, I have seen 1 line articles for things such as Highways, Small roads, schools in the middle of nowhere etc). Surely if Wiki needs space, the useless articles like these should go, rather than mutilating a perfectly fine set of articles. Wikipedia has stepped out of line with this, and I seriously wish now that Wikipedia would go bust, or would get virused etc. It deserves it ATM. Its just discriminatory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.54.182 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above few. There is plenty of room available for each article. Verifiability is hardly an issue with the amount of content which is available, the only issue is notability. But I do not understand why some people think that just because they do not find a pokemon important, that no one else does either. Besides, the least we should do is cut the lists down to 10 pokemon each, add 10 pictures (which really isn't that many) and expand the info. Greglo (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures?

Macoroni (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Shouldn't the Pokemon on this page have pictures?

It would look nice with pictures, but alas Wikipedia Image policy doesn't allow that many on a single page. -WarthogDemon 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Please see my rant (accessible from my user page) for more information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I say there should be pictures, but the copyrights...I wonder if a letter can be sent to Nintendo about using their images? brickdude^_^ 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seed Species

Why are Ivysaur and Venusaur each listed as "the seed species" of Pokémon? I don't remember that designation ever being used, which is fine, but the article seems wrong. Shouldn't we be using "the" instead of "a" since they are different species? --B2xiao (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Pokédex of RBY.--Goon Noot (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate organization

I'm not going to waste everyone's time rehashing arguments for and against individual articles. I'd prefer them but I'm sure the change was made for good reason, and the folks who speak in proper English seem to be for it. I would like to suggest that the list be reorganized to four separate pages by generation. If that's too large, each generation might be split to two pages, or at the very least, pages should not split evolution chains or related pokemon e.g. legends. I feel cutting the pages into neat 20-pokemon sections 1) Is quite an arbitrary organization 2) Makes for too many, too short "articles" 3) Renders it nigh unuseable, even as a list and 4) Makes maintenance that much more difficult. Basically, since Wikipedia is not restricted to such short pages, a list article might as well have as many items as possible on the same page. Cheezmeister (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image comment

Well, while there are fair use rules, I think that in some cases, an image is a good idea. Bulbasaur, for instance, is a very prominent Pokémon in all of the series, and would work well for an image. Same goes for the other two starters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on already.

Just look at nearly 80% of the things on the discussion thread here. People complaining they want individual pages back, or something within the same topic. This is causing so many people to be get annoyed. I mean, WHY can't they have their own articles? Because they aren't IMPORTANT enough or something like that? That just sounds to me like a group of people who hate Pokemon trying to ruin everything. If I want to know something about nearly all of the Pokemon on Wikipedia, I'm apparently outta luck. All I get is just a bunch of Pokedex Data, and things that I an get on nearly 5000 other websites. I hear that there are a bunch of good reasons for deleting the articles. Please, TELL ME SOME. I don't need to hear "they were posted on some other page" because I have no interest in looking there. Tell me, here, WHY? SO MANY PEOPLE hate this. LOTS of people want individual articles. Why don't we have them? It's now like any harm will come out of it. It's not like having the articles is going to make the whole website burst into flames! Some people claim they aren't important enough to have their own articles? I call that an OPINION. Give me a better reason.

Just look at the opneing to WikiProject Pokémon. "Welcome to WikiProject Pokémon, formerly known as the Pokémon Collaborative Project. Wikipedians have formed this project to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of all Pokémon related articles." IMPROVE? I see tons of info being REMOVED. I don't think this is what most people had in mind. ~m190049 (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, we used to include a lot at Wikipedia. But times are a-changing. Many people have come to realise that long articles about very minor topics such as Pokémon characters devalue Wikipedia as a whole. Some of the vital articles were even shorter than the average article about a Pokémon, which often was the aim of ridicule and embarrassment (even on WP itself, e.g. here). Given the rise of many exhaustive fansites, consencus eventually arised that we don't need them. And he, is Bulbapedia really that bad? Cheers, Face 07:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but look above. You see numerous people complaining. Even if those articles aren't specifically NEEDED, it seems a lot of people want them, so wouldn't putting them back make people happier?

