Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Professors Template

I was wondering if anyone here feels that this template is necessary: Template:Poke-prof. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't, not by a long shot. Looks like a definite TfD candidate to me. I'll look into it. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:Poke-prof has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Crawdaunt for GA

Now that all the goals on the drive have been met and struck out, I think its due time we nominate Crawdaunt for GA. I've taken the liberty of doing so, and I'll watch the talk page, so be ready to make some changes if needbe. Also, start deciding on another drive, because we seem to be ready to get this one to GA and start on something new. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yey! Another GA! *throws confetti* Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Crawdaunt is now a Featured Article Candidate, and (from what I see) has a good chance of making it. What we need to do now is watch its FAC page and fix any problems that are brought up. This could be the first Pokémon FA in a whie, so let's work hard to get it there! ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally nominated the article for FA status. I no longer feel that it meets FA standards. I am withdrawing the nomination. Funpika 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game focus category?

Does anyone think there should be a new focus category for video games? We only have "Species" and "Other" right now. I think the video games are very important to Pokemon and should have their own focus category. Funpika 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes, but I have to wonder if it will make a difference, looking at the last two (and current, still) focuses: it took about five or six months for Crawdaunt to make it to GA, and who knows how long for Pokémon itself. It might be a good thing to do, but for it to really be worthwhile we need to figure out a way to get more people to actually work on the focus articles. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

Since I don't seem to see people praising the project, or praising it for its combined efforts. Looking back at around when I first came here, both the quality of the articles has been vastly improving (with a lot of FAs and GAs and As). Also, cruft has been reduced by a lot, and there was very little resistance to my merge of the towns.

So again, *thumbs up* - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Dungeon links...

We're linking to Pokemon Dungeon's Pokedex entry on all the pages that were created with the now deleted {{Pokerefs}}. Problem is, they don't work, because the site only has a GSC pokedex. Blah. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Are there links where there shouldn't be any, or are there links that go to the wrong place? --Brandon Dilbeck 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any, because as I said, they have no Pokedex past GSC. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Genderless Pokémon

I was wondering how necessary it is to have Category:Genderless Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say more necessary than the other two gender categories, considering their relative size. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Torchic#Critical issue: sourcing and comprehensiveness

I listed some of the things bothering me about one of our FAs, based on my objections to the Crawdaunt FA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Torchic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Funpika 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In the video games

I'm at a loss to understand why we even need this. We are not Serebii or Smogon, so why are we specifically giving such specific examples of this? We're talking about advanced, Net Battle-like strategy. It doesn't matter if it's cited, it's FAQ-like and WP:NOT#IINFO. Here are some examples:

  • Charizard: In particular, some players like to use a setup known as "Bellyzard" which utilizes a move called Belly Drum to greatly increase their Attack power while lowering their HP. Dropping the health to 25% or below activates a hold item called a Salac Berry, which increases the speed of the holder.
  • Skarmory: In Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald, the Fortree City Gym Leader, Winona, uses a Skarmory that knows Steel Wing. The player's next major encounter with Skarmory is during the battle with the Pokémon League Champion, Steven Stone
  • Paras: Paras, along with Parasect, often hold an item called the Tiny Mushroom, and to a lesser extent, the Big Mushroom. After attaining a certain amount of one of these items, the services of a Move Relearner, on Island Two, become available, allowing Pokémon to remember moves, previously forgotten.
  • Snorunt: Snorunt has two abilites. (decription about summmaries)
  • Gardevoir: Gardevoir has high Special Attack and Special Defense, good Speed and low hit points (HP), Attack and Defense. Gardevoir is frequently used in the Battle Tower as a Special Sweeper, and sometimes in competitive battles as an annoyer

These are really in-universe...only someone who played the game and was interested would care about it. The average reader certainly wouldn't care about it. I am not sure how far to cut from it, so I want to discuss it here: how much do we keep? Remove? Junk the whole section? Hbdragon88 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

They're not in-universe, really; they describe the game as a game and how to play that game. That said, they're game guide, and they should probably go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm mostly in agreement. If a given Pokémon has a stat that's absurdly high or low compared to the rest of its stats (or even overall), likeAlakazam's Special Attack or Blissey's high HP and low other stats, then I don't think it hurts to mention it, along with a link to Pokémon game mechanics#Stats to minimize confusion for inexperienced readers. But I agree that almost all of it needs to go. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then we might need to update WP:PAC/S#In_the_video_games, cause I've been following thoes guidelines and... uh... adding information about stats and stuff. Nothing major... just some brief, general notes... *runs away*
However, my personal view is that the video games sections shouldn't be removed entirely. Before the anime, before the comics, before all the merchandise and hype, there was the games. Surely a note of a Pokemon's role in the games is not inappropriate? Bhamv 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with including broad, general battle information about a Pokémon but am against listing moves unless the Pokémon is notable for using that attack (like Ditto's Transform, maybe Cubone's Bonemerang, or other signature attacks). The worst thing we can do is use made-up "moveset names" like "Bellyzard" (where do these names come from, anyway?). I'm also generally against listing anything about a Pokémon's stats unless they're out of the ordinary ("Shedinja has only 1 HP" is notable but "Delibird has slightly-above-average speed" isn't).
Perhaps the biggest problem here is that well-meaning novice editors add this information aiming to make the article the best source of info possible without realizing that the info they're adding is unverified, unsourced, uninteresting, non-notable, and/or completely unencyclopedic. It'd be nice if I could check every single species article for all these details, but I can't, and I can't expect anyone else to either. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
many of these just need to be rewritten and possibly sourced. The example from Paras is mostly fine IMO b/c it is significant that Paras and Parasect are the only Pokémon who hold those items in the wild. It just delves a bit too much into what the mushrooms do and where the relearners are and such. As for strategy... for a long time i was opposed to it and removed it when i saw it. However, recently i have come to appreciate the fact that there is a double standard out there - i.e. we can have articles discussing strategy in chess or poker, but not pokemon, b/c it's a video game. The reason that chess and poker retain their articles is because the articles are referencing published material on strategy. Ergo, we may do the same, if you are unconvinced please refer to a longstanding section of WP:NOT, specifically how wikipedia is NOT paper]. So... where is there published material on strategies in pokemon? you know the answers, and all we should do is make sure that what is being put into the article is what is being discussed in the reference. Take this (3rd block) example of Crawdaunt where i utilized published discussion of strategy from serebii's Poke Of the Week to fix up the recommendations that were there, specifically replacing the mention of Aerial Ace with Brick Break (which is arguably a poorer choice IMHO) because that is what the new reference recommends. If someone wants to say that people use a "Bellyzard", then we should have a ref to back up that claim and describe what specifically we mean, not just rm it because it could be instructional. For a non-guide look at a Video Game section, I'm particularly proud of my recent edits to Feebas. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm also fond of Feebas's video games section. It has relevant, notable, useful, interesting information without mucking about it moveset strategy and descriptions of type affinity. I wish there were this much to say about all of the other Pokémon as well. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
One possible problem with citation is that almost all the resources available are, arguably, fansites. Serebii and Smogon are probably the two most widely used resources for moves and strategies, and there's a strong case for both of them being called a fansite. Unless Nintendo or Gamefreak publish strategy guides for competitive battling, citation will be a challenge. Bhamv 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, quite honestly i abhor those long lists of what the Fire-type is weak and strong against, but b/c they have been present in FAs there are some editors who feel compelled to put them in every article.
in response to Bhamv, if you review WP:RS's section on non-scholarly sources you can see the argument could be made (as i have done several times) that serebii (at least) could qualify for as an RS. I'll point out though that this section was removed from the policy since Feb. 24th without consensus and i only recently put it back, so there may be changes made to this part of the policy that would negatively affect the use of long standing reputable "fansites". I'd like to point that in any case, serebii is still a published source that has credibility and reputability within the comunity and that is no different than an important person or company within the Chess community writing a book on strategy that is then referenced in articles about chess moves. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT paper? Great! WP:NOT#IINFO either: tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Including what Paras can hold opens up a whole can of worms over the sheer number of items that other Pokes can hold (like Metal Powder for Ditto, Pikachu and Light Ball, etc.). I'm seriously in favor of junking the item-holding description altogether.

Serebii is anything but well-respected within the community. The Featrued article review on Torchic is literally getting burned by the lack of reliability of Serebii. I brought the issue up in August (Reliabiltiy of Serebii?) where some questionable issues about Serebii was raised, such as the webmaster's apparent purposeful introdctuion of errors just so he could tell who ripped from the Pokedex. Pretty darn fishy to me if this is true. Hbdragon88 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that mentioning the Pikachu line's relation to the Light Ball is irrelevant and indiscriminate? I'm not saying we should be talking about anything. Like the above post, the Paras section delves into irrlevevant minutiae about how the Relearner is located on Island Two. You know, every time someone gets it into their head to list one of the mechanics pages at AFD the argument comes up that the infor should be merged into the main article. Where where else would you have these things mentioned? (i know... nowhere) Hard drives are cheap, and there's no reason that as long as the info is relevant to Paras that it can't be included.
"Paras, along with Parasect, are one of the only Pokémon to be found in the wild holding items called the Small Mushroom or Big Mushroom. These items can be traded in FireRed and LeafGreen to a special NPC that teaches Pokémon moves they previously learned through levelling up, but have since forgotten. This is similar to the function of Heartscales in Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald that are only held by wild Luvdisc."
This version stays relevant to Paras by only explaining what is necessary for the reader to understand, and then makes a nice bridge to Luvdisc for further reading. I suppose on the latter article i would include the fact that the Relearner was first introduced in this generation, or just wikilink to an appropriate section that discussed it within the main RS article.
As for the serebii thing... that discussion you keep quoting (here and at Torchic's FA review) is hardly what i would call damning. The percentage of errors versus information is probably quite low taking into account the different complaints i've heard, and the user supplying those juicy unconfirmed details admitted to having a bias as the webmaster of bulbapedia. I'm really sorry for your problem with using their info, but it seems like you're just complaining. And you're misrepresenting the issues with serebii at the FA review. The problem isn't with serebii itself, it's with the fact the serebii provides no analysis of the episodes - analysis that the article is occasionally providing and which constitutes original research. If serebii is undesirable than we could use smogon, but i don't know anything about that site. Personally i feel like we're having a difference of opinion that many projects or editors of similar articles face when a group considers a certain source reliable and the other group doesn't. Usually the compromise is to source both places. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right about knowing nothing about Smogon if you intend on using it as a source. Unless you're writing a strategy guide, there is zero information there. -Amarkov moo! 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep bringing up the hard drive space issue? We know that stuff is cheap and that Wikipedia prides itself on not being bound to having to print what it produces. The question is whether it is important to the anybody else to know what each Pokemon can hold, or whatever in the previous examples that I listed. I say it isn't important, and only important to players hwo are actually playing the game. And therefore they can look up such information in a FAQ or something, but Wikipedia is just to gloss over it in general terms and link to specific information. Hbdragon88 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
i completely agree that it's not important what each pokemon can hold (the fact that Linoone are found holding Oran berries is hardly worth mentioning). But when it's something important to actual gameplay, rare, unique, if i had to make a list I'd say the aforementioned shrooms/scales, shards for stones, lucky egg, thick club, light ball, lucky punch, metal powder, sacred ash, and stick are the sorts of things to mention. Briefly, with no extraneous info and only staying on information that is relevant to the Pokemon being discussed or information that is necessary to understand the context. It is enough to say that Chasey can be caught holding a Lucky Egg and that it doubles experience, anything about how it would help for raising lvl 100's or speculation about Chansey and eggs and Lucky Egg should not be included - that is indiscriminate. I keep bringing up the hardrive issue because it is related to Wiki is not paper. And as long as we aren't adding information, "just b/c it's about Pokemon" we can remain discriminate yet still allow lots of information in order to make the topic of Pokemon as comprehensive as possible. It's like adding a fair-use image to an article. Why are we adding this piece of information? Does it help readers to better understand (for example) the mechanics behind the gameplay? Or is it redundant to information already presented? (the several examples of anime/video game contradictions at Pokémon types) Is this information interesting to a lay person who would have come to this page? (Pokémon items) Or does it delve into too much minutiae that only someone playing the game would care about? (Foo pokemon is found on Rt. 3, 6, 12, and 22) If the information improves the article (and is verifiable) it should remain. If it just adds bloat (or "decoration") it should be removed. I would be much more inclined to go through and remove all that boilerplate on the species aticles that bulks up the sections with paragraphs not even relevant to the species being disucssed (there's no reason to mention Mario on Torchic) THAT is adding information indiscriminately. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Concurred about the boilerplate thing. I've been itching to remove them from the video games section and maybe even the paragraph that shows up in the anime section, but I've been afraid of going against consensus. Bhamv 14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
the single thing i think we get the most anons and other editors coming here to complain about is the Pokestart lead and the way many of the articles say the same thing in their first paragraphs. I don't recall there being a consensus to do it (of course i was never part of the PAC) but i understand why some people might think there was. In fact, when i introduced the idea of subst'ing in templates (kind of like {{Pokefair}} that pasted this sort of info into the sections it was immediately shot down on the basis that each article is included on it's own merit, and writing them all the same filling up space is not what wikipedia should promote (of course the idea of using transcluded templates for section headers was never really resolved, but that's a whole other can of worms). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I just did a search on Torchic, I don't see "Mario" anywhere at all. I'm not even sure where Mario would have fitted in there.
I say that mentioning those 1.5x modifiers deviates somewhat too much into the gameplay specifics, and also has pretty much runs into a huge frickin' list: there's Farfetch'd with Stick, the Deepseascale/tooth...but ah, I usppose the last one is most relevent to stating how Clamperl evolves, eh? If you just say that it doubles experience, then you're going to have to say what experience is, and then you get into the question of how much is too much. As for one of the afrementioned items, I don't think it's necessary to state who holds shards; all we need to state is what stones Pokemon need to evolve. Those who are playing the game will dig around deeper to find out how to get thoee stones.
What to discriminate? Personally, I'm lazy, I'd much rather do away with most of it. Except maybe for Volt Tackle and Light Ball. Hbdragon88 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
i apologize for my Mario and Torchic reference, it was inaccurate... there used to be this lead paragraph that introduced the pokemon video games and then made a mention that the franchise was only second to Mario.. it was included on a variety of pages, possibly not ever Torchic. Here's an accurate example - in the video game section, fluff like, "an Electric-type mouse famous for being the mascot of the Pokémon media franchise" is stuff that just gets included so we can say, "Look, we have a reference!" It's indiscriminate and irrelevant to the article. It's enough to describe starters and link to Pikachu. Better yet, just leave it at "Blaziken evolves from Torchic, one of the starter Pokemon from RSE." Only the actual starter Pokemon should be giving short summaries. As for the items: modifiers like Mystic Water and Sharp Beak have no reason to be included anywhere (unless there's an exclusive pokemon who holds them?) so i don't know what this huge list is and i'm not even saying to make a list - leave each item on it's respective species and describe modifiers (don't list) at the mechanics page; there's no reason to explain experience when it's such a common mechanic of RPGs that even lay people usually understand it, and especially not when there's this page to explain it to the very slow; the shards are mentioned because sole pokemon hold them, if half the water pokemon could be found holding a blue shard (like field pokemon and Oran berries) i wouldn't see a point either - it doesn't matter if they evolve pokemon or just get sold, mention is required b/c it's unique. I apologize for the late reply... i got sidetracked. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Video game navbox discussion

