Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Next Pokémon Creature Article

Next Miscellaneous Article

Cleaned out to gut old discussions. Archived FFAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Pokémon evolution We should add levels of Evolution to ever pokemon under the picture for convenience and so that the information isn't scattered throughout the article. Also, in many cases it doesn't even say what level it evolves at! Surskit being the first to come to mind.

preciate]]|Laugh At) 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Focus for next month

I'd sugest Lugia to focus. That's because I'm focusing this in the Lusophone Wikipedia and I found that Lugia in the Anglophone Wikipedia is lacking much content. Then I think Lugia should be the Species Focus for July. ManecoWifi 01:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not Huntail? It doesn't have much. TheBlazikenMaster 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, we should remember that the merging-by-evolutionary-line option is always open, and that the only reason nothing's happening with it right now is because we've all been taking a big break from it. With the merger in mind, I would support making Lugia a focus to see if it can truly hold its own article so that merging it with Ho-oh is not necessary. But a merged page on the minor Pokemon Clamperl, Huntail, and Gorebyss seems like it'll exist that way regardless of a separate article focus, because those three have much less to say about them than Lugia. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

biological characteristics

It is a giant psychic bird, created with awesome power. It can talk to people in English using it's psychic power. The flaps on its back could resemble aerodynamics.

Yup, needs to be the next focus. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
lol, ur humor has brightened my day -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys

You got an related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zangoose_and_Seviper, someone merged the two characters without consensus. Should they stay like that, or be split back up? Kwsn(Ni!) 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to the discussion in the project's noticeboard. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The merged article has been speedily deleted. I am removing it from the noticeboard. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, sorry to bust your bubble guys

But Bulbasaur was demoted, it's no longer an FA, might want to update that on the front page. Kwsn(Ni!) 06:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! Well, ain't that a stinker? Now none of the articles covered by this project are FAs. I've updated the main page. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenal popularity of List of Pokémon

Since its merger, "List of Pokémon" has been unbelievably popular for the whole of 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, this list came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of 6,904,929 articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused strongly on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to direct discussion on this matter to the article's talk page. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The phenomenon you are referring to is a result of vandalism (deletion of articles) and link (redirect) spamming. Far from being actually popular, these near-useless (compared to previous pages) collections of stubs are stealing hits from up to 20 articles that they replace. I imagine they get quite a few extra hits as users search the site for information they feel ought to be there, because they have memories of it once being there, only to repeatedly end up redirected back to that same, god-aweful merge page. Zaphraud 04:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
He's talking bout the consolidated list. Read the whole thing. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Stunky is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunky. Your comments would be welcome. --Eastmain 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. I've added a link to the discussion to the noticeboard. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I'd like people to read my nomination and base their decision on my nomination. I don't believe Eastmain did this; he leaned on previous consensus and ignored my arguments. --Teggles 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bulleting your reply, by the way. --Teggles 08:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am creating the article that Stunky would have been merged into eventually even if this AFD never existed. I have a draft in my userspace. FunPika 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice, FunPika. I wasn't aware the AFD page existed, yet there's a lot of debate there already. Looking at the AFD page, I must say, trying to find some way to cover the Pokemon species in a way that satisfies both all types of people and all manner of Wikipolicy is looking near-futile, with many opposing 493 separate pages and many others opposing merged articles... It's no wonder AMIB never commented recently. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

More GFDL compliance issues

I just ran across Nincada evolutionary line and noticed that author information (or at the very least, where the article text came from) is completely missing. I imagine this is the case for a number of other articles. Please try to get this fixed up. The GFDL is non-negotiable and this article could be speedy deleted at any time. --- RockMFR 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


TfD nomination of Template:Poke-cleanup

Template:Poke-cleanup 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. — Kwsn(Ni!) 00:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pokefair

Template:Pokefair 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 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again