I don't see how taking away an article makes anything better. The things we have now are small and have hardy any information. The more information we have, the better right?

Also, even if they aren't NEEDED, well, in away, you can apply that to this whole website. It's not like this website is really NEEDED, as in the world will collapse if it's not there... But it's nice to have. It has lots of information that can potentially help with the daily life, like if maybe someone needs information for a school project, or maybe people could just read articles for entertainment... It's not really NEEDED, but it's nice to have... And in a way, the same argument can go for the Pokemon articles.

Right? ~m190049 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and welcome to the inclusionist/deletionist debate which has been ongoing since day 1. As I said, we initially tolerated a lot at WP, including lots of fancruft. But the encyclopedia was gradually split in half by it. One part is "factpedia", which consists of articles that actually matter. The other part is "cruftpedia", a part which seems to be filt endlessly with fictional minutia. No character seems too unnotable to have it's own separate article, no game item seems too minor to have pages of lists created for it. An article about Palpatine (some Star Wars character, featured) is more easier to write than an article about Hieronymus Bosch (one of the most important painters ever, at this time still a poor article), so "cruftpedia" became bigger than "factpedia", and it still is.
You say that almost 500 Pokémon articles won't do any harm. I think it will. Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, and people will laugh at 500 Pokémon articles. The deletion of them was, in my honest opinion, a step in the right direction. Cheers, Face 09:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that annoys me about this is the fact that there are no images. I'm glad nobody removed external links to Bulbapedia, otherwise more people would be complaining. A lot of people including myself have been discussing it on WT:PCP, and most of the discussion happened during the summer of 2007. Since I believe in existence of other realities and so on, I'm going to say that Wikipedia is mostly about stuff in our reality, our world. Unfortunately a lot of the Pokémon aren't very notable, not even in the Pokémon fandom, a notable example is one of my favorites, I'd love to see a Huntail being used more, but it isn't used much. There are too many that you can't say much about. What can you say about most of the Pokémon species that are notable in this world and reality? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait wait wait, what? Wikipedia wouldn't be taken SERIOUSLY?

What kind of reason is THAT. Everyone knows what Wikipedia is, just as much as Youtube. Adding Pokemon articles will make people LAUGH at Wikipedia? What!? That makes no sense. Who will LAUGH at Wikipedia just because it a bunch of articles Pokemon? Unless someone specifically searched one of the articles, I don't think they would even ever see it. And just look at bulbapedia. It REVOLVES around Pokemon yet people don't laugh at it and not take it seriously. Seriously, give me a better reason than THAT. ~m190049 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, count my reason as invalid, but that won't make it so. WP is not a game guide or a television guide. The articles had information about the anime and the games, but hardly any reliable sources. That was the main reason we decided to merge. And it's not Pokémon haters that took part of the merging discussion, it were Pokémon fans. There was a real discussion beforehand, I should know I was involved. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you post a link to this discussion? ~m190049 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I can't, because there wasn't just one, there were many. On WT:PCP you can see some of them in the archives, most of the discussions regarding the merge took place in the summer of 2007. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well anyway, if the main reason was because the articles had little to no reliable sources... Why weren't the articles just cleaned up? Why were they deleted entirely? I'm sure many of the articles could have been rewritten... Also, I'm pretty sure a few of the Pokemon Articles were featured articles... Wouldn't those be classified as, well... Good articles? Why were they deleted? ~m190049 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources were not exactly the problem. There is plenty to write, but the problem was that there just wasn't much encyclopedic info to write. You can discuss their biology, throw in the Pokédex information, mention their anime appearances, show their trading card. You could go even further and state where they can be found in the games, list their moves, their basestats, their TM possibilities. But it's just not the purpose of Wikipedia to store all that in-universe data. Sure, I agree with you that it would make some people happy. But Wikipedia is meant to be a scientific project. Its original goal is to help the world by bringing information to people in countries who can't afford those expensive books. Wikipedia is not a Pokémon fansite. There are already enough of them.
Yes, Bulbasaur was once featured. The day it appeared on the Main page, between crucial articles like Mosque and Alpha Phi Alpha, was propably one of WPs most embarassing moments.
Pikachu is one of the few (if not the only) Pokémon where you can actually tell something about, and indeed many articles and essays are available about it. The way this kawaii character sits on Ash' shoulder or head like a dependant child, but is a formidable fighter when it has to. The way it communicates with Ash' by only saying its name, like a domestic animal. I think Pikachu's character played an important role in the global success of the anime and the franchise. Now that would be interesting info to explore.
I can assure you that it weren't Pokémon haters who dismantled the articles. Me and Blaziken are big Pokémon fans, but we also understand Wikipedia's goal. Let's not make it like this. Cheers, Face 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the chance of the Pokemon having their individual articles back is nearly none, could I propose that maybe we try to make the small sections of info we have maybe a bit larger? All that's in there is no more than just obscure Pokedex info, and if they can't have their own articles, I think that a bit of the info we have could be expanded to maybe include more, if anything. ~m190049 (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What I want is images, I always found it ridiculous that images aren't allowed on lists, I said it many times that lists should be treated like articles as they're STILL articles. Images were added, but got removed quickly, why? Because of copyrights, ridiculous, those Pokémon images are used all around the Internet, yet I see no site being in REAL trouble because of it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure if you offer to underwrite the Foundation's liabilities and can afford to post a modest bond - $10m should be plenty - then all objections will be withdrawn. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like what you've done here.