A centralized discussion about video game navboxes, which may impact some or all of this project's navboxes, is ongoing. Members of this project (or anyone else interested) are invited to participate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't care to read all that. Could someone give me the gist of it please? --Brandon Dilbeck 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
there are three main issues being discussed
    • Whether the templates should have sections/the sections be split into seperate templates
      • What is more aesthetically pleasing, what is better for uability, what is better for minimizing unneccessarily comprehensive lists.
    • Whether to include articles on upcoming or cancelled games in the navboxes
      • Should we really be linking to pathetic stub articles, like Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, that are likely to contain unconfirmed information?
      • Are we doing a disservice by not grouping articles like Sonic X-treme with the other video games in the franchise?
    • Whether in-universe topics (like characters or locations) should be included on the main navbox/split off into their own
      • The staus quo seems to be that everything is contained in the single navbox until in-universe/game-related articles become too numerous and the navboxes difficult to maintain (Mario). Should we continue this or set a guidline to encompass all franchises?
AMIB, if i have left anything important out or misjudged something, please fix my above post. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Zapper and I fall on opposite sides of pretty much every issue in this discussion, but this is the upshot, stated better than I could've done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
you say that like we ever fall on the same side of anything... hehehe! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bunches of names revealed on Serebii

So those are all changed now (with {{Fact}} tags), but I was wondering whether that was something others on the project would agree with? Should we change those back to the Japanese names and have to deal with people constantly changing it back to the reported names because they think Wikipedia needs to be completely up-to-date with information reported by a fansite, regardless of the (non-[?])existence of a reliable source we can cite? Or should we keep them at these reported English names and not have to deal with these people, while we have {{Fact}} tags because there's no citation of a reliable source?
So, basically, does anyone object to having the names in the article as reported by Serebii? Or does anyone have another source we can cite? —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GameSpot also claims "Empoleon", and Pokéxperto has posted all the names that Serebii has released. Ultraflame 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I really don't see why not, as long as we keep the cite needed tags. Serebii's been pretty damn accurate with their early announcements of the now-officially-confirmed ones. Plus, if all these names are coming out at once, there's a chance Nintendo's going to make a formal announcement relatively soon. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to reliable sources that update fast, Serebii is tops. Why CAN'T we use that as a source? Honestly. Toastypk 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Because Serebii is not (or at least, has not been proven to be) a member of GameFreak and thus gets his information second-hand. Now, his site is indeed top-notch, but he has made some notable mistakes in the past, including but not limited to:
        • Blaziken as a legendary
        • A huge mixup between the moves "Feint" and "Anticipate," to which many people are still confused
        • Certain name blunders that have occurred, even in the latest generation, though this is to a lesser extent
Yes, Serebii is currently the best source of English Pokemon information, but it's not first-party and nowhere near foolproof. I'm not saying the site is bad, but rather something to draw from with caution. You Can't See Me! 08:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
like i've said before, given the amount of information serebii contains, i think the site's error rate is actually relatively low. Of course we shouldn't just blindly trust serebii, but to be honest news makers have made errors while reporting and no one says - well, we can't trust them anymore. What's important is whether the source fixes their errors, which serebii has done multiple times in the past and i expect that trend to continue. The site corrected its assumption of Piplop and Shelios. However, in the case of naming, i don't think we should always be willing to just trust serebii blindly, and of course primary sources are preferable. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We're about to have an onslaught because Serebii just revealed them all. X_x -Sukecchi 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, if things get out of hand chances are there will be some speedy deletions going on. Of course that is only if stupid infobox/stub template with little info articles appear. Funpika 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Things have already gotten out of hand. Almost all articles are being edited and moved to the unofficial "official" English names, and causing some pages to have broken links due to the wrong directed links. shao 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I know, I was just forced to worry about Jibacoil getting changed to Magnezone a few minutes ago. Funpika 18:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
...So, you're going to start reverting the moves on every article with a name released by Serebii? Isn't that pretty much all of them, including a good sixty or seventy just released today? I understand why you want to be careful (in the early days, I supported the general "cite but don't move" policy on the names Serebii revealed), but for a while then it seems to have been policy, unofficial or official, to use Serebii's names and move the articles to the names he announces (Lumineon, Magmortar, Azelf, every single name revealed today), and this seems an odd U-turn. 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. And the reason the others were taken is because they were revealed at Toy Fair or some Developer's Conference thingy. All these new names need cites. x.x —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 21:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Plus, when the reason people give you for changing it is that the name is found in many other sites, that's only because it was taken from this one site. This doesn't make it any more reputable. Good job on your efforts MCY! shao 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're being consistent, then that's fine; my concern was that some names from Serebii were being accepted while others weren't, without distinction, but since all the Serebii-only names are now being put back to Japanese articles, then I have no complaint. Fine work. Azelf still seems to be at its English article, though, whereas to my knowledge that's still just a fansite-reported name. 10:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Slightly concerned that maybe some other source has come up with Azelf that I don't know about, but I was bold, and did it myself. Go IP editors. 10:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What is with the portal!?

I have noticed that the Pokemon Portal is rarely updated anymore. I recently did some work on it, but other than that, the portal is pretty much abandoned. Can we please try to get this portal going again soon. If not then I may nominate it for deletion on WP:MFD. Why bother having an abandoned portal around? Funpika 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that most people don't tend to bother with it becuase it's more complex than most other tasks. If you'd like to head an initiative to maintain it, then i say go ahead. I'd be reserved about nominating it for MFD though b/c it is linked through {{PCP}} and is therefore theoretically accessible from over 500 articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it is in the template does not matter. It should be a simple task of quickly modifying the template. Funpika 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Only one person handling a portal should be bad in my opinion. And by the looks of it no one will bother to help with it. I am going to MFD the portal. Funpika 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Pokémon has been nominated for deletion on WP:MFD. Please discuss this here. Funpika 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
you misunderstood me... i was saying that by removing a page that is so thoroughly linked throughout the project's scope it seems foolish to MFD it. We have no idea how many non-project people utilize the portal when accessing pokemon-related articles. And i wasn't saying that you do everything yourself, but start an initiative. List the core problems you see with the portal, suggest solutions, get feedback, invite/encourage editors who have a good understanding of wiki-markup to make contributions. btw, i have requested a speedy keep of your premature nomination. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretend this never happened. Funpika 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
here, i'll make you a deal... you help me finish categorizing these images and i'll start tackling the portal (something i've wanted to do off and on whenever i see the pretty Portal:Science) and help drum up interest. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay I will go through the images and categorize. But I will IFD or nominate for Speedy delete if any meet the criteria however.

I will update a list of images that I am nominating for IFD or Speedy delete here as I categorize images. Funpika 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:444-1-.png- Redundant to Image:ArtGabite.png
Image:Ardos.jpg- Under fair use but not used anywhere.

don't bother listing them here... i know there are several redundant images (tagged about 5 or 6 already) and MANY orphans... i tend to let OrphanBot deal with those, lol. And i appreciate ur efforts... the only thing i ask is that if u find images with no rationale, either add them urself or label it with {{PokeImageNR}}. i had this grand ideal that i would even try to source them all... yeah... i'm still trying to figure out why there aren't 496 files in Category:Pokémon lead images (493 + Deoxys forms) btw, {{redundant}} is good enough, admins watch the corresponding category, i've already had several deleted this way :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, what's supposed to go in that category again? Just the Pokémon?M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thank you thank you to whoever found those last few! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the portal: You can begin by reaading the news and the DYK. I trashed them ages ago 'coz no one was bothering to update them. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry bout not responding sooner, had no internet for a little while (but least it got me to clean the house... well start neways...) and raven, thnx for bringing that up, i'm gonna have to have a close look at the portal setup, and formatting options - might also set up a section in a little while for people to make suggestions. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
well, since the science portal is featured i decided to borrow some stuff from it. First change is to the selected pokemon box. Now evey time you freshly load the portal, a new pokemon species appears. Unfortunately i only did three so far so it might take a couple tries to see what i mean. won't be making any edits until late tomorrow (if even then) so a bientot for now!-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, the reinstated "news" section's displaying info dating back to September 2006, except for the fact that the Japanese names have been replaced with English. Ah, well, it's a start. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
to keep this topic from becoming too long, i'd like to invite everyone to feel free to leave comments/qustions regarding the Portal at it talk page. Of course, jst for extra visibility, i'd like to ask if anyone here could give me the value for a darker shade of pink than the one we're using... i'm making header tabs and want an appropriate color for inactive pages. Plus there's now 10 selected pokemon the template can randomly display... yay! more info will be coming soon in a new section, and on the portal's talk page -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a few. The pink being used on the portal is actually magenta-hued, so these darker shades look very magenty: #f29df2, #f495f4, #ff55ff, #d393d3, #eaafea—there's a few to pick from, all keeping the same hue in check. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


I think all WP articles about Pokemon should link to the corresponding pages at Bulbapedia ([[1]]). This is made by a comprehensive fan base called "Bulbasaur's Mysterious Garden" that is a big follower of Pokemon. Bulbapedia is a wiki maintained much like this one, and is a big Pokemon encyclopedia. Just a suggestion. --Wykypydya 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

don't all the species articles already do that? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Most do, at least. I have no interest in checking all 493. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite sure they all do. -Sukecchi 13:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, this encyclopedia misses information that they have, as well as their encyclopedia missing information that this one has (i.e. neither one is entirely complete but they probably make good complements). An example is that the Arseus page has NO background info about Arseus being a "creator" Pokemon but that encyclopedia does. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think there would be some merit in having a bot go to the Pokemon List page and iterating through all the Pokemon articles, putting an external link to the corresponding Bulbapedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wykypydya (talkcontribs) 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
we're saying that all 493 species articles do link to Bulbapedia, check the bottom under "External links" -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Focus article

