Jump to content

Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note

[edit]

Semi-protect?

[edit]

Now THIS, THIS is persistent vandalism enough. Why vandalize Heatran when more people are going to look at Charmander? You've all seen the vandals, now let's block them. It'll save us lots of time and effort. I am in favor of semi-protecting this article. Discussion starts here. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism doesn't appear any more prominent then any of the other articles. I only see 3 maybe 4 times in the past week. SpigotMap 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote yes. All articles with Starters and Legendarys should be semi-protected. But the thing is, sometimes IP users make good edits to these list. They are the people who make most of the edits. Without them, these lists would be abandoned. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposition. The damage done by semi-protection is far too great to eliminate what is honestly minor vandalism. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the IP Users. True, they can be helpful. But why would Mudkip require special protection? Is the meme really that notable? Was that page really more vandal-magnetic than this one? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know. The Mudkip meme had always drawn people to get it included in Mudkip's page, and list section. But now it has a "For the meme, click here" link, so they are satisfied. Ever since I joined this project almost a year ago, I haven't seen any vandalism on Mudkip's section because of the meme. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the peak of the meme, the mudkip page was vandalized atleast 5 times daily. SpigotMap 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that Bulbasaur's, Mudkip's, and gardevoir's sections had profanities.Hitmonchan (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the peak of the Mudkip meme they also vandalized Axolotl frequently, along with other similar looking creatures. Protection is granted only in cases where articles undergo high levels of vandalism in a short level of time; either because of a planned attack or because people just don't like the subject. None of the Pokémon articles is currently suffering much vandalism at all, and a request to protect would just be thrown out the window. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. But what's the deal with IP users? Why can't we all just stand by this, there's nothing wrong with being a logged in user. Encourage IP's to create an account if they wish to edit, that would discourage vandals who aren't smart enough to know nothing's wrong with logging in (vandals probably think there are membership fees). Sorry to sound immature and ask too many questions, but you people have been here a tad longer than I...and why is there a Bono link? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how can you deny some protection (invent a new level if you have to!) when the history is composed of approximately 45% vandalism, 45% reverting said vandalism, and the remaining 10% construction? Just curious. A truly eager apprentice, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHY is a suggestion, not a policy. Not everyone actively edits Wikipedia, and many people just fix typos that they may see in a drive-by reading that editors with accounts have missed. Though IP accounts are responsible for a good chunk of vandalism, most of the vandalism that I have reverted has probably come from registered accounts. Besides, if a page is protected even new accounts are unable to edit them until they have made a specific number of edits and been registered for a specific length of time. Protecting pages is no discouragement; people will find a way through it. I know of cases where accounts have been created weeks in advance of a planned "attack" specifically to get around the vandalism.
Protection is dependent on how much vandalism a page is receiving currently, not how much it has received in the past. If an article is edited very rarely, and it receives one vandalistic edit a week, then the history will quickly appear to be more vandalism than construction. But the vandalism is not occurring at a rate where protection is necessary. Protection is used only in cases where massive amounts of vandalism (or edit-warring) is occurring over a short period of time; for example, say 10 vandalistic edits in two hours. These articles are not at that threshold, and pre-emptive protection is not allowed. And the Bono link is there as an example of an article which receives so much vandalism that it is necessary to be protected for months at a time (though extended periods of protection is generally applied only to WP:BLP articles). You can request protection, but I can guarantee that none of these articles will be granted it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but riddle me this: why are you so against it, and what objectively describes "lots of vandalism"? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←In the last week, only four of the edits that have been made have been reverted as vandalism. That is not enough for protection. I have already given an example of what would constitute a need for protection. As far as I'm aware there is no hardline between protection and no-protection, so if you are looking for a benchmark I am sorry but I cannot provide one to you. Protection does not happen as a result of percentage; I have already explained why above. Rather, when it is a result of vandalism it is based on a measurable frequency i.e. a certain number of edits in a certain timeframe. Four edits in a week definitely does not make this timeframe. Four edits in half an hour perhaps, but a week? No.