This is a great idea! By merging all the articles of each Pokemon species, you've made it easier to edit the articles and made it easier to correct trolling. Sure there's less information, but any information, even if it's only a little bit, is good, right?

So, why not do this for the entire site? Take all the articles and merge them together! Of course, you'll have to cut down on the information considerably, but as stated before, even a little bit of information is good. This will make Wikipedia as a whole easier to edit and easier to protect against trolling. I mean, it worked for the Pokemon section, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.79.208 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spannisch

Let me ask something, why is almost a quarter of this article Spannisch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.50.168 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on...

I know this fight has been going on fr a long time, but if AncientTroiamon could get a picture, why can't Pokémon have pics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.241.92 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section of this article does not fit the wiki protocol. Within the first sentence the title of the article should appear in bold. Additionally there is way too much information on the Pokemon world for a list article. Clerks. (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lead section, descriptive titles that do not appear verbatim in the lead will not have boldface. Pagrashtak 14:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Has anyone noticed that all of these Pokémon lists are being constantly vandalised? I think protection should occur (or at least semi). Trav (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Shouldnt Bulbasaur and other Pokemon with main articles have the summary AND the link to the main article? What is the reason for not having the original summary? --Blake (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

B-Class

I belive this is worthy of B-Class. Your arguement was that it has no 3rd party sources? Where does it say it needs that?

From WP:VG/Assesment

1.The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.

Also, see here for where I got it reassesed. --Blake (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

B-class is a step away from GA. If you want, ask anyone at the project and they would agree if the article isn't List class it needs third party reception. And if it's List class then it can't be B class. Do you understand?

Also the second about Pikachu could be removed and just linked right to the main article about him. There's no need to summarize Pikachu twice on wikipedia.