How the heck did Caterpie suddenly become our focus!? Was it even put into the FFA!? Are people allowed to just make an article our focus without FFA first? Funpika 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't see any discussion about making Caterpie the focus. Maybe it's just a placeholder. Honestly, I was considering putting Metapod there as a joke. While we're at it, why don't we discuss what our next focus should be? I suggest we go with a popular Pokémon that people are likely to search for. Maybe Pikachu or Meowth or something. Corphish Crawdaunt is nice and all, but seriously, who looks up Corphish Crawdaunt? --Brandon Dilbeck 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
How about a Pokémon about which we have reliable sources independent of the fictional works in which they appear? That'd be nice. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should do Blaziken. If we complete that we will have the whole Torchic evolution family at GA or higher. Funpika 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Torchic is at FAR, and if it's FARCed I will take it to GAR. With its current, poorly-cited sources I'd say it's B at best. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
How about Mewtwo so we can get a legendary Pokémon done? If not that then Treeko would be my next choice. Funpika 23:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Funpika! I've said it a few times, Mewtwo is definitly one of the closest and should be a GA at least which it's not. It's definitly a more important pokemon than some others and is one of the few that have appeared outside Pokemon games as a playable character. I do agree though that it should be a priority to find RS that are independent of the franchise (no game guides/fansites - critical discussion of pokemon that discusses Mewtwo specifically). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

now before i start editing that page, i know AMIB has been having some issues with sources, and i agree that it's best to include material independent of the franchise - what would you say to articles like these ([2][3][4])? They discuss Mewtwo and offer real-world commentary on its character. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They seem like a really good reason to merge Mewtwo into the first Pokémon movie's article. >_< They're better than what we've been using, though, but some of them are really trivial mentions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) you're so funny! XD out of the three though, i think at least one would be a good source to add some info to the movie part in Mewtwo's article. He's repeatedly likened to the Frankenstein monster in several of the reviews. This was just a small sampling though, ideally i'd like to find sources for the video games (canon and SSBM), TCG, and mebbe some anime-specific ones. I have no idea what kind of independent sources would discuss Mewtwo in the manga... between all these it should be possible to create a culture section close to pikachu's (not on par, mind you, but close). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With AMIB's attitude about almost all the Pokemon articles hardly being Wikipedia worthy because of a lack of reliable second-party sourcing, it's as if WP:PCP can't exactly be expected to find out any miracle sourcing solution to accomodate all 493 species articles. Therefore, I shall once again direct eyes to my sandbox draft of a mega-merge of all the articles, which essentially turns 493 pages into 25 list pages that link to about 10 or 20 full articles on the most notable individual species. Actually, a short while back User:Hbdragon88 stumbled acrossed it and thought it was pretty good (see the talk page for the full discussion that occured about it), so I am curious to see what others might think about this rather hefty proposal page of mine. Erik Jensen ([[User talk:Erik the Appreciator|Ap
(edit conflict) Well, it wouldn't be the first time this has been proposed. But why did you stop at 20? Why not go up to 25 or even 26 Pokémon per page? I mean, as long as we're being arbitrary... --Brandon Dilbeck 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Who knows? Maybe that could be discussed on my sandbox talk page. :D Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Really, the main reason I decided to bring this up again is because since the last time I proposed this somebody else, Hbdragon88 namely, had come to me to say that this would be a good way to fix the so-called "current mess of 493 articles", so I felt this concept had a little more weight this time around. And I'm always tempted to try and impose a solution whenever Mr.Black says something like How about a Pokémon about which we have reliable sources independent of the fictional works in which they appear? That'd be nice. :/, because at this point it seems most of the Pokemon are outright unsourcable, at least to the satisfaction of an ideal Wikipedia, so this sort of mega-merge is seeming more and more like the only way to go.
As for 20 instead of 25-26 Pokemon per page, if we made it 25 per page, people's browsers would have to load 5 extra Pokemon sections with five extra fair-use sugimori images, and the division of Pokemon between pages would mean that Mew would be the first Pokemon displayed on the sixth list page, then followed by the second-gen Pokemon Chikorita and all that, and Celebi would be the first Pokemon displayed on the tenth list page, then followed by the third-gen Pokemon Treecko and so on; making it 20 per page just seems less awkward to me. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Mewtwo going to be our next focus? Funpika 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see Mewtwo the next focus because there's probably enough reliably sourcable info about Mewtwo to give him a full article that may possibly be a Featured Article. Mewtwo, having been seen in the anime, two feature films, and a TV special, is one of the most notable species IMO. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
3 people seem to agree that Mewtwo is good for a focus. With some work we could find sources to make AMIB pleased. Funpika 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but your goal isn't to please AMIB. It's to please the unbiased, senior editors. ;) - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're in trouble.

If anyone finds this...ウルタプ 03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to rebel against Jimbo and AMIB and use the leaked English names before an official source does..... I mean, can anyone hold back the anon tsunami now? --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, at this point I don't see the harm. The game's out in a month.—ウルタプ 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the problem. Just move the pages to the new names. Problem solved. -- Jelly Soup 06:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
...The "anon tsunami" happened yesterday, and just up the page from here (Bunches of names revealed on Serebii), it seemed that we were keeping things at their Japanese articles. Fact is, all the ones I saw yesterday had been moved to their English-name articles, but have now seem to have been redirected back. And yet others revealed on Serebii previously with no other (non-fansite) source remain at their supposed English names. Frankly, I'm confused as to what the policy's meant to be at the moment - some Pokemon are at their Japanese names and don't mention the English ones, some Pokemon are at their Japanese names and mention the English ones, and some are just at their English names. And those are just the ones revealed by fansites in the past few days. 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
See, I'd rather use these names now, I mean...we can't keep reverting pages. It's going to get ridiculous with how many we'd be doing. We can...and then we can go mad because of it. It's our choice. Keep our sanity or not. :P -Sukecchi 12:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep on until Nintendo confirms the names, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder be damned! My biggest beef is anons making articles that redirect to themselves, not that they're taking dynamite to the floodgates, since I can easily deal with unconfirmed info w/o using warning templates. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm currently seeing articles still being a mixture of Serebii's English names and the Japanese names - and within those, inconsistency on whether the English names are used or even mentioned. I guess it's not much more than a month until the games are out, but for the moment, there seems to be no consensus, and consequently no consistency, and that makes the whole 4th-gen list a bit of a shambles. Examples, using names released only by fansites: Stunky is at its English name and uses that throughout. Azelf is at Azelf and uses that throughout. Yonoir is linked under its English name on the list but doesn't even mention it in its article. Mesprit is at its English name but switches inconsistently between that and the Japanese. And that's not even mentioning the infoboxes. Should we all be going about editing these, and if so which way? 16:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I really think we're just wasting our time, Eteboth has been reverted about...7+ times now. The more I revert them, the more frustrated I get. -Sukecchi 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
My view (= worthless, as an IP editor who's not a member of this Wikiproject), is that you should just go with it and use Serebii's reported names, cite 'em to Serebii, and note that they haven't been confirmed. Because it seems... almost 100% certain that they're real, so it'll save everyone time when the games are actually released. I think the rules are somewhat flexible when one is right (or when sticking to the rules would be far too troublesome). Plus less stress for everyone, too, and I can return to my lurking. 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Oraclelink has moved half if not all the articles to these names...I give up. -Sukecchi 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah and I'm not getting myself blocked reverting all of those. Curse you WP:3RR!!!Funpika 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually think we have valid reasoning to change the names back. Like AMIB suggested, why don't we move-protect them? Official announcements are what we're looking for, and until this and the advent of breaking all these additionally, most articles used the press-released names. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (talk : contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can lay down move protection on all of these, if there's strong consensus here to have them protected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if there is no protection then either:
A. We watch all articles switch to unconfirmed name.
B. In an attempt to stop articles from being switched half of us get blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I am just fine with protection. Funpika 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Query: Will List of Pokemon keep the English names with a cite tag, as it's been doing for the past whatever with fansite names? If not, that'll probably need protection, too. 20:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer move AND semi-protection. I tried this morning before school, but anons tend to be thick to Wikipedia policies, and I wound up following and reverting an anon's adding of Serebii/PokeExperto names (see Talk:Neorant for an explanation). -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Darn it! I have to report User:Sukecchi for breaking the 3 Revert Rule! Possibility B may start to happen. Funpika 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This has degenerated into chaos. I say either protect the articles or leave them to the anons and User:Oraclelink until D/P is released. No-Man's-Land is gone. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep we are much better off with protect or possibility A (watching articles get changed to unconfirmed names). Unless we feel like risking getting blocked. Funpika 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess

Okay. I need a list, with wikilinks, of each unconfirmed name and the corresponding Japanese name, if I'm going to protect these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's just a partial list, I'll We'll come up with more as they become hotspots. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I need wikilinks for both names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the above are move-protected. If it becomes a problem, I can also hard-protect the redirects, as well as anon-protect or just hard-protect any articles that become the subject of an edit war. Please leave a note here if an ongoing edit war persists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin please move Staraptor to Mukuhawk? I can't. -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Covered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please link me the diff for the last good version of List of Pokémon? No sense leaving this uncited garbage there, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is it. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just list all the ones that Serebii didn't reveal, then move-protect or whatever all the rest? Let me see... anything with an actual citation wasn't revealed by Serebii. This lot were all revealed at Toy Fair, although some of them werent'd discovered until a clear photograph came out after the event.

To my knowledge, any other Pokemon, excepting ones that already have cites on List of Pokemon, were revealed by Serebii. And yes, that is a lot of names. However, I think the fansite-revealed names should be reported within their articles - as was the procedure for Buizel, Mantyke, Electivire and another one I forget - as they were reported independently on several fansites, and Serebii's story about how he got them is convincing enough for me to believe they're real (especially since he's been right on all the others to date). 18:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I (try to) do, by saying that the name was reported as such-and-such, as well as origins of the names. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I am tempted to tell everyone that they should prepare to be disappointed when it turns out all those are the real names and therefore all of this protection effort becomes wasted, and a lot of anons would be made livid in the process; why, if I were an anon and had a different personality I would've accused the admins of being corrupt anti-Pokemon bigots. ^_^ I myself would've advocated using the new names and semi-protecting them at those names, but I see consensus backed by valid reasoning above to protect them, so I'll roll with it. Anyway, if D/P is coming out in April, we probably shouldn't have to worry about naming uncertainties for too long. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Erik, I've reverted some names from outta left field, like "Reginormal" (Regigigas), "magmortor" (Booburn), and "Porygon3" (PorygonZ). -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this list is not helpful to me. I need to know which ones I need to protect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe people could - crazy idea, I know - actually add citations on List of Pokemon, to make it easier to sort the wheat from the chaff? Golly, I'm so wacky sometimes with my crazy policy-confirming ideas! 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

user:chaosemeraldking is moving the pages over the redirect, Eteboth and Rampard have both been moved. Clearly he is a problem, what can we do? -Sukecchi 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I say just move them allDSDark 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving them back. We need an admin to move-prot them. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Move them back to the english leaked names.DSDark 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We can't, since there is no reliable source for them, thus violating Wikipedia:Attribution. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
But why move them back if your just going to have to it again in a month —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSDark (talkcontribs) 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Are you not understanding that if we did that we are violating a major rule of Wikipedia? -Sukecchi 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Because there's no official source (ie Nintendo) stating that these names are correct. Until that happens, this is no better than conjecture. HalfShadow 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
At least mention the reported English names on the article pages, as was done previously. That + the English names remaining on List of Pokemon = far less trouble, probably. Or just give up and save yourself the trouble; doesn't it actually advise on the 3RR page to take a break from Wikipedia if it's getting too frustrating? 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll not give up and abet violations of Wikipedia:Attribution. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this really doesn't matter but how many times has Serebii been right, i believe it would be every time.--DSDark 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

