User:Melicans/The problem with Pokémon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

As we all know, the Pokémon articles were all merged quite some time ago. As a member of the Pokémon WikiProject, I often see many arguments by one-time posters saying things like "this is stupid, why were they merged" or "lol, you are all idiots put them back the way they were". A lot of people will argue that, contrary to what the majority of WikiProject members say, there is a lot of information on the nearly 500 Pokémon species; enough that each should have their own article. Of course, many of these users will also argue that we should be able to use PsyPokes and Serebii as resources, despite them failing WP:FANSITE.

The problem is that the information that these users want to put in are wrong kind of information. Sure all the movesets, Dex entries, and locations to capture the critters will be interesting to the Pokémon fans, but the majority of those go to Bulbapedia or Serebii to find that out, not here. We don't cater specifically to a small group of fans. The information has to be real-world that establishes the topic's notability. If they want to find out how to play a game, then they need to go to a gaming website. There will always be some in-universe information regarding the character's portrayal in the Pokémon media, and that is necessary to a degree. But there is other, far more important information that needs to be found and included first. WP:MOSFICT. This includes but is certainly not limited to:

  1. Conception - why they created the character; what influenced the design; the thought process behind the making of it
  2. Critical reception - how this has influenced our culture; what makes it notable; how have people responded to it

That is the kind of real world, out of universe information that is absolutely vital, that we need to create these articles. That is what needs to be our priority. WP:N states that if a topic isn't notable, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia.

Are these articles notable? Some users think so.

Prove it.

Source Serebii![edit]

A lot of newer users and IPs will add information to an article, and then see it promptly removed because it's original research. They ask why, and are told it's because no source was given. "Well it's been announced on Serebii." "Too bad, Serebii.net isn't a reliable source." "But why not?" they will inevitably ask.

Well, using Serebii.net as a source fails several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For one thing the vast majority of Pokémon websites are fansites, including Serebii.net. For another it is a self-published source, and while some of these (such as a New York Times blog) do not fall under this guideline, Serebii.net ain't one of them. Finally, incorrect information and speculation has been posted on there consistently in the past. So even if you could use it, why would you want to?