Anyway like I said, you don't have to take my word for it, ask Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Video games for some insight. I do think you've done a good part with the citing, it just needs third party coverage to satisfy WP:V and WP:N before B-class should be given.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I got it assessed AT Project Video games by MacMed. Not everyone thinks that. I would rather have information directly from the source then from some silly 3rd party site that might know hardly anything about the subject! I dont quite understand that rule. I mean, articles should be from a nutral point of view, and the primary source is most likely connected to the subject in some way, so that might violate it a little bit. So, 3rd party resources are nice, but I dont think they are nessassary for lists. --Blake (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also about Pikachu, there should be the original article, and then the summary for people who might not want to read the whole thing. They dont have to read the summary if they dont want to. We give them the "Main-Pikachu" link. Its already there in its place on the list. Why remove it? I would agree with people who are summarized in multiple lists like List of Pokémon characters, List of characters in the Pokémon anime series, Pokémon Adventures protagonists, and Pokémon crime syndicates. Some people are summarized multiple different ways with different information that should all be in one place with links to that section. --Blake (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason for the suggestion is it gives you more room to demonstrate why the others on the list work fine for a list, without using the characters with existing articles as a crutch of sorts (or at least giving the appearance of that). Plus it just generally cuts down on size.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could get make a "List-Class" for Project Pokémon. I dont really care I guess. I just want to help improve these lists. They are the closest to the main Pokémon articles as we are going to get. All the main important information is here. If one Pokémon starts to accumulate alot of information in their section, then we could work off that to make a Article. Untill then, this is all we have. --Blake (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Never mind. The List-class is for articles that cant really be a full article, because they are just a list. Like the Anime episode lists. Or a list of Manga chapters. They don’t tell enough information to be an Article. But these Lists of Pokémon are mini-articles, not really a list. Same with the Lists of Gym Leaders. They have the potential to become a Good Article. I am not so sure about the List of Pokémon Characters and List of Pokémon Anime Characters. Most of those characters don’t have enough information. --Blake (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Equal Distrib. of Info

Some of these entries are enormous! They are almost literally 10 times larger than some other Pokemon entries (compare Blastoise to Luxio). Try to lengthen up the short entries, but try not to eliminate existing data. To be a good encyclopedia, one must include as much useful data as possible. Helpful tips from 2D Backfire Master (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just finished fixing up this page. It takes alot of work to get these like this. Also, Pokémon in the fourth generation will most likly have less Pokédex entries, TV appearances, and other info. So, Luxio will probably never be as big as Blastiose. --Blake (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Blastoise merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

To keep this simple enough, proposing we simply just post our yes or no to the merge, see where the majority of consensus lies, and then discuss it from there. This was started in the wake of the closing line for the AfD which implied this as the better route. To save sanity (especially in regards to Zappernapper, no that's not bad faith), please don't reply to another user's post here, respect them to have their opinion and let's handle this like gentlemen shall we?

• Merge Straight up, there's nothing in the article that can't go in the list. The lack of real world content outside of the strict context of Pokémon is the defining nail for the article. To accent that a bit, there's nothing here stating why outside of an analysis of Pokemon itself that Blastoise is a significant character (meaning, Critical reception). I would have an easier time believing Squirtle has some significance in comparison to this. If anything could be salvaged at most I'd press for it to be placed into a Starter Pokemon article covering the concept of them throughout the series.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge My positions on this should be well-known by now, and I'm a bit too exhausted to explain it again. So I will say, per my AfD nomination statement. Artichoker^[talk] 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• you joking right? It has become increasingly clear that you guys do not understand what consesnus is. Consensus is not whatever the majority of people who happen across this discussion think is best. Consensus is, typically, an imperfect solution that everyone can live with. It more often than not requires concession. The phrase which this "discussion" is based upon proves the lack of validity, "the majority of consensus"? I know i'm beat in numbers by the current active editors at WP:POKE, but it shouldn't matter, like i've consistently said, those editors do not get to decide what happens to pokemon articles, projects exist to centralize discussion, not dictate it - by asking editors to refrain from discussion you are working against wikipedia's tenets. Artichoker opened this discussion up to the wider world of the community (which i welcomed), and found people supporting both viewpoints - which shows we have two groups with different ideas of what they want the encyclopedia to become (and both are equally valid). The two sides have to accept that we're not going to get our way, and try to find a common ground that's not going to piss off the other side too much. The AFD should have shown you, there was no consensus to delete, which defaults to a keep. I'm satisfied with no RFC because those tend to get less attention than an AFD, so AFDs represent the wikipedia community better. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Switzerland I dont really care either way at this point. Alot of the information is in the section of the list now. Where it is presented in wikipedia doesnt really matter as long as it is somewhere. --Blake (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - agree with Artichoker. All notable information can easily be included in this list. Real-world notability is not established at all. I have listed this at RfC in an attempt to garner a wider audience. Savidan 18:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