'Even idiots can be correct sometimes'. That doesn't make them an official source. HalfShadow 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello? ever heard of Wikipedia:Attribution? We can't use Serebii or its affiliate PokeExperto because it has an anonymous source, meaning there is no way to verify independently what he's posting! -Jeske (v^_^v) 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't just trust everything you read on the Internet. Would you trust this site? --Brandon Dilbeck 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
well brandon, of course i would trust a page you created with clearly legitimate photos, an overwhelming percentage of accurate information, excellent spelling and grammar, and of notable visibility within the community :P (i did get a kick out of it though). Halfshadow, reducing serebii to an "idiot" does not invalidate the idea behind serebii being reliable due to corroboration. "Corroboration — If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination." serebii and are independent orginators of content (the same would not be true of serebii and pokexperto (or gamefaqs and a wealth of other personal sites that rely on serebii) or and nintendo). They agree consistently (+90%) regarding the wealth of pokemon data that's out there and are therefore reliable. Sites like brandon's are the ones WP:RS is explicitly forbiding, but to argue that they are even on par with serebii is a fallacy. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so has a thing that lets you reveal new Pokémon. Problem is, it's only letting people reveal one a day. :\
So... anyone wanna help? I clicked the one just to the right of "Tell a friend!" (and got Turtwig, of all things), although I'm not even sure if they're the same for everybody... >.>
There are only 18 of them, so I'm not exactly sure if there's anything new either...
Would this even work as a source, though, if there does happen to be something new? —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. -Jeske (v^_^v) 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
On that note, the commercial on that site has clips of battles...for whatever reason, the moves aren't in full caps but the Pokémon's names are. o.o—ウルタプ 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems, through the screenshots I've been seeing lately, that most of the text no longer has everything ALL CAPS, instead going to Sentence Case, except for battle commands, some other commands, and the Pokémon names. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, update: It seems that it's always Turtwig, at least according to this... Anyone getting anything else...? —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to wait until Sunday :[—ウルタプ 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing with the pick a pokeball it doesn't matter which you pick the first will always be Turtwig and you can't pick again until two days after the first one and then two days again and so on. And there is a total of 18 pokeballs. DSDark 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling it'll just show all the ones we already know.—ウルタプ 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So far that is happening. I was just able to open ball #2 and it had Chimchar in it. Funpika 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Betcha ten-to-one the next one'll be Piplup. Even if it weren't a Pokémon we didn't already know, which looks pretty unlikely, would it be appropriate to link to a source that would require people to visit it every other day just to fact check? --Brandon Dilbeck 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The site times itself or something–I can't just tell my computer it's Tuesday. >>—ウルタプ 07:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it works like this: You open a Pokéball then the site records the time and your IP. The IP can't open another one until 24 hours and 1 minute later. Funpika 11:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. I have a dynamic IP, and I revealed a Pokémon (Turtwig) yesterday. It said that I had to wait until tomorrow to reveal again. Ultraflame 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Uses cookies, then. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted everything on my Hard Drive related to the site, and it reset the whole thing. Picked a differently-placed Poké Ball this time, got Turtwig again. Now that I know where the files downloaded from the site are located, I'll experiment later. Ultraflame 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
On my Hard Drive, files related to the site (other than the Temporary Internet Files, where I found no Cookies that appeared to be from the site) appear to be in "C:\Documents and Settings\(user)\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\\support\flashplayer\sys\" and "C:\Documents and Settings\(user)\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\#SharedObjects\VWBGJPDW\\pokemondandp\_swf\pdp_pokeballs.swf". In the first folder, there is a file called "settings.sol", and in the latter, there is a file called "PokeballTest.sol". I don't appear to have any program that can open these files correctly. Ultraflame 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This screensaver was discovered in the source I guess. It might have some names on it we don't have...take a look. -Sukecchi 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It confirms Pachirisu, Drapion, and Cherrim. Everything else is old.—ウルタプ 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Serebii is a better source than deconstructing a website's Flash applet. Please don't try to use this as a source in articles. This is not the business of encyclopedia editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fansite citations

A lot of our articles, including the article I personally put at the top of the agenda, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, heavily rely on citations like In the example of some of our game-related feature articles, the External Links are at a basic minumum - press, official sources, but not the fansites. This is the same case for citations. I know that in the case of our Featured Articles such as Bulbasaur, we rely on Episode Guides as citations and link to tactical data, but I'd prefer to follow examples of the FAs for Diamond and Pearl. What's your status, guys? - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that we use Serebii a lot on the D/P page? Funpika 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to imply anything, per se, but I'm looking to removing the fansite links on the External links, and killing the references that use fansites also. When the game comes out, we'll be able to make much more on the citations of text in-game (like Final Fantasy X has apparently legitimately done) and official sources / IGN. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold, and so I've removed from the Diamond and Pearl article's External links. Shall do the references too. FireRed and LeafGreen has it, it's gone. Stuffed Emerald's Psypoke and links. And finally, killed in the Battle Revolution page. Oddly, some other gaming articles don't use as an external link. Job done already, I guess? And, some articles urgently need a citation made - in the idea of Diamond and Pearl, I'll wait for the English release and find citations in it as appropriate. Time to replace some other citations! - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

More about Togepi's stage

User DSDark (talk · contribs) has pointed out on Togepi's talk page that the Pokédex at Poké (an official Pokémon site) has Togepi listed plainly as a Baby Pokémon and Togetic as a Basic Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So can Togepi's info box get unlock so it can be changed?DSDark 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Stage was removed from the infobox altogether.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is that?--DSDark 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In-universe information that the average person doesn't care about; not essential for understanding the Pokemon. Has no relevence except to game playes, and even then I personally really woudln't care (much like the meaningless "species" types, height and wegith, etc.). Hbdragon88 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Has no relevance except for CCG players. In the video games, stage is meaningless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if some of these people can breathe unassisted.

They change a name because 'They saw it on one of dem dere web-site thingies' we change it back, often with a full description of why, and more often then not, they change the name again. HalfShadow 02:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to give them credit for trying to correct Wikipedia—it's likely that they're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy or that they believe that the benefits of having correct (or what is probably correct) information outweigh the benefits of citing official sources. But yeah, this is beginning to become a pain. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Who says these guys even look at the page history? Chances are they just edit and never look at the history (meaning they don't see the summaries). Funpika 11:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That is one of the major reasons for my suggestion below. It certainly helped reduce, though not eliminate, Buizel/Mantyke issues. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Name notes

Um, why shouldn’t the revealed names at least be mentioned as rumor in each species article? We have done so in the past with Buizel, and Mantyke, and others before they were officially confirmed. That addition, along with invisible comments, reduces the number of misguided rewrites/moves, and more importantly it allows Wikipedia to present an accurate picture of the current state of information regarding the Pokémon. While we can’t confirm that those are the names, the fact that those have been reported as the names is perfectly attributable. “So-and so says its English name is ______” is unencyclopedic, but the fact that the practically the entire user end of the internet has reported a particular name is rather notable. A rumor that becomes widespread enough is notable even if it is notable only as something that was later revealed to be inaccurate. --WikidSmaht (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmkay. Where's the reliable source that comments on this rumor, so we can cite it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well by our current definition of "reliable" source rumors are impossible to cite. Our only resort to rumors would be a site like Serebii (in this case Serebii itself). Funpika 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This is why we almost never mention rumors in articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing is really irritating. If there was a leak of english names, and the names have a severely good chance of getting on, and they're everywhere, and Nintendo is trying to stop sites from posting them, that's pretty damn good evidence to me.
Personally I think waiting for an "official" to actually say that they're real names is a waste of time. At the end of the main articles there should at least be something that says "Pokemon name X has been stated to be to be name Y in America, according to a leaked list depicting the English names of all the Pokemon." That way it can at least be mentioned, and you're not saying it's actually the name. And if the name turns out correct, then move the article and all the better. I put a comment like that at the end of the intro to Cherrim's article. Toastypk 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not waiting for an "official source" to say they're real. We're waiting for a publication with some credibility to say they're real. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not understanding why when the names "Buizel" and "Mantyke" were reported, it was stated and the end of the intro of their articles that the name was reported from a fansite, and gave the source for the report, even if not confirmed, yet the similar reporting remark keeps getting taken off the Cherrim article. We're not saying it's been confirmed, what's the big deal? Toastypk 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody was really paying attention. It wasn't a good idea then, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that you wouldn't be happy with anything other than an official source. Credibility is determined by consistency and serebii has been largely consistent with offical sources and actual game data throughout its history - despite the few people who come out of the blue and say, "so-and-so thinks serebii is a joke" The only legitimate reason to doubt serebii's reliability is that news info is often from an unnamed source - however that unnamed source has proven accurate and the point is moot. Big media corporations that should be reliable about things often make mistakes, but no one here is saying we can't trust them anymore. And likewise, they make errors regarding pokemon because they didn;t do enough research to know better - should we say that the proper pronunciation is Pokey man b/c so many reputable media outlets pronounce it that way? like i said in the other section, serebii was independent of the info releases from GDC which was in turn independent of nintendo, they've been corroborated by independent sources consistently for a long time - there's really no better argument than, "it's a fansite" -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Serebii is not reliable; it's one person's self-published fansite, and these claims aren't corroborated by anything, nor cited to anything. Going down the list at Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?...
  • Serebii is lacking in editorial oversight. The main writer is also the editor.
  • Serebii has cited this to "anonymous sources."
  • These claims are uncorroborated; everyone else mentioning these names is saying "Per Serebii/Pokexperto."
  • For the last two points, Serebii is not a news site that preserves old stories; pages are changed without notice. (Similarly, Serebii does not retract errors visibly.)
It's a fansite. It's not about "big media" or "small media," it's about factchecking and corroboration and editorial oversight, all things fansites like Serebii lack. The fact that Serebii is occasionally flakey or poorly-written are only contributing factors laid atop these bedrock problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's pretty much a restatement of the above, but per WP:AFAQ#What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?, Serebii is both a questionable source (as it lacks independent editorial oversight or a fact-checking process) and a self-published source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Corroboration? Let's see... seems to be corroborating with the news from serebii back in Jan. about Mantyke. Just going off the same news page you can see that they also cite the official site for confirming Prof. Rowan's name, Manaphy & Phione's ability being renamed Hydration (as opposed to their speculation that it was Moist Body... that's a visible retraction too), confirming the name of Heart Swap, and revealing the name of Twinleaf Town. Besides official sources and the "anonymous source", serebii has stated explicitly or implicitly several times that information is derived either from playing the game or from reverse engineering the software. Now, going down your list -
  • While serebii (as a person) may be the main contributor by largest percentage of material attributable to one person, the majority of information is not actually written by serebii himself. Serebii has attributed a majority of the epigiuides, manga guides, and mechanics pages to other people. The webmaster (apparently) largely maintains the news sections, constructs the info pages, and other webmastery things. When DP were released in japan, there were three different people posting info and another performing the data dump - these claims that there's one guy runnning the show have little credibility.
  • News stations and other media outlets cite their info from "confirmed sources" all the time and it doesn't hurt their credibility. Additionally, it's not like the anon source has been the ONLY source cited. I give serebii as much credibility as any other journalist and apparently the informant being anonymous isn't an issue as per the FAQ.
  • I believe i addressed the corroboration issue.
If you'd like another example of serebii visibly correcting errors, take a look here at the correction of Shellos. I don't know how much more visible you want than the top of their main page. (for those unfamiliar with serebii, they keep an archive of all their news by month, each day the older news is placed farther down n the page). Pages being changed without notice is laughable... the site regularly informs visitors of page updates on the main page - you want a site that doesn't notify you of changes, try Claims of no fact-checking process are superficial, neither of us can really prove it either way - but I'll back up my claim with the overwhelming majority of correct information at the site (again, taking into consideration that serebii has detailed info on every pokemon game, species in three iterations, anime, manga, and TCG). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And those people who contribute are just as psuedo-anonymous as the Serebii webmaster himself, which is not an improved situation. News networks have several layers of editorial oversight and control, and they are trustworthy because of that. They just don't report on any old person said; they check out the story to see if it is reasonably correct or not. In cases where they have been wrong (like Killian documents) it has hurt their credibility. They also aren't anonymous, either. Hbdragon88 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
but nobody's saying that 60 minutes is unreliable and can't be used. and news networks don't gain their trust by because of editorial oversight and control... your own example proved that trust is gained by being proven right, and lost by being proven wrong - and serebii is right more often than wrong. As for news sources not using anonymous sources, the easiest to link to is Deep Throat of The Washington Post. Because one of their sources was anonymous should we discount everything like funpika is trying to do with that TFD? A history of accuracy, and fixing your mistakes are the most important factors when it comes to whether a source is reliable, everything else revolves around those ideas. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, they don't gain trust, they establish credibility due to their oversight and control. It doesn't matter if Serebii is more right than wrong; what matters is the self-published nature of the site itself. WP:SELFPUB is pretty clear that personal sites cannot be used, period...except for its own article (we could use on Serebii). You misinterpret my anonymous bit; they may use anonymous sources, but the articles themselves are written and attributed by real people that can be contacted, etc. Hbdragon88 04:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't explain my thoughts very clearly.
I think Serebii is a reliable-ish site to cite for some things. Claims that can be corroborated, like the GDC stuff or the TCG fansite seed news PUSA releases for each set or the official ToyFare announcements (but not the rumor stuff based on blowing up phone-cam images), those are okay. Claims that are based on deconstruction of a game or claims that are cited to "anonymous sources," not so much.
It can't really be used to establish notability (since it's not respected in the "respected journal of opinion or research" kind of way, nor is its analysis or commentary particularly insightful or useful), though.
It's flaky in the way fansites are flaky, but it is one of the most-respected fansites. (I think I understand Zapper's objections; it's flaky in the source-of-information sense, not in the as-compared-to-other-Pokémon-fansites sense.)
I don't think I'd want to see every Serebii link expunged. (Linking it in every single Pokémon article is probably a tad excessive, though.) I do think that it's a good idea to be asking hard questions about our assumptions, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Stuff like GDC would be covered by more reliable sites anyway, which would render the need for Serebii moot. Right? (I honestly don't know.) If we can get press releases from official sites as opposed to fan ones, isn't that better? Eliminating Serebii for "deconstructing of a game" - game analysis - would pretty much wipe out nearly everything that Serebii is currently used for, would it not? Hbdragon88 05:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The original issue was whether we allow serebii to be relied upon for new name info. I'm not trying to make the argument that we should use serebii for reliably corroborated info, i'm saying that because the reliable sources have been corroborating with serebii, serebii itself is a reliable source on this matter. WP:ATT doesn't take into account personal sites that are run with YEARS of reliable reporting - serebii hardly fits into the metaphor of reading info off a flyer stuck to a phone pole. I'm not saying that information shouldn't be handled cautiously, but serebii itself is notable enough within the community and as long as info from them is sourced i think it's safe to let the readers decide if they want to trust the source, like any piece of journalism. As for linking to it from each species article, i think the effort is better spent at the TFD discussion. And hbdragon, much of the information serebii releases is difficult to obtain at the same time somewhere else or we would be hard pressed to find accessible sources.-ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never known a publication that actually had a fact-checking process to source any of their reports solely or even primarily to Serebii. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said they did. That's not what corroborate means. official reliable sources have confirmed/corroborated what serebii said in the past. Multiple times -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to the original point of this discussion? That is, that we need to note the new names in each article in some form, and since we can’t cite them as official, we should write about the as being reported by multiple fansites worldwide.
AMIB, don’t be smug. It’s not that “Nobody was really paying attention.” to Buizel and Mantyke, several people paid attention and even participated. That they didn’t come to your same conclusion of it being a bad idea certainly doesn’t make then “Nobody”.
I think it is in keeping with the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:ATT to use fansites as primary sources for information regarding themselves. And regardless of whether you agree, this is certainly a good case for WP:IAR, as policies are meant to make Wikipedia more accurate and reliable, NOT meant to completely prevent the inclusion of relevent information on a subject.
Most importantly, while multiple users have supported such notes by words or action, and Hbdragon88 and I agree with you about the overall reliability of Serebii, you are the only one to voice total opposition to including the information in any form. Of course, it is possible that others who agree with you trust you to make the argument for them, but I would like to see them chime in at least once each. This is the Pokémon Collaborative Project, not the AMIB Pokémon Project. We, not just you, must determine what is appropriate. I am starting a quick survey/poll below to get a better view of the shape of opinion on this topic. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me add the obligatory m:Voting is evil and WP:DDV. Okay, there. Also, link to IGN stating these names? It is also my impression that WP:IAR is intended to apply to removing instruction creep, mostly for procedural decisions, as opposed to content decisions. Hbdragon88 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read the poll header? To quote myself: “This is NOT binding, you may switch sides at any time, and the results will not be interpretted as a consensus or lack thereof. It is merely a tool to focus the above discussion and give it perspective.” And, for good measure, emphasis added: “Sign your position [...] then explain your reasoning in the main thread above”.
And, sorry, I should have said “the IGN boards” and I have fixed it now, didn’t mean to give the impression that the info was officially published by IGN. In case you are not aware, the full list was originally posted in the forum there by an unknown user, and grabbed by a few fansites, which prompted Pokexperto to release it, which then caused Serebii to follow suit, resulting in every fansite on the net putting the list up.
The text of WP:IAR states “If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.”, there is no context about when it is and is not acceptable. I maintain that improving and maintaining these article means we need to include the most current and relevent major information. WP:IAR also links to common sense, being bold, and not being a dick. --WikidSmaht (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not improved by reporting the latest uncorroborated rumors from a Pokémon fansite. Wikipedia isn't a news site and it isn't a fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Point well put. Toastypk 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't vote on verifiability. If you don't have a reliable source to which you can attribute a claim, please do not add that claim to an article, regardless of how you weasel-word it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter at this point? At this point, is it at least significant that a load of fansites are reporting these, and about a month to gop before release? The notices can easily be removed once the name is revealed. Toastypk 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Without a reliable source to attribute, no, it's not significant. WP:ATT is one of the core rules of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Bullshit. Yes, attribution is of vital importance. But the sheer fact that the unsubstantiated info has spread so far on the internet( not to mention that quite a bit of it has been confirmed since) makes it notable, even if the( rest of the) names ultimately turned out to be sheer fabrication. I once again suggest that citing fansites for information about themselves is in keeping with the spirit of the policy, though not its exact wording. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn’t anyone read? It’s not a fucking vote! It’s a tool to gauge opinion on the topic. Already it has been useful, by showing opposition aside from yourself which was not evident in the discussion.
Anyway, my point is, we can’t support the claim that those are the names. But citing the reports themselves, regardless of their being on fansites, ought to be sufficient to prove that those reports exist, since said fansites are where they originated, and therefore are the subject of the assertion. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't how it works on Wikipedia. We don't take a bad source and say, "Well, this bad source said something complete uncorroborated, but we're reporting it anyway with a caveat." We can safely wait until it is corroborated. This isn't a Pokémon fansite and it isn't a news site. We don't have to report the latest unconfirmed rumors, especially at the cost of one of the key principles of this entire project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
(Jeez, it's out in a month...pretty futile at this point...) ウルタプ 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
All the more reason we can safely wait for corroboration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
but this is just sick... Leafia and Glacia are being kept at the erroneous names that NO ONE is saying is legitimate. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not erronous, it's the real Japanese name. How is that an error? Hbdragon88 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey/poll on new names