WP:NO-PREEMPT: "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism."

I am against it for all of the reasons that have been outlined above, by myself and by other editors. A recap: 1) There is no need for protection because there is no content dispute or enough vandalism; 2) Many IP editors do not come here to vandalize but to read; and sometimes they will fix an error in information that we have missed, or a typo, and so on. Many IP editors edit constructively, and there is a reason why accounts are not required to edit Wikipedia; 3) Since there is not any heavy vandalism going on, any application of protection would be pre-emptive. And Wikipedia does not pre-emptively protect articles except in the most serious of cases, as I have outlined through my direct quotation and link above. Four vandals in a week does not qualify as serious.

I have already said that if you feel we are wrong, go ahead to WP:RFPP, the place where protection is requested, and ask for it to be applied. I have no problem with you doing that. I will not stop you, and neither will any other user here. But I can guarantee with absolute certainty that your request will be declined for all of the reasons I have outlined throughout my three posts here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no semi-protecting. Yet. We'll just wait and see if the frequency rises at all. Thanks for being civil. You guys know the policies better than I. This debate ends here, but anyone else who wishes to say anything can start a new topic. The result: no protection. Reason: not enough vandalism (although once is one time too many in my book). Let's just crack down on vandalism better. Too bad that blocking isn't a deterrent enough. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any vandalism is too much (I think it's just plain childish and a waste of the vandals time) but, no matter what we do, if they really want to vandalize then they will always squeak through our defenses. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in, once is not "too much". If it were too much, all articles would be semi-protected. No point in preventing good people from editing in order to punish the bad people. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to how vandalism is a crime, and crime is bad. One robbery is a robbery too many. Not saying we should semi-protect. Yet. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blastoise's origin?

[edit]

I know Blastoise and Bowser look the same, but there's a Japanese movie monster from where Blastoise is based on, right. Hitmonchan (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably constitutes original research. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're a newcomer, you will look a lot smarter to others if you read the key policies first. I didn't when I started, and felt like a fool later.

2J, he means the article says that "Blastoise has been compared to Bowser", but there is no proof. But there is a movie monster that Blastoise was confirmed to be based on. Hitmonchan, if you can find the source that says that, we would be very glad to have it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The movie monster would be Gamera, but I have heard no such comparison between the two. 173.180.64.146 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just delete these lists?

[edit]

They're mindblowingly useless and everyone knows it. They offer borderline no information, and lack even the most basic things. Like pictures. Anyone who actually takes the time to look this stuff up most likely wants to know what the damn things look like, but due to Wikipedia's laughable "jpegs make the site less free!" policy these lists serve no purpose. Why don't we just make all of these things off-site redirects to Bulbapedia or a site that's actually useful to the people who take the time to search for this information? Because after they Wiki "Charizard" and get this garbage, that's exactly where they're gonna go to anyway. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just voted to keep Bulbasaur with a really random rant, and now you are wanting to delete these lists? You need to stop drinking man. just kidding, but you aren't really being serious. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the Bulbasaur is pretty much completely irrelevant at this point. It's not really that useful but doesn't quite warrant deletion. These lists though, man. Why are they even here? The most prominent thing they represent is TTN's ego from years back. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are here to give information on the species. Just without much of the plot info, movesets, and other un-encyclopedic things. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plot info is verifiable and important (if not overused), but I agree with movesets and other similar things being unencyclopedic. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbapedia does a much better job at documenting this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Species notability

[edit]

What are the requirements for a Pokemon to have its own article? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like any subject, Pokemon must comply with the Notability guidelines, which state that it must have significant coverage in third party reliable sources. If you look at the existing articles, the last section usually displays the notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Pokémon (1–51)

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Pokémon (1–51)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ign":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smogon?