hey a great idea, let's just copy and paste the discussion from AFD and pretend we all said our piece again without responding to other users' comments or questions. let's see, 6 redirects and 5 keeps sounds like "the majority of consensus" is in artichoker and kung fu man's favor (funny, then why did the admin close with No consensus to delete? hmm) I'm closing this "discussion" by removing the merge tags. When you're serious about finding a consensus, feel free to start a new thread and readd the tags, this is a farce. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

wow... didn't even put a {{mergefrom}} tag on this article??? nice way to try and garner consensus if people visiting the article here don't even know about it. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge - I don't see any reason not to do so. --Evice (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been 10 days, and I think we call all agree that the consensus is clearly to merge it back into the list: the only one to object was Zappernapper, even after the RfC. So unless there are any other objections, moving forward with the merge.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose No, there is no consensus for this merger. The current structure of the proposed target article is unsatisfactory as the placing together of Pokemon by number seems quite arbitrary. Pokemon are known more by their names than by their numbers and so this is the most sensible basis on which to cover them, per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And by that logic all 493 should have their own article which is insane. It's just a variant of the "everything should have an article on wikipedia" argument that's clearly not flown either.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please stick to the topic. We're not talking about everything; we're talking about Blastoise and Pokemon #1-#20. Either way, these topics will be covered here and so the point at issue is the format and naming for the article(s). The list article seems to be trying to be more than a list and its division by number seems arbitrary and unnatural. The best structure for our readership is surely a single master list with individual articles for the individual Pokemon that are sufficiently notable like Blastoise. When this is done, we can dispense with these peculiar clumps of 20 Pokemon. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but *how* is Blastoise notable? See all this whole article was founded on was "it's well known", and a comment that Zappernapper was told by an editor he sought advice from not even related to this discussion that it failed notability. And why are you using the argument of it being notable in the first place if you're against the policy?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• wow, what a snoop! i call you a snoop because it's tamer than what you've called me, and i made it expressly clear that i didn't want that conversation brought into this. if you read any of that conversation you would have realized that i knew full well what Gavin's opinion would have been, he just has a more articulate way of forming his arguement. and what ever happened to not responding to each other's comments? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Notability is not a policy - please read it. Blastoise satisfies this guideline by being covered by reasonably independent and reliable sources such as these. I have had no difficulty adding sources to that article and from the sources, it appears to be especially notable - being repeatedly mentioned as a favourite, top-ten pokemon. The sourcing for the Blastoise article is better than the list to which the merger proposal is directed. I doubt that you will find any sources which cover Pokemon#1-#20 as a specific topic and so it is that article and topic which lacks notability. By grouping these Pokemon together in an arbitrary way, the list seems to violate our policies which frown upon indiscriminate info and improper synthesis. The proposed merger would reduce the quality of our coverage and so makes no sense. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've looked over those (and I'm not going to reply to a large part of your statement just to warn you, you can pepper it all you want with terms), and all they show is the character is discussed in some context. I could put Squirtle in there and get over 1000 listings. Why doesn't Squirtle count as notable by that standard? Because many of those posts are from unreliable sources, including forums. Google isn't very discriminate, which is why editors have to be. Also you're not citing anywhere here why "Blastoise is notable". Even the book reference you had only stated "of faves like Charizard, Blastoise and Venusaur" (and even then you didn't cite it right). Nowhere in there though does it say why it's a "fave", or why it's important. Of the three Charizard was the only one to get that base covered by the source.