Just want to gauge interest and opinion on this matter.
Sign your position with **~~~~, then explain your reasoning in the main thread above this subsection( if you haven’t already - those of us who are already participating have made our positions clear).
This is NOT binding, you may switch sides at any time, and the results will not be interpretted as a consensus or lack thereof. It is merely a tool to focus the above discussion and give it perspective. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • We should include the new names in the articles, not claiming them to be confirmed, but noting them as having been leaked on the IGN boards and reported by multiple fansites. Similar to what was done on Buizel/Mantyke, and perhaps with invisible comments discouraging changes, as was done on those articles.
  • We can not include the new names in any way, shape, or form until an official press realease, seed pack, or mainstream media article confirms them for sure. Doing so would violate WP:ATT and undermine our credibility.

I repeat, it’s not a vote, so don’t criticize it for being one. Also, if you want it to be a vote and resolve everything, well, I’m sorry, it’s still not so you’re shit out of luck. Discuss your support for either position in the main topic above this subsection. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


I noticed a template called "Serebiidex" on some of the species pages. Why does this exsist? By the looks of it we are 100% incapable of trusting Serebii (pretty much all we trust are Nintendo owned sites and the media). Shall I TFD it? Here is the template in action using Pikachu as an example:

{{Serebiidex|025|Pikachu}} Funpika 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the information of Serebii's Pokédex pages are obtainable with the use of an official detailed game guide, and can be verified to be true when playing the games. Since it's difficult to find these game guides (or this type of detailed information in general) from offical sources, I think it should stay. Ultraflame 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I think the Pokedex information is perfectly acceptable, and it can be verified by an official source, at least the first three generations can be verified, the fourth still needs a guide. -Sukecchi 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, there's no actual official source to verify the information there. It's first-hand research viewing. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and since we still obviously are not very fond of Serebii and fansites, I will now TFD it. Funpika 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Any way to make the TFD notice less...disruptive?—ウルタプ 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Miniun TFD'd it on 23 May 2006. It was kept. But the circumstnaces of changed, so feel free to TFD it again. Hbdragon88 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Serebiidex

Template:Serebiidex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Funpika 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon portal

well the portal has gotten it's first facelift, and that was to better section the subpages so there isn't one crowded page that users have to sift through. It's the same layout used by the science portal, and i liked it so much i stole it. There's still a lot to do, as much of the info from the main page was just relocated. The categories section still needs an update; the to-do list is vague and should prolly better implement boxes to display info in an aesthetically pleasing fashion; the topics box needs to be better organized/cleaned/utilized/updated; the updates section should be providing external links to relevant pages (i'd love to link to wikinews, but there seems to be a dearth of pokemon related articles, perhaps they don't cover game releases?) prolly best at nintendo and's DP section; plus i added a tab, Portal:Pokémon/Understanding Pokémon, to take some load from the loaded topics box, ideally it will link to relevant mechanic pages and possibly include sample leads. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new way that the Selected Pokémon section works. Especially since I had specific Pokémon in mind considering the upcoming English release of Diamond and Pearl. Funpika 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So, having a fair use image (two of them in this case) on a non-article namespace is permitted now? I don't think that's the case. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's also not a good idea that you've strayed off the portal implementation that not even our parent project seems to do. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

there's no reason a DP Pokemon can't be added to the list, the FA, A, GA status was just a suggestion - something i'm trying out - go ahead and add them to the list. if you merely want to nominate you suggestions and then improve the respective lead sections i'd be happy to accomodate your wishes. If you were thinking of locking them onto DP pokemon for a little while, we could temporarily create a subpage just for them and have the random component feed from that one instead for a while, but bring it up on the nominations page. as for fair-use images on portals, it seems the question is often raised at the talk page, and luckily has been recently asked and you seem to be right. I was only following precedent, but the images will be promptly removed. regarding our parent project... who cares? i think this is more visually appealing and provides better usability to people with lower connection speeds. If you disagree, perhaps we can find some other alternative, but i think that discussion is best done at the portal's talk page. (old edit, forgot to sign) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

more updates are listed here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we want to lose a Featured Article.

Nobody seems to care much about Torchic's FAR nomination. It hasn't been improved much since then. Funpika 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

People don't like it because it's sourced mostly to fansites. We don't have other sources, so what exactly would be done? -Amarkov moo! 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Deal with it as a minor part of a larger subject. I've been talking around the edges of this, and Torchic and Bulbasaur passing FAC did a lot to make me reconsider, but we need to deal with the fact that we don't have any good sources from which to build individual Pokémon articles, and figure out what to do about that (other than ignore the problem). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's obvious, but it also doesn't do anything about losing Torchic as a FA, which is what I think the complaint was. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why all Pokemon are necessarily notable?

Discussion over on Wikipedia:Article inclusion reminded me of this, where the arguments either went along the lines of "Look at all these others that you didn't nominate, you aren't allowed to nominate this without all the others included" or "But all Pokemon are notable!" The first one is stupid, and rather self-evidently so, so it comes down to the second. Why do Pokemon get to be exempted from the WP:N requirement of independent sources? -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The best reason I can think of is we'd either have nothing at all or a colossal list. A list of such size as to be an affront to God.—ウルタプ 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, there would certainly be problems with merging the borderline-notability ones, which needs to be solved before trying it. However, there are Pokemon who do not really deserve any sort of mention past a line in an episode they occur in, and a line in some List of minor Pokémon characters. Such as the aforementioned Whismur, which has acquired mounds of OR while holding steady at zero sources since its AfD. -Amarkov moo! 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, isn't Amarkov's message further indication that the mega-merge of the Pokemon into a series of ordered List of Pokemon pages covering 20 Pokemon each, a concept that I've been trying to promote for a while now (such as above), is an ideal way to take care of the huge issue of notability with these articles? It really is starting to seem more and more evident that the Pokemon species articles either go through a mega-merge to satisfy notability and many other Wikipedia guidelines or the Poke-project is otherwise made to look foolish and irresponsible (well, something along those lines). Anyway, I revised the contents of my Sandbox so that it now shows a much more complete work-in-progress draft of what I think the first article of such a mega merge looks like. I'm proposing 25 List of Pokemon pages, covering 20 Pokemon each, and the Pokemon that are not notable get merged to these descriptive list pages. Look in the sandbox's talk page and you'll see how I think such a system should be implemented, and you'll also see that two administrators, User:Hbdragon88 and User:A Man In Black, have looked at the page and agreed that this could work out to be a major improvement to the articles of WP:PCP. To put it bluntly: I think it's time we seriously look at my Pokemon merge concept and make a decision on how to merge the 450+ Pokemon that aren't so notable. All thoughts appreciated! :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind such a notion. I'd say just keep the current name convention (that is, English name (Japanese Romaji?, TM name in original Japanese language versions)) and maybe change the type/stage etc template at the top of each section.—ウルタプ 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Those are mock-ups of a template that hasn't been created yet, but that I'm hoping will be created in the future, and it can be made to look better by then. :/ As for the naming convention, if it turns out that's not what's in my sandbox right now, would you mind applying that to my sandbox for me? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 02:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We have enough information on all the Pokemon already, with each their own page. Of course Nidoran F is notable, even if it's one of the least known. Hell, Magikarp is the weakest and least used Pokemon off all, but everyone knows him for that. If a Pokemon mega-merger were to happen, I would be disgusted. Toastypk 03:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about notability in the real world, not notability for Pokémon enthusiasts. No guy on the street cares about the in-game notability about Magikarp or Crawdaunt or Makuhita or any other random Pokémon. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But is that still a reason to just chop up all of the articles on every pokemon, judge them by who's notable and what's not, which would be subjective as all hell, and throw them in a mishmash article? Doing that seems wrong beyond belief. Everyone's fine the way they are. Remember the rule, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." There's nothing to gain by condensing.Toastypk 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but there's a lot to lose. A lot of OR and cruft, that is. As for the notability thing the list can mention that Magikarp's the weakes Pokémon, etc, etc. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we direct all discussion about how to merge (the method by which Pokémon would be grouped into an article) to User talk:Erik the Appreciator/Erik's Sandbox—I just brought up another suggestion about how to merge them there. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why not just trim off the bad parts?
As a side note, I skimmed over the Whismur article, and I didn't find anything original research. Everything that's there can be taken from the game, given there is a link to a site that states it. The biological characteristics for the most part are taken right from the Pokedex information from the games. I don't know the entirely of his Dex info by heart, but all that needs is a link to a site that has the Dex info, make sure it matches, and we're all set. It also talks about where you find Whismurs in the game, and a few moves it can learn. That can also be taken right from the game. And all there needs to be is a link to one of the myriads of sites covering that info. (Ok, maybe the part about Whismur being shunned for low defense and how players don't prefer it is a bit sketchy, but that's honestly the only thing wrong I could really find.) But is there a site that has this stuff listed that the usual suspects will consider "reliable"? I wish there was a way to use the actual game as a source, since that stuff is already there buried in text. Regardless, if this megamerge happens, I will be extremely disappointed, the individualistic nature of the Pokemon will end, and I'm pretty sure Pokemon article expansion will be stagnant. That is, unless next to no information is thrown out in the process. Deleting such information will be going against my whole personal meaning of Wikipedia, which is the ultimate reference for everything, including these little things. I implore that everyone considers not doing any megamerging at all. You don't know how serious I am about this. Toastypk 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruft, cruft, cruft. Wikipedia is not a gameguide. We've got Bulbapedia for that sort of stuff. And let's see the problems:

  • "Whismur" is a portmanteau of the words whisper and murmur, both references to Whismur's sotto voce way of speech. OK, obvious, but sources?
  • Whismur could be said to resemble a bipedal mouse. It has a pink body and yellow ears and feet. Its appendages are short and stubby. The wide, yellow-tipped ears are not truly rabbit-like, as the ears are set right on top of Whismur's skull; they're used to plug up the earholes when Whismur gets spooked by loud noises (including those coming from itself). Its eyes resemble clown-like crosses (this may be an artistic impression). Its hands resemble small peanut-shaped stubs, and are usually trying to reach up to the cheeks in a sort of astonished characteristic. Anyone who looks at the image can say that. As for the last sentence, that ought to go into "characteristics".
  • As for the characteristics section: Heavily in-universe. Hell, this doesn't even matter in the games.
  • The "In the video games" section: Who cares??!! What are we, GameFAQs? The only line that ought to stay is the one about its role in the storyline.
  • In the anime: Two paragraphs about a cursory appearance in a non-notable episode among hundreds? Honestly, we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of random information.

Cut all that out, and you have about 2 or 3 paragraphs left. Enough for a list, but not an article. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One man's "cruft" is another man's information. Besides, when did "cruft" have any bearing on deletion? It's not a policy.
I don't know if you understand my whole ethos about this process here. I might think differently than others around here, and that might be a weakness on my part, but I absolutely loathe it when people start trimming information that other people could use just because party B thinks it's "unencyclopediac" or "cruft" or something. To me, anything, factoids, looks, height, weight, is information, that people could look for. This is why I get so freaking upset when people start talking like this. Maybe we could expand upon the anime mentions, but the thing about the appearance description, the name meaning, this has been part of these articles forever and only adds to a Pokemon that doesnt have much to say about it.Toastypk 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Everyone's point is precisely that the Pokémon doesn't have much to say about it. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Any hope of FAs related to species will be gone (except if we keep some Pokemon). And by the looks of it this idea wouldn't meet the criteria for a Featured List. Funpika 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can argue until you're blue in the face about the value of information ("interesting," "so what?" "important," and so on). I don't really want to get into that, because it's hopeless and a bit beside the point.

The real problem is that don't have sources. WP:FAR/Torchic is showing this problem; rather than building our articles from sources that actually cover each Pokémon, we've been building them from disparate minor references, often using fansites or personal observation of the games/anime/manga, and the result is articles that look well-referenced but don't stand up to scrutiny.

The templated style of the Pokémon articles, the fact that we run into constant opposition from outside the project from users who can feel this problem but not articulate it, the fact that the so-called "Pokémon test" is now pretty much a joke...these are all symptoms of this problem.

We need to reconsider how we can write articles based on the sources we do have, and I think the lists are a good move in this direction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay then...if it is really a good idea then we might as well do it. Just remember how I said that this list would not be able to become a Featured List. Funpika 19:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at some of the responses here, I'd wager there's between 10 or 20 Pokemon that are notable enough in the press and the media that they can be made Featured Articles, and this is what I'm trying to promote: a series of List of Pokemon pages that cover each of the 493 species in National Pokedex order in nice 2-3 paragraph sections per Pokemon, and for the species that are notable enough to have had a lot of real good sources out there sufficient to make a Featured Article for that species, include a Main Article link at the top of that specie section to link to the full articles. Examples of this include the Bulbasaur and Charizard sections I posted in my sandbox draft, and future examples would include Pikachu and Mewtwo at the very least. I would actually say that making about 20 of the most notable species their own articles in addition to having summarized sections for each of them in the Lists of Pokemon, while the rest of the less notable species are made to be merely sections in the Lists, would promote the creation of Featured Articles about the notable species.
And BTW, my thanks to everyone commenting here for making this subject a full proper discussion. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And to Toastypk: I'm definitely sympathetic to your opinions, I never would have tried putting a mega-merge proposal past WP:PCP if it weren't for threads like this, this, this, and this that keep popping up on this talk page. I personally hate it whenever threads like that are made, so in response I made my sandbox's current contents. Here's hoping everything works out for everyone in the future. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This has kinda went off my topic. Merging the ones that don't deserve seperate articles is fine. But why are we starting from the assumption that every single creature is so notable it must be mentioned? -Amarkov moo! 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness. If there are to be lists, they might as well cover all 493 instead of--- what? 100-something? --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To see how much content is in some of these articles...

Whismur is a good completely insignificant thing to pick. So, I got the article, and removed all the fancruft, OR, and useless boilerplate. What I got was:

Whismur is a Pokémon, one of a group of fictional species from the widely popular franchise of the same name.
Whismur appears in episode #315 (The Pokéblock Party) of the anime series. It was the only being in the series to remain awake during Jigglypuff's song, much to the latter's joy. At the end of the episode, though, it collapses from exhaustion and is in its turn grafitiied on with Jigglypuff's marker.

OBOY four sentences. And the last three are of somewhat questionable importance. -Amarkov moo! 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that does seem like overkill... I think in the List of Pokemon system, the section on Whismur would feature MORE info, and it would all be both perfectly sourced and practical to the casual reader of Wikipedia. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I still feel that what should be done is we merge - for instance, Caterpie, Metapod, and Butterfree together. You know, create articles on the evolutionary line rather than articles on each individual Pokémon while giving articles for notable Pokémon such as Pikachu. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That used to be the concept I originally thought should be implemented, and I had tried it out on my sandbox in the past, but I found that the problem with that is that a lot of Pokemon don't have evolutionary relatives, so Pokemon like Qwilfish, Farfetch'd, Sableye, and all the 36 legendaries would be left unaltered by an evo-line merge. Sure, some of these stand-alone Pokemon could in turn be grouped together such as Lunatone and Solrock in a page, Plusle and (the dreaded) Minun be on a page, Volbeat and Illumise, perhaps Zangoose and Seviper, Mewtwo and Mew, and all four of the legendari trios, but there'll still be other stand-alone Pokemon that can't be grouped with any other like Luvdisc and Unown. And I'm not too sure if evo-line merging actually makes any progress towards solving the ultimate issue: the sourcing for these Pokemon. Whatever WP:PCP and any other Wikiproject does with any page ultimately lives and dies by the availability of reliable non-fansite sourcing for that page, and I had advocated my Lists of Pokemon concept because it requires less fansite sources, and more reliable sources saying general things about the species that can be used on the list pages are probably easier to find on the internet. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Then what about by type? Sixteen lists, I think it could be done. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh, that was the next concept I considered when the evo-merge concept didn't fly with WP:PCP. And the thing I instantly found wrong with that is the fact that most of the Pokemon are two types, so how would you put these Pokemon into one or the other type if not both? It'd probably be considered subjective if we arbitrarily decided whether Ludicolo should be described in the Grass-type list or the Water-type list. And if describing Ludicolo in both list pages was considered, is it really good to have the same section of information about a Pokemon posted twice on two separate list pages? One solution to that that I thought of was to create 493 templates containing the image and a summary of each Pokemon and put them into the list pages, so that the Bulbasaur template would be made the first section of List of Grass-type Pokemon and List of Poison-type Pokemon, and one would edit the contents of the template itself so that the changes would show in both list pages. That didn't fly with WP:PCP either, one reason being that you can't have fair-use images in template space. Then I think it was Brandon Dilbeck or maybe someone else who said keep it simple by just having Pokemon in a continuous series of lists in National Pokedex order. It has been this idea that I've been going with ever since. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we would simply put their primary type (with exceptions, such as a Pidgey would be in [[List of flying Pokémon instead of List of normal Pokémon). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hold on a minute, we might be onto something here. Notice how some dual-type species hold the same types but are arranged differently: Omastar is a Rock-Water type while Corsola is a Water-Rock type. Perhaps it may be valid if we put Pokemon into type lists based on what their first type is listed as, so that Omastar is a Rock-list candidate and Corsola is a water-list candidate. Doing it this way would work because Larvitar and Pupitar are Rock-Ground types while Tyranitar is a Rock-Dark type, and since their first types listed in the games are all rock, they would be all part of the List of Rock-type Pokemon. If classifying them by their first types listed in the games is what you meant by primary type, then that probably IS a viable alternative to Lists of Pokemon in National Pokedex ordering. Only issue there is to decide on how to take care of Pidgey-type monsters; their primary type is Normal, but they are known for being flying types... Flying is always a secondary type, so there should be no List of Flying-Type Pokemon at all because there's no Flying-type-only Pokemon in existence. Anyway, I think Lists of Pokemon arranged by primary elemental type would work, and I would support that over my National ordering if there's enough consensus for you way. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that if we do do this, we should modify the criteria to make flying the primary type for most flying Pokémon. Besides the main primary types, I think we should have a Legendary list and a flying list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the list of Pokemon in national dex order in my FireRed game, it appears that all of the Flying-type Pokemon whose primary type is NOT normal are known for that primary type and not the Flyingness. Flying Pokemon like Moltres and Ho-Oh are known for their primary type of Fire, so Flying is an afterthought for these guys. Whereas Normal-Flying Pokemon like Pidgeot and Staraptor (or Mukuhawk if you nitpickers prefer) are known more for their Flying types than the normal types. So, I would advocate a modified version of your criteria: That any Flying-subtype Pokemon whose primary type is Normal is put into the List of Flying-type Pokemon. Not only will there be plenty of entries in that list, but List of Normal-type Pokemon would become a heckuva lot less crowded by birds, so doing it that way would give better balance. As for the Legendary list, I'm not too sure... Maybe just a link repository like a Legendary Pokemon category would be practical. :/ Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists by type are likely to lead to endless headaches, as ALTTP has just illustrated. We're going to have eversmouldering brushfire arguments about which is the "main" type for certain Pokémon (Magnemite/Magneton, Rayquaza, and Houndour/Houndoom all come to mind as not "clearly" one type or the other), and there's no clear way to make a universal rule that always works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be true. However, it might be much less of a headache if we just rely on the first type of the two types printed in the games themselves for each Pokemon. Since Lugia is Psychic-Flying, just call it Psychic, and since Sableye is a Dark-Ghost, just call it dark. It seems this can be made simple if we just adopt this as criteria. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We could always try to create consensuses on where to merge what. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That should be fun. There are only 200-something dual-typed Pokémon, right? Let's get started having 200 different arguments about subjective criteria. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In the case of, say, a Pidgey, we'd put that article into a discussion of all Normal flyers. I mean, what better solution is there? Alphabetical? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we could just implement the whole group-by-first-type-listed concept for the nearly 500 Pokemon right now without any exceptions whatsoever (no Flying-type page for Normal-Flying types), and once we're done with that we just have one discussion afterwards about whether to apply the ALTTP clause to the Normal List so that Normal-Flying sub-types are in their own list page. Or we could just do it in Nat'l Pokedex order.
It is seeming that there's two different types of List of Pokemon-style mega-merging presented - my List of Pokemon in National Pokedex order and ALTTP's Lists of Pokemon by First Pokemon Type Listed For Each Pokemon in the Games- and there will have to be a community consensus to decide on one over the other. Either way would work with me, but I'll have to look at both concepts in-depth and write analysis essays on them and post them on my sandbox talk page later.
But at any rate, it seems that at this point there's consensus on this board to commit a great big mega-merge of Pokemon species away from 493 individual Pokemon pages, and that's probably what's most important. What matters now is which way to arrange the mega-merged results. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am not that fond of the mega merge. Funpika 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that. And right now I'm feeling like saying "Scratch That" for the Arrange by Typing system because trying to think and come up with an argument as to why it is a viable alternative to the Arrange in National Pokedex order is really taxing me mind. It really is starting to feel more simple and practical to mega-merge the way I originally proposed, which is the Directly-by-the-National-Pokedex-order provided easily by the games, because it'd take a LOT of effort to research all the dual-types of the Pokemon, including the new ones, in order to decide which elemental list page each one should go in, and then worry about details like putting Flying-type Normal birds in their own lists afterward and putting link repositories on the bottom of the pages containing links to the Pokemon that have that type as a "secondary" type. I'm in agreement with A Man in Black that grouping by typing will cause a lot of headaches because I feel I'm going to get one myself, so unless ALTTP is willing to provide an impassioned argument in favor of this system over the National Ordering system, I advocate putting the latter system into effect. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another issue I'm having with this list thing. How the hell will people decide which Pokémon will get their own articles? The process will be unbelievably subjective. I mean sure, Pikachu, Meowth, Mewtwo, they're keynote Pokémon. Most everyone knows them. But what about some of the others? Here's a bunch of examples to show what I mean.