Sorry to say guys, but unless {{Poke-stub}} and {{Poke-expand}} are A. reworded so it doesn't violate WP:OWN and B. have the image replaced with a generic pokeball, I may be nominating them for deletion. Thanks in advance. Kwsn(Ni!) 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't want these templates to indicate any relationship with this WikiProject. I think your first concern could easily be handled by removing the "Pokémon Collaborative Project" part at the end, but as for the second concern, replacing the Wikiball image with a generic Poké Ball image (like this) would be a copyright violation. Since the article is about Pokémon, I don't see a huge problem with there being a picture of the Wikiball, which is easily associable with Pokémon. The article Narrow-body aircraft has an airplane image in its stub template, but I don't automatically associate it with WikiProject Aircraft. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As Brandon said, the main pokeball would be a copyvio. Also, you do realize that the entire stub type would be wiped out of existence over a wording issue if you nominated it right? FunPika 11:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give you the pokeball, and I'll retract my intent to nominate it for deletion, but it honestly needs to be reworded to fit into WP:OWN. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 Done References to this project removed. FunPika 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I first want to point out what a nice job Nall (t c) did organizing this project's page. While I was doing some refinements of his edits by restructuring the page's hierarchy, I starting thinking about the Related WikiProjects section. I am wondering exactly what makes some of the projects in that list related to this one (such as WikiProject The Elder Scrolls). I'm also wondering what use including the inactive projects serves anyone. Should we consider trimming down this list, if not removing it entirely? --Brandon Dilbeck 07:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Still yet another comment

More a nudge for you guys here, but you should take a vote when to begin a drive to merge the evolutionary lines together. I'm saying this as more of a warning of sorts because I'm not going to be making more AfD for the pages (I've caused you guys enough problems as is the last few days), but it may help a bit to get it done faster so no more pop up.

Also, a suggestion: If you want to condense the articles down even more to an even less amount of pages (which I doubt, but hear me out anyway), why not sort them by primary type (meaning if it has two types, sort by the first one) of the basic pokemon of that line. Just a thought. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OH! before I forget, a few pages that would be exempt from my suggestion: Eevee's line (since it's so "big") and the Pikachu line (of all the individual pokemon deserving it's own page, that would be the one). Kwsn(Ni!) 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, since Wikipedia is a work in progress, I don't see any reason to rush into merging any articles together. There is no deadline for Wikipedia, so rushing the matter won't help at all. As for merging by type, it doesn't seem to be the case for dual-type Pokémon that one type is primary and the other secondary, so it probably wouldn't be appropriate to assume that the first one is more important. If we look at Pidgeotto for example, it is a Normal/Flying type. I would assume, though, that the Flying part is more important, seeing that it's a bird. There are no Flying-only-type Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Types have been discussed, but were ultimately deemed unworkable and possible original resaerch. Crobat is Poison/Flying, but its Flying type is clearly more prominent. I disagree with Brandon; I think we really need to start merging now, as we've seemingly suddenly come under attack - with the second AFD nomination of the 1-20 and 21-40 lists, the evolutionarly lines AFD, and various AFDs of Whismur, Camerupt, and now Stunky. I sense a tide is turning, and we need to flee before the tsnumai hits. hbdragon88 02:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About Crobat, I personally feel its Poison type is more important. Clearly, it won't work to divide anything by type, as people will disagree and move things and everything. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a way to solve this problem is to do it based on the way the Pokédex does the typing. So Crobat would be under the Poison-type wing, Magneton is for Electric, and Pidgeot...is Normal. ROFL, people are going to hate that. hbdragon88 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well do it by the obvious major type then, and if it's in the air, the first type then. Kwsn(Ni!) 05:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, grouping by type would crate gigantic lists for Normal and tiny ones for, um, steel or dragon. Number is the best alternative. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 20-Pokemon per list is fine for merging, no need for elements. Evolutionary lines are a very bad idea, two non-notable articles do not make a notable article. I've actually started the 20-Pokemon type of merging: check out List of Pokémon (421-440), I've merged 5 articles without removing any info (except for game guide and OR). This is actually very easy for many Pokemon, because most have very little information. --Teggles 08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
So we're gonna cover the species in 25 descriptive list pages covering 20 Pokemon each, with Main Article links to the more important species - the very proposal I first made on here many months ago? If the plan is going to stay consistently at that course, then I love it and will be willing to help out. The main reason I was willing to check out the alternative merge-by-evo-line proposal of other users was because it was much too hard for me to try and create the first pages in this series (List of Pokémon (1-20) and List of Pokémon (21-40)) all by myself, for those pages were much harder than it would have been making the (421-440) page, mainly because earlier Pokémon in general seem to have much more to say about them that can be properly sourced. (And I once considered arranging by elements too, but there really is too much about that concept that can be open to interpretation and thus cause warring over.) Anyway, let's hope there won't be too much user conflict in this transition. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Teggles has thrown his/her weight behind that plan, and Jay also indicated that evolutionary lines was an unsatisfactory solution, so I think the tide has once again brought back to the striaght-up lists. We'll lose the togetherness of the evolutionary line – though to be quite honest it was only Porygon tha was the star of the eplipsey episode, with 2 and Z out of it. hbdragon88 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure what you guys want to do with the TCG images, but I'm going to have quite a bit of orphaned image bot messages soon... So look there for the first 125ish Pokémon trading cards. Alvin6226 talk 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to use the TCG images. --Teggles 23:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Merged or no, is it necessary to have an inline cite for Pokédex info? -Jeske (v^_^v) 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there should be inline cites, and each cite for each claim should have a QUOTE. e.g. "X is relatively tall" would have an inline citation of "X's size is large in the Pokemon species. Nintendo, Pokemon Diamond (2007)". You get the idea. --Teggles 08:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Teggles... we had this discussion at Bulbasaur's review page... it not preferable to have every claim reffed. From WP:REF, the only info that needs citations is "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." As for Pokedex info, in the past we've had the habit of attributing our source through prose (e.g. "According to the Pokedex, a fictional encyclopedia on Pokemon, ..."), but there is definitely something to be said for the neatness and professionalism of providing an inline citation that says the same thing, especially since more often than not we are providing direct quotes. After writing a sample Eevee evo line article, I can say it's difficult to find different ways to rephrase "According to the pokedex" when you need to do it seven or eight times. My opinion is to start citing these inline, with specific refs to the relevant version of the game:
Abra sleep 18 hours a day, and can use the move Teleport to escape from danger even while sleeping. [1]
But both options seem viable to me and neither violate any policies or guidelines. Anyone else care to comment? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
then again, prose citing the info helps us keep in line with WP:WAF... mebbe both? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone read Japanese?