If you want to prove notability you need to sufficiently prove why on a real-world impact this character is important. It's popular, great: we have 493+1 characters that are popular with someone. Very few of them though have any real discussion which is why only 7 articles exist. You're more likely to see Mr. Mime restored than Blastoise. This isn't a case of cutting content or biased merging or other bull, it's a case that there isn't a foundation for an encyclopedic article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and to invalidate your point that no sources would be found for #1-20, Charizard. There you go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your link for Charizard takes us to a separate article on that Pokemon which is fine. We should treat Blastoise in the same way for the same reasons. It is the strange 1-20 collection which needs to justify its existence, as when we make a comparable search for sources, we get nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point. The point was it exists as an article because there are sufficient sources showing it has real world significance and why. Also that google search link is, no offense, is just plain silly. Think about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your language such as "insane" and "plain silly" is uncivil. I have already demonstrated that Blastoise has adequate sources - much better than the 1-20 article. Mr Mime, on the other hand, seems to lack comparable notability. Such Pokemon should not be covered in the same level of detail as the notable ones like Blastoise and so the structure of the list seems improper - trying to enable the non-notable game creatures to inherit the notability of the notable ones. This won't do as it is contrary to other policies: WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:UNDUE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this list doesn't need to be notable, since it is just a list of characters. They might not be notable enough to have an article all by themselves, but they need to be covered somewhere. Deleting them all from wikipedia would start a riot bigger then when the articles were merged. --Blake (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists are routinely deleted because they lack notability or are poorly formed. Please see WP:LIST#Listed items: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies ... ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced...". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then Colonel, since you seem to feel that the lists are not adequetely sourced or structured (or at least so I have gathered from reading your comments), why don't you take the onus and nominate them all for deletion? According to what you have said, they don't meet the standards, so why don't you nominate them if you feel that way? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, unless consensus is reached that we should create an article for (at least) all of the original 151. Alone, Blastoise does not appear to be any more special than any other Pokemon. He hasn't impacted society as a whole, nor even featured in an internet meme of suchlike. Blastoise is in fact one of the least notable of Pokemon, really having nothing to his name. Of course, if all other pokemon receive equal coverage, this article is suitable. But branching off this particular entity seems to give it undue weight. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added something to the effect of what it looks like you're asking for - Kazaa had reformed their company under the name Blastoise Inc. But you're arguement that all pokemon should then get an article is fallacious, Blastoise has had a third party write a detailed article about it, and in this article it was claimed to be one of the most well-known due to it's appearance on the cover of the first games. You cannot say this about Ditto, Kabuto, Articuno... etc. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge That one source describes them as "a tank of a turtle" is not the level of analysis necessary for a separate character article, least of all when an existing list can easily accommodate the existing text, a lot of which applies to all/most pokemon anyway. Someoneanother 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • that argument is a straw man, since no one said the article should exist based on that analysis. This article should exist, mainly, because of a 3-page article that was written in an offline reliable independent source. I'm not saying that level of coverage justifies an incredibly lengthy article, but coupled with other sources it meets the threshold for inclusion as laid out by WP:N and WP:V. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Merge Blastoise doesn't even have much notability in the fictional Pokemon universe, let alone in the real universe that we live in. If someone can find me an academic paper written on Blastoise I'd sure be interested. Bonus Onus (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion was more then a month ago. Its closed. Its just nobody put a closed thing around it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

About the decision to merge

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia." A collaborative effort to what?? Is there a better coverage of the Pokémon universe now? I mean, who the hell would be voluntarily involved in a subject that one considers irrelevant?? There is no consensus if no one is aware of what's going to happen. It's like saying there was a world consensus in September 11 because Osama and his team agreed. It has been made clear within this page that a lot of the users disagree with the decision, but at the time very few people (probably just the ones involved) were aware of the merging. CharlesWP 11:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

About merging all the articles into the lists? This was because every individual Pokémon isnt notable. They diddn't have the reception or development info needed to stay individual articles. This merge diddnt cut down much info as far as I can tell. There just isnt the full infobox, or section titles. If you want to add more info, then please, feel free to. It just cant be silly trivial information (as seen here) or gameguide info (moveset lists, location lists, etc.). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, but what about no pictures? It would look much more user-friendly with the pictures than the current state of these arcticles. If Wikipedia Image Policy doesn't allow us to put that much pictures, why not rearranging into groups of ten pokémon per page, or having at least pictures of important pokémon? (Or is there another reason?) CharlesWP 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the image policy does not allow the use of many fair-use images at all. Lists of ten is still too many for images. We'd probably get away with three at the absolute maximum, and even then it would be questioned why most of them can be adequately described in the text but those that have images can't. Only free-use images would be of any good, of which there are only two or three of those even available. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

funny, blastoise had reception info.... -76.217.111.144 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this revision, Blastoise had one sentence of reception, which by the looks of it could be used for multiple Pokemon. It is not enough to stand up the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)