  • Charizard is a very popular Pokémon, it's pretty much given that a lot of people know of him, players and non-players alike. But what about his starter-evo cousins Venusaur and Blastoise? They're not nearly as keynote as Charizard, they only show up a few times in the show. But in practice, they're not much different than Charizard, what with all being Starter evos. So who would get their own articles? Charizard? Or all three? If only Charizard gets an article to himself, then why wouldn't the other two? It would look pretty biased/unbalanced.
  • Entei is a Fire legendary from Gold/Silver. He was the star of the third movie, and played a prominent role in it. Does that mean he gets his own article? And what of his legendary brothers, Suicune and Raikou? Suicune just had a supporting role in a movie, and Raikou had a special TV episode. Who is to say they get their own articles or not?
  • Bayleef is a middle-evo, the form between the original pokemon and its final evolution. Middle-evos are usually not paid attention to that much compared to the original and final forms. The thing is, though, Bayleef played a big role in one of the show's seasons, being Ash's grass type for the time period. Does that mean she gets her own article because she was more prominent than Croconaw and Quilava?

Long story short, the process, should it ever come around in the future, of deciding who gets an article to themselves, will be laden with frustration. There's just no fair way to decide which of each of all the Pokemon get their own articles. Someone will always come along and explain why he/she thinks Pokemon X deserves their own article and why Pokemon X is notable enough. Placing Pokemon more notable than others by allowing them their own articles over a crammed list will be a disaster. The easiest solution is just to not do it. This way, everyone can get their own articles. The rest will just fall into place. Some will obviously be really good and expansive, and the Whismurs of the world that don't have too much to say about them will be stubs. But that's OK, that's what I would expect. Toastypk 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely true that is what could happen. A short answer, however: Wikipedia articles live and die by the presence or lack of reliable sources found throughout the internet, so I think there should be a process where people specifically look for all pieces of reliably sourced second-party info on the internet about a certain Pokemon, and if there's enough of these sources, then the Pokemon can get to keep its article because it may use those sources to become an actual Good and maybe a Featured article. Actually, I think it's likely that there'll be an increased number of this type of good sourcing for the Pokemon who are the title stars of the various Pokemon movies, such as Deoxys in its title role in Destiny Deoxys, and Entei like you said, so those may likely be able to be separate Featured articles. Also: my plan with these list pages is essentially to create the list pages while leaving the separate articles alone, then when that's done a lot of us go through each article one-by-one to see if there're enough sources on the internet for that Pokemon to be made into a potentially Featurable article, and if not that article is made into a redirect to the list where the Pokemon is given a summary that will appeal to casual readers of Wikipedia. Doing it this way might end up giving about 50 Pokemon with their own great articles, who knows?
Anyway, I can understand how you feel about this, I once felt just the same way, but over time I learned about the Wikipedia content policies and found that Pokemon info appealing mainly to Pokefans like you and myself is not necessarily welcome on this general encyclopedia called Wikipedia, and that subject-specific Wikis like Bulbapedia are where information important mainly to the Pokemon fanbase is outright welcome. Remember: Wikipedia is meant to appeal to a wide range of casual readers, and those readers would much prefer a list like this; it's almost like mega-merging them into easy-to-read lists is a creation of information, not a subtraction, because more of Wikipedia's non-Pokefan demographic will be compelled to read about the species. And Wikis are meant to appeal to specific readers of a specific subject, and it's only when Wikipedia the general encyclopedia and the specific Wikis surrounding it are taken together that we actually have a Wiki-kingdom that is meant to be the ultimate resource for everything. In short: Wikipedia is generalized and meant for everyone; Bulbapedia is Pokemon-specific and meant for fans of Pokemon. At least, I think that's the way it all goes, someone correct me if I'm wrong... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
When do we decide? Well, we expand the list entries with good sources, and once we have enough sourced info, we split them off. This is pretty much how every fictional character is handled. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been leaving this discussion alone for a long while because i know i'm long winded and there's already been plenty of lengthy discussion. Just to throw a few worms out there:
  • Templates are perfectly feasible as the images can be made not to show up while in the template namespace, that's what includeonly tags and conditional expressions are for (or we could just use the defunct/against-newer-policy subpage feature inherint to all main space, hehehe).
  • Long lists are less accessible for all users (low connection speed users in particular), and we shouldn't be making the encyclopedia that "anyone with cable modems can edit" (once the english speaking world is off dial-up, we can make pages as long as we want).
  • Picking a number to best accomodate this problem is arbitrary, especially because the size of each section will vary over time.
  • Both sorting by pokedex number (1-10? 1-25?) and by type (water and normal) can only use arbitrary subjective measures to best accomodate all users. The type sorting also has this problem when using 1st-type/2nd-type for classification because some types would still be too huge to manage and would have to be broken down into 1-X pages.
I am not against merging many of the articles because i agree that it would encourage contributors to make them better, but so far i have not seen a scheme that would logisitically work. Even my previous idea of merging them by evo line has some fundamental flaws (of course as time goes on, fewer non-legendary pokemon are without evolutions/pre-evolutions) beyond the problem of figuring out what even title the pages. Unfortunately, for usability's sake, i don't see an alternative, and i'd rather have the encycolpedia work than have one with some bad articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the least resistance to merging by type except for the issue of covering dual-type Pokémon. What if we merged Pokémon by type but used templates for every Pokémon (we'd have 493 templates then...) so that dual-type Pokémon could appear in the articles for each of their types. Zubat's template, for instance, would be transcluded into both the Poison Pokémon article and the Flying Pokémon article. Each template would have to have an edit link so that novice editors could know where to edit the template. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Resistance as in trying to use Metagross to Explode on Aggron (sorry, I'm still piseed off over my stupidity in the 36th battle in the Tower). In all seriousness, though, using templates is a terrible idea; templates are not for content, they're for formatting. The PCP had to fight to keep {{pokenum}}, for instance. Just redirect it where ever. For instance, say Crobat. The redirect page would have #REDIRECT List of Flying-type Pokémon#Crobat to make it easy to find him, whether he gets placed on Flying-type or Poison-type page. Hbdragon88 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we'll be having people complain which list he's in and revert wars over it, and Zubat is the easy one. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't think merging by type is really feasible for us to create. When I tried to lay out what a List of Ground-type Pokemon page would look like in my sandbox, it practically left me with a headache after trying at it for about 20 minutes. I think being straight-out orderly in a fashion that indicates to many other users that we aren't being biased in how we arrange Pokemon is overall the best. :/
Anyway, controversial as it may be, I have boldly created List of Pokémon (1-20). I had meant to yesterday but didn't have the time. And I will be working on several of the list pages that would follow that. One suggestion as to how to go about this is that we shouldn't actually replace any of the Pokemon articles with redirects to the lists until the entire series of lists is in good shape (which is probably in some months), and I also suggest creating these list pages in order so that by the time we get to 4th gen Pokemon, Diamond and Pearl will be out and we won't have to deal with that naming business anymore. May this be a supreme undertaking... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for joining in late, but I see a definite con: There will be little usable information even in important Pokes, since only Pikachu is that well-known amongst the public. The rest, while famous, can't leave the Pokéverse (as an article) since they are either not known amongst the general public or are nonnotable outside of the Poké-/Nintendoverse. Mewtwo may be notable as being in SSBM, but ask a layperson and you're unlikely to get the right answer. Same goes for Bulbasaur, Torchic, any other legendaries, and, sorry to say, all the 4th-gens we're fighting about.
In short, lists are most likely going to be an irreversible change, since only one can ever hope to get an article of its own per WP:FICT.-Jeske (v^_^v) 23:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
enough of this layperson stuff... i'm sick of it. Click on a random article here, here, or here - would ANY of these articles appeal to a layperson? the answer is no, appeal shouldn't be as important as understandable. The argument that a layperson wouldn't know anything about the subject is completely irrelevent since that's the whole point of an encyclopdeia, to educate people about things they don't know! The article has been listed at RFC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, this sub-project I'm trying to put in effect is pretty much taking what's in each Pokemon article, boiling it down to its essential best, and putting it in these lists so that the video-game reader who doesn't necessarily know much about the Pokemon species but would like to know general stuff about those species will be satisfied.

I can tell it'd take a lot of time and effort to create something like this, and I think none of the separate article pages should be made as section-redirects into the appropriate Pokemon section in the Lists until it's all mostly made. (I must say, this effort would be crippled if it weren't for the Wiki software's allowing for section redirects so that typing Raticate would bring you down to the bottom of that first list page.) In other words, there probably won't be any actual merging with redirects for months; the separate articles will likely be around for a long time, unless we're absolutely certain the Charmeleon section can't be improved based on the content of the Charmeleon article.

And of course I'm always open to viable alternatives: if there's enough consensus to do something else this current 1-20 page can always be moved or removed. There's no way I'd want to antagonize anyone over this, having once myself been the editor who edits like this and articles like this... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a viable alternative... Say, instead of dividing by 20, how about dividing by evolutionary line? Granted, we'll only be cleaving the number of articles in about 1/2, but that's still better than what we currently have (as in, the individual articles). List of Pokemon (1-20) seems a bit cramped in my opinion.
By dividing by evolutionary line, it is easier to put more content under that of more notable pokemon. For instance, Pikachu and Sandshrew both appear in List of Pokemon (21-40) (or whatever that article will be called). To have Pikachu cover half the page and Sandshrew get a little stub would be awkward at best. Now, with Pikachu line and Sandshrew line being separate articles (or again, by whatever name the articles will go by), it is significantly easier to put more information under Pikachu without worrying about how that would compare to Sandshrew's header, since that's another article completely.
The Pokemon won't necessarily have to go in National Dex order. So, for example, despite Porygon, Porygon2, and PorygonZ being spread out throughout the NatDex, all three can go in the Porygon line article. This supports branched evolutions as well (such that Eevee, Flareon, Jolteon, Vaporeon, Umbreon, Espeon, Glacia, and Leafia can all fit on one article).
Certain pokemon do not evolve into each other, but still have some common link between them. Generation 3 especially:
The rest of these will get more descriptive titles once their roles are made known in the English release/future movies
  • Yuxie + Emmurit + Agnom
  • Dialga + Palkia + Giratina
  • Darkrai + Crescelia
  • Manaphy + Phione
  • Shaymin + Heatran + Regigigas (The three remaining legendaries)
  • Aruseus, as the Pokegod, gets his own article
That leaves the following solitary pokemon...
Additionally, there is more meaning to grouping by evolutionary line and by similarity than there is to grouping by Pokedex order. For instance, if for whatever reason the main 12 once-genin characters of Naruto were suddenly grouped into four articles, they would more likely be grouped by team than by alphabetical order.
I know it looks messy now, but I think it can work. Article titling is not my forte, so feel free to change any title above into anything more appropriate. So, thoughts/suggestions? You Can't See Me! 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll support doing it that way if there's clearly more consensus to do it that way rather than a straight list. To be frank, at this point I'd only feel like doing something that that's widely agreed upon so that therefore it does not put me close to a controversial position among the other project members. :D Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 04:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
my god this discussion is a beast! It should go without saying that there are several points upon which i agree with this proposition, i suggested this same idea a while ago. The problem with this concept is well illustrated by your grouping. While I would personally group Ho-oh, Lugia, and the "beasts" together under Legendary Pokemon of Johto to create consistency among the articles, subjectively pairing other pokemon makes no sense (Darkrai and Crescelia?). Additionally, it seems worse to have these "leftover" articles than entire articles devoted to them. Pinsir is not to have its own article, but it's to be grouped with Ditto? I know they have a common trait, but it is as loose as by number. And no... Miltank and Tauros need to stay seperate, there's NO legitimate indication of them having a relation akin to Plusle/Minun or Solrock/Lunatone - at least they are regularly seen together, the articles can comment on that. you sometimes the best solution is a combination of two. i'll put my proposal under a new heading to create a break. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What Should Be Noted?

So, I think we've reached a consensus that not all pokemon are notable, and that some of them ought to be compiled. Now, while you decide in the above heading how they should be organized, let's talk about content here.