[edit]

There are very few sources that would be considered reliable secondary sources when it comes to Pokémon; would Smogon count? They are generally regarded as the definitive source for competitive battling (whether anti-Smogonites such as myself like it or not). Also, many Pokémon-related articles cite Bulbapedia - this is a tertiary source, can we fix this? 2birds1stone (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fansite, so it is not reliable. Bulbapedia is written by users, so it is not reliable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bulbapedia's not reliable by wiki standards, my paragraph criticized the citation of them. Thank you for clearing up the Smogon issue. Um... It seems to me that Wiki's guidelines aren't really conjusive to tackling Pokémon-related articles. A lot of basic information about the Pokémon, like their place in the metagame, is only available in so-called unreliable sources. 2birds1stone (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"like their place in the metagame"? You mean NU, OU, etc? That stuff is not notable. Only serious competitive battlers care about that. I love Pokemon and I don't even care about that. Wikipedia writes articles mainly for people to learn about the series, for people who have never played it, or want basic information on some things. Those competitive battling ranks are not notable enough to be included. I don't even think Bulbapedia shows that stuff.
Also, I don't see where we have referenced Bulbapedia as you say. It is shown at the end of the article as a place where readers can gain further information that we don't wish to display. Wikis can be used as external links only when they are of a great size, and have a history of stability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the tier system (OU, UU, NU, etc.), just basic things like 'Raichu, despite evolving from an iconic pokémon, is generally regarded as being quite weak'. Obviously an overview of everything about the competitive scene would be overkill, but 'this well-known Pokémon often considered to be weak by serious players' seems quite basic information to me. 2birds1stone (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nidoking

[edit]

The following has been removed: In a poll conducted by IGN, it was voted as the 42nd best Pokémon, where the staff commented on how Nidoking does not have a crown. They further stated that "Maybe in Generation VI he’ll finally get the adornments befitting a king".[1] — while I agree that the speculation about generation VI is unnecessary, and the speculation about his lack of crown is...bizarre, I think there's room to say that he was voted 42nd best Pokémon of all time. I'm not going to Be Bold just yet (I'm a little shy), but if no one objects after a week, I'm gonna put in his 42nd best Pokémon of all time status back on this page. 2birds1stone (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put both back because it is perfectly fine. It is established editors from a reliable source giving criticism on Nidoking's character, which helps to make him notable. Sure, when there is one one bit of reception thrown together with real information about their character, the entries look odd. But once they get their own article, which is what the reception helps to do, the reception will be in its own section all by itself, where they won't get it mistaken for trivia. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly, IGN as a whole isn't considered a notable source (with a few in-depth exceptional articles), although it's reliable enough to establish particular facts. Even if it was, none of that line is notable. I see no others with their positions in that poll listed, and an offhand comment from someone completely unconnected to development is absolutely not notable. If Mayamoto or a developer said he'd get a crown in the upcoming game, then it might be notable. I think it fits every definition of trivia. I also think you're mistaken about ever getting any separate article, the old one was redirected here 4 years ago and nothing has changed since. On the other hand, it would fit perfectly within Bulbapedia. Foxyshadis(talk) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you are talking about. Coverage by third party reliable sources makes subjects notable. Commentary like this is considered reception by reliable sources, which is good to include. The results of the poll have not been added to all of the species because it is a hundred spots. That is a lot to add, and we might have added it to about 25/100.(also, the poll results by themselves aren't that notable, but the commentary on the winners is) Take a look at Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam. While it is a fully developed, and nicely written article(I brought it to GA status), without the whole "Cultural impact" section, they would not have their own article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Audrey. "Nidoking - #42 Top Pokémon - IGN". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-05.

Nidorina and Nidoqueen

[edit]

Is it worth noting that they are 2 out of only 3 (out of all official 646[3 is approx. 0.46%]) Pokémon that aren't legendary nor in baby stage, yet can't breed? (3rd is Unown) MarcowyGnom (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please go to talk: 202-251

[edit]

there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pictures?!?!?

[edit]

?!??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.40.45 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pokémon_(1–51)&oldid=1172446721"