So, uh, yeah... What should be noted under a pokemon's header? In my opinion, that would be:

  • Infobox info
  • Pokedex info, supplemented with info recieved from other in-game sources (Mew, for example, had extra information from Cinnebar Mansion). If possible, non-conflicting anime/manga/TCG flavor text information can be put in as well.
  • Basic in-game information.
  • That would be, pointing out its best and worst stats as generally as possible (Alakazam is fast and can use special attacks with potency, but in exchange has low defenses and physical attack), without going into Smogon terms and/or specific numbers (Alakazam has an incredibly high base Speed of 120 and base Special Attack of 135, making it an excellent Special Sweeper. Its downside is that it only has 45 base Defense, which means it will usually faint after taking a strong hit).
  • If its ability is particularly noteworthy (Shedinja's Wonder Guard, for example), if it has any signature moves (Lugia's Aeroblast), or if in any way it has some unique in-game quality (Pikachu's Light Ball, Ditto's ability to breed with everything), that ought to be noted.
  • Important events in the game centered around the pokemon, like the Slowpoke Tail incident in GSC and Kyogre/Groudon/Rayquaza's roles in RSE.
  • Notable apperances in the anime/manga
    You Can't See Me! 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Leaked English Names Confirmed via TCG

Look the cards confirm Monferno, Infernape, Prinplup, Grotle, Torterra, Magnezone, and Riolu. --DSDark 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is as good as sourcing can get, unfortunately. It's a fansite seed pack, which is essentially a press release for fansites. The cards are legit and identical on each site, and each site is citing PUSA as their source (as opposed to anonymous sources). We can start moving the ones that are confirmed in the PE2K/Pokebeach/etc. articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All well and good, but while PE2K/PokéBeach DO have cards confirming Torterra/Infernape/Magnezone, I don’t see Grotle/Monferno/Prinplup/Riolu at either. So why are they being cited there? --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you asking why are they being counted as confirmed? If so, it's because they have the "Evolves from ______" which shows their name. -Sukecchi 11:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Serebii went ahead and...made our lives even more miserable.

Serebii just claimed there would be a sequel to Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. This could make our lives miserable. Funpika 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was supposed to be a new Pokémon game announced. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is enough proof for this. What is the reliable source that verified this? Also the page title isn't even correct! The didn't use the é in Pokémon. Just a normal e! Might as well correct it. Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2. Funpika 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to some people who translated a scan of CoroCoro, next week's issue will reveal a new Pokémon game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Was CoroCoro the magazine that just today revealed it? Funpika 20:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It gets released on April 12th I think...I also like how that magazine article mentions Pokémon in no way, shape or form as far as I know. -Sukecchi 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It never revealed anything, I'm just saying there exists a possibility of it being PMD based on the fact that Serebii's announcement is close to the announcement of a new Pokémon game.
And huh? The magazine scan had Ash on it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Ash on that page. Funpika 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[5] Ahem? The Japanese at the top is even the title of the upcoming Pokémon movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was looking at the link in the PMD2 article. Funpika 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Same. I've known about that article for a while now. -Sukecchi 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say Famitsu, now did I? :p - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IGN --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon Images

Is there anyway that more uniform pictures could be used, or not have the pixel amount specified?--Tempest115 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

could you clarify? I'm a little confused as to what you are requesting. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"no source" image template for Pokémon images?

I can't find it. Anyone got it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, just made 'em: {{poke-no source}} and {{poke-nsd}}. Use the second one to tag images. —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll above

Please help the earlier discussion by making your opinions known in the new survey/poll about including the new names in articles. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on list article

I have requested an RFC on this merger idea and directed contributors to Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New template for lists.

{{Pokeinfoboxsmall}}. It needs a better title, and needs to be converted to Wikitable format, but it works. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good, but I'm wondering if the ability, height, weight, and species will be mentioned. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I used to have all that as a second row in my sandbox draft, but Hbdragon88, as his first comment on my sandbox talk page, thought it was too in-universe, so I had to remove the second row for him. I myself would've prefered a second row with that info. And by the way, many thanks to Amarkov for making that template for the page. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon didn't have to. You were just nice enough to do so. Hbdragon88 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If ability is important, it can be described in the article (one of the few things I can think would be nice to mention is Shedinja's Wonder Guard). Height and weight are almost meaningless except for one move that depends on the user's and the target's heights...and species doesn't affect anything. Hbdragon88 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

you mean weights don't you? Low Kick is one, there may be others. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one. What a sorry move...1 base power and reliant on weight? Hbdragon88 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's good against Snorlax, which isn't exactly unpopular. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can't even calculate damage...MetalKid has actually failed me for once. But a Machamp using Cross Chop will nearly KO Snorlax anyway, definite KO if it scores a critical hit. Hbdragon88 04:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, but Low Kick isn't just for those that can learn Cross Chop... but anyways... back to the main discussion? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
it seems that some people only want to mention ability is if it unique to that pokemon? I'm kinda halfway on this, partly because so many articles we have mention the ability in the infobox but then nowhere do they explain what it acutally does - this is different than saying someone has a high attack vs. their attack is base 120 (others disagree) because the reader's knowledge is actually improved by explaining what the ability does (whereas 120 = 60 so long as we say it's high). But then comes the question of whether explaining Snorlax's Thick Fat would be of any interest to people not playing the game. I would argue that it could, and others would argue that it couldn't. But then, like i've said before, what interest is poker strategy to those not playing the game either? If a layperson is going to look up Snorlax in the first place isn't safe to assume they'd like to know as much easily explained information as possible? Let's assume they've read the main article (wow, pokemon's been around for a while, and is prevalent in almost every media outlet available), then they read the mechanics article to become better aquainted with how it all works (woah, this is more complex than i originally thought), then they prolly pick a well known species like pikachu, and then what happens when they decide they want to see some random species? (browse from pikachu's category Electric Pokémon to click on Magneton) Do we then short change them on all the relevant info? It is not instruction, it is not irrelevant, and it is certainly not NN to describe an important game mechanic that changed a the fundamental gameplay in RSE+. Extraneous is describing parts of anime episodes that had nothing to do with Magneton, too technical is listing route numbers and base stats, they need the entire context of the game to be of any value. But explaining what types are, then saying that this ability gives this Pokémon resistance to this type is simple and understandable and augments their knowledge of the Pokémon, which is the whole reason they were looking that thing up in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember, poker strategy is the subject of many different independent publications, whereas Pokémon strategy, not so much. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And to my above comment, I meant I had to remove it to see what Hbdragon88 would think about the rest of the draft afterward, dood. And I suppose considering what kind of condensed info goes in the Lists is a core subject of discussion concerning this sub-project that should be discussed at large over time, so that probably should go into the List's talk page. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Prinny, dood! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Poker strategy is the subject of many different publications, whereas Pokémon strategy is pretty much Smogon (a fansite with pseudonymous and anonymous contribution, cited by pretty much nobody) or nothing.

Wikipedia isn't paper. It is, however, an encyclopedia built on published sources already extant. We're not here to analyze the primary sources and make collections of trivial scraps of information, but instead give an encyclopedic overview of subjects. To date, we've pretty much failed to give encyclopedic overview, and instead tried to glue together scraps into a unified whole, with no sources we can cite that do the sort of analysis that makes these articles useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Love you, A Manaphy In Black. Happy!
I must say, however, this Lists of Pokemon concept is pretty much creating the 493 articles all over again, and it will only be especially useful at the end when we start determining which specie article has no chance of being a fully encyclopedic Wikipedia so that it can be made as a section redirect to the Lists. In other words, there's hardly any deletion of content from Wikipedia articles about Pokemon at all, at least for a good long while until the full Lists are made. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon strategy is discussed at Smogon, serebii, and gamefaqs has several articles written by users. Regarding issues with pseudonymity, and published sources see my other thread. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

conflicting goals of wikipedia

you know, reading AMIB's comment, "Remember, poker strategy is the subject of many different independent publications, whereas Pokémon strategy, not so much," i realized something. Now, he's made comments along these lines several times before, but it was never quite worded this way. I've been having similarly themed policy discussions with the chess project about their category on chess openings. Now, aside from discussion of whether it is the place of wikipedia to discuss game strategy at all, let's just look at what the requirements to include strategy would require. Basically, the requirements at WP:RS/WP:ATT (they're trying to straighten out the mess) say the source needs to be subject to independent fact-checking (someone besides the author needs to be verifying) unless the author is a well-known expert in their field (and even then, caution should be exercised) and aspects of NPOV, corroboration, and attributability are essentially secondary traits, but still very important.

Now the issue at hand is how that conflicts with wikipedia's other goals, basically the idea of providing free (as in libre) content. The concept of wiki is that everyone freely cooperates to create something, whether that is information or a motorcycle, today that concept is what's behind YouTube and Google - user-created content is becoming a large omnipresent force. This comment on a fairly unrelated subject is counterintuitive to a process that relies heavily on an essentially unfree product. Newscasts, scholarly journals, and periodicals are all non-libre yet the trends today are pushing those out: wikinews, digg, wikipedia, blogs, youtube are all things that are replacing these resources we depend upon heavily and in fact demand. So wikipedia wants libre content for all, but we still need money-making companies out there to supply us with that information? Not going to happen, all we'll be left with is governement census data. To always demand content that is subject to the rigors of current resources is unrealistic when wiki concepts do nothing to promote those rigors and are in turn forcing those resources into the history books. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a money-making company, just a credible publisher. Wikipedia rests its credibility on the credibility of its sources, because Wikipedia cannot have a traditional peer-review or editorial review process because it doesn't require or check credentials. Thus, our sources need to be ones that have peer review or editorial review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
my point is that the idea of user-created content is slowly supplanting traditional sources. and user-created content hitorically isn't as reliable. the vanguard ethos encourages content similar to wikipedia's and discourages that which is not (free collaboration). eventually we'll all be relying on what is being relied up and there will be fewer and fewer indpendent sources with are "verifiable". if this community encouraged practices like authentication or credentials it would make more sense to require information from sources that also did. but we don't and likewise encourage content to be created that doesn't (forks, mirrors, youtube), we're encouraging creation of content we wouldn't use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin, the statement of principles is just Jimbo's idealistic vision for Wikipedia. The policies that police Wikipedia are going to be much stricter than what Jimbo envisions. Wikipedia also tries to be far more serious and professional than YouTube or Google or any blog. A key difference between the examples you listed and Wikipedia is that Wikipedia doesn't publish the opinions of the Wikipedians themselves, only those that were reported by others. Hbdragon88 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's ideals are what wiki is all about (not wikipedia, but the idea uf user created content), wikipedia is just one example of a trend for user created content. if ur in the states - Nickelodeon, Discovery, National Geographic, and LOGO all have implemented segments where viewer content is what makes up the programming, and then there's that channel which is entirely user-created (can't remember it's name). I wasn't likening Wikipedia to them, i was trying to say that the libre ideal of wikipedia encourages this kind of non-traditional media. while that may not be a bad thing, this non-traditional media is where a large amount of information now exists and it seems odd that we are encouraging the growth of something we're supposed to avoid. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that newscasts, journals, and the like will ever be relegated to history books. User-created content is fine when you want information on things without having to do a bunch of work finding it, but in matters where it is important that the information be right, wikis aren't good enough. And nobody will never be able to say "Oh, well, your theory that we gave you a couple million dollars to test was based on faulty information from Wikipedia? Who cares, we'll just throw more money at you." Nor will people rely on Wikinews to provide them really important information. So there always will be reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 22:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ok... "to the history books" was a little flowery. ur right that no one will ever 100% trust wikipedia becasue of its volatile nature, but the thing is that wikipedia's ideals are discouraging reliable sources by imposing upon them a libre foundation that isn't yet completely feasible for resourcing the kind of independent fact checking we want. The business model of "wiki-nomics" is one that all media companies are well aware of and if they can't figure out how to implement this new model into their current one they'll be left behind. That is the goal of libre, to force free content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, we're still more worried about applying the ideals of this project to this project, and one of those ideals is a proper foundation of sources that do have editorial or peer review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
ok... gamefaqs has an editorial and peer review process... peers read the material and contact the author who then makes corrections and uploads a new version. Corrections are made much more frequently than at other sites, but that's also prolly because they're more inaccurate. I know this thread is a major tangent to the one above, that's why i didn't say my piece there. Perhaps it would be best if i move this discussion somewhere else? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue is, that isn't an editorial process. If it's accepted (and acceptance makes no judgement on quality or accuracy), then it is there. There is no way to force the author to change it if they don't feel like it. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
GameFAQs editorial process consists of making sure the page isn't 32K of "DICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKS", and authors are under no obligation to make modifications based on corrections or suggestions. Just because someone can edit a page doesn't mean that there is an editorial process. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Torchic has entered the removal candidacy phase

Yup. *chews a blade of grass* -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain what the removal candidacy phase is? *chews an ear of corn* --Brandon Dilbeck 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We're !voting on if it should be un-featured. *chews a palm tree* -Amarkov moo! 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you must mean this thing here. *chews on fried Farfetch'd* --Brandon Dilbeck 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, second section. *chews on Snorlax, is squished* -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's screwed, i recon maybe. *Chews on illithid, gets mind eaten* -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)