I suppose a lot of people here can, so in any case, what does this archive of Mayumi's blog say? The article on Misty had it saying that Misty's gonna make an appearance in D/P, until an anon came by and edited it to say the blog only hints that. And a random girl on YouTube keeps telling me the blog now says she's gonna return as a main character and "admit her feelings" to Ash, can someone scan the whole blog and tell me if it does? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a blog, so it shouldn't be used as a reference. Babelfish didn't really tell me anything though. --Teggles 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't get much more official than the words of Kasumi's voice actress. --Sonic Mew 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sonic, for editing this section and reminding me it existed. In any case, I guess Teggles didn't know who Mayumi was, people don't go around carrying the names of removed characters' VAs in their memory. But this is ridiculous, does NO ONE speak Japanese in a Project dedicated to a JAPANESE FRANCHISE?! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm already getting some flack for List of Pokémon (421-440)

  • "I think we should make seperate articles for the pokemon cuz da udaz do, and it's stupid to put em togetha and sum don't even hav any info unda dem"
  • "Surely it was better with individual and comprehensive articles instead of this horrific abortion."
  • "I have to agree with the others. The individual articles were much better because they contained much more information than they do now."

The last two are wrong... the individual articles had more information, but only because of the technique info (game guide, not allowed according to WP:NOT) and etymology (original research, not allowed). If you removed these things, the individual and merged versions would be the same size. Not to mention I also have WP:N, WP:FICT and WP:WAF to back me up. Yet I feel I'm wasting my time, they're eventually going to be changed back - even though there is NO reason for them to have individual articles, and EVERY reason for them to be merged. Does anyone here actually agree with what I'm doing? --Teggles 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. As an average wiki reader (someone who rarely contributes or edits), I MUCH prefer the old style where each article was expansive. IMHO, The new style is not encyclopedic, it's a Cliff's notes version. 68.34.176.253 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT and WP:ILIKEIT. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Duh we do, ignore the noncompliant crowd as noobs who shall be ultimately suppressed. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The person who made the second comment may be using an open proxy (a policy violation) if it is relevant. FunPika 12:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is, report them. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It was confirmed that it wasn't a proxy. Also it was just one of them that I suspected. FunPika 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Singular they. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere you're always hearing "Policy trumps consensus", but in this case we're trying to show consensus for doing something that can only be considered in policy's best interest; in this scenario, since most of the separate specie articles have massive violations of Wikipedia content policies, merging them down to easily digestible and practically informative sections with good sourcing should, by all means, be something that gets zero opposition in the ideal world. It's human nature, however, to prefer something someway regardless of everything else, with Pokemon having always been an extreme case of that, so there'll need to be more proponents of the merger speaking out here to show a consensus for following policy. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
there is a large difference between the merge plan that had gained consensus and the merges you are currently doing. shoving every article into the list format is wasting your time and ours. also, many of the merges you're doing aren't solving any problems with WP:OR and the like. this edit for example states resembles a hog-nosed skunk. who says? these descriptive comparisons are one of the things we're trying to avoid. i'm not sure everyone here was aware of what exactly you were doing - redirecting articles to the lists with stripped down paragraphs of a couple sentences. there is no agreement for that kind of merge and i don't think there ever would be. Consensus is policy, and policy trumps guidelines, so reach consensus for your actions especially when they are controversial. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I left the description information because it can likely be sourced through guidebooks. I removed game guide information and etymology information, if I removed the description information, the sections would be tiny. Either way, I'm taking action, while most of us are stuck in the mud doing nothing. If you feel the whole project should waste their time grouping 2 non-notable articles into 1, do what you want, but there's no way I'm helping with that abhorrent waste of time. --Teggles 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, consensus may trump guidelines, but the policy WP:NOT states that plot-related works should contain "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Don't tell me there is a possibility for real-world context, show me potential for real-world context. Otherwise I have every right to merge the articles based on policy violation. Of course, I won't do it, but if you want Pokémon coverage to be more than a joke, you'll need to start with policy violations.--Teggles 23:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd even question the notability of lists of 20 pokemon in some cases. It's all relative to how much real-world information you can find for the following reasons: WP:NOT plot summaries; WP:N states that notability requires coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (which, in the case of fiction, contain real-world information); and WP:WAF's suggestions. Wikipedia requires research outside of the fictional work itself. Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction, since it's easier to establish real-world/out-of-universe details and notability with a broader focus. — Deckiller 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Teggles -the only reason for multiple articles is the number of pokemon that exist. I am not arguing that most of the pokemon are notable by themselves, or that there even is any published material about most of them outside of the fiction. (exceptions to this include species like Porygon, Kadabra, Pikachu, and Bulbasaur). We wouldn't even be having this debate if there were only four or five pokemon. Then i would say to you, "YES! merge them all into the main article, and if that's too big, then create a List of pokemon article with them all on it." this is why WP:SS is conflicting with WP:N. WP:SS says it's perfectly okay to create a subarticle when a section in an article would be too big to give it comprehensive coverage. Knowledge of each element contributes to knowledge of the whole. And the truth is that there is plenty of encyclopedic, verifiable, attributable information on each and every species that does not violate WP:OR, WP:NOT, or WP:WAF. There is more than the four or five sentences being given at the list pages. Besides the species i mentioned earlier, each and every one can have information on what date in time they were originally introduced in the video game, anime, and trading card game (some pokemon never even had cameos in the manga, so i left that out) - there's your real-world context. In addition, they were all made into plush animals, figurines, and many have been featured on special items like lunchboxes and keychains (see Eevee). That specific point of WP:NOT is more about writing an article on Melena in Wicked and filling it only with info taken directly from the text. I have yet to see McDonald's and Burger King come out with action figures of her. And before "gameguide" gets thrown around, remember that "to guide" is the same as "to instruct" or "to show the way". It's perfectly within guidelines and policies to mention that Feebas may only be captured on six random tiles. And it's perfectly within guidelines and policies to say that it has very weak stats or only learns a few moves. It's violation when we start telling the reader ways they can improve their pokemon's stats or start suggesting they breed in Recover from Corsola. Just because it's detailed doesn't mean it's instructional.
Deckiller- ur right it's easier to establish those details and notability with a broader focus. but there are not going to be any extra real-world details on "Pokemon 1-20" than there was on Ivysaur, and we're not trying to establish notability - just that there's too much encyclopedic info to contain it all in a single list or as part of the main article-PokeZap (Zappernapper) 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, have it your way. I'm sure I'll come back trying to change your mind, but for now I'm leaving this shithole of a project. Leave me a message when you've created a specie article with "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance". That's if I'm still on Wikipedia by that time. --Teggles 00:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh... Well that's fun, isn't it?
This pretty much proves that the best way to deal with the gigantic Pokemon specie organization situation is still just as open to discussion and ideas as ever. I do not believe Teggles' making those list pages is for waste, however; if Zapper's proposed approach to merging, involving lots of evo-line articles as the base and list pages as a supplement, is the final decision by consensus, then those list pages would've needed to be made anyway, just like they would've been if the Teggles approach was the final agreed merge plan. I wouldn't be overly rattled by disagreements on here.
I must say, Zapper definitely makes sense with his showing what kind of "guide" IS good for Wikipedia; that should definitely be kept in mind when deciding on how to structure the Pokemon pages. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 06:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
i never had a problem with the list articles themselves, just the immediate presumption that all but two sentences were gameguide, OR, or extraneous for each and every article. additionally, many of the paragraphs on List of Pokémon (421-440) have serious issues with lack of context (Cherrim - "...the hostess of "It's Love! Pokemon Transformation Convention!" wears a Cherrim mask.") and OR (Shellos - "Shellos... is based on a sea slug"). to redirect the main articles to these paragraphs was counterproductive to improving the articles - same problems, just shorter. people tend to forget that Wiki is not paper and that a "specialized encyclopedia" is part of our Five pillars. as long as info is attributable to reliable sources, non-instructional, and contributes to understanding the topic (Pokémon) as a whole, it has a place in wikipedia. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, FICT says
Again,
This means that the plot summaries have to be cut out, which negates the evo line articles. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
your quote seems to state the opposite: "plot summaries are kept short...", "In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when... encyclopedic coverage is hindered by... length guidlines...." I didn't see anything resembling "plot summaries have to be cut out," just handled appropriately. My comparison of individual species to summaries of the main topic was a little superficial (and I think taken from a completely different thread). Reread my first post for further detail. The other issue is about supporting characters from WAF. Like i said, if there were only a handful of pokemon and the video game was the only medium we wouldn't be needing to deal waste time arguing. A short couple sentences about it's role in the video game (like Eevee are often "Event Pokemon" and DP was the first where you can catch them in the wild) next to an infobox similar to the ones we use (adding in first game appearance) would be completely sufficient on a list article, similar to Clow Cards. The only thing is that there are over 400 of the little critters and about 78% of them are also represented in an anime, TCG, manga, and merchandise (there's also a minatures game coming out...) - to give them only a few sentences each is grossly underrepresentating them. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We should at least put height and weight in these new-fangled articles

I went to look and see how much Cherrim weighs, and the new article didn't say. That's sad, because that's not original research stuff, it says in every Dex information. Toastypk 21:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason it's not there is because of the template used (which I didn't create). --Teggles 00:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Zappernapper (now User:PokeZap) originally included it in the template, but then cut it down as cruft. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that's something that merits discussion, however. I can imagine opponents of the merger feeling better about it if at least that much is added back... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
at first i didn't remember doing that, but i think your talking about {{pokeinfoboxsmall}} right? if so, i removed it from there because that info should be included in group articles or on a singular species article - the lists representing the most general and pertinent info. So Cherrim's height/weight would be found at Cherrim evolutionary line. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Which I will probably drag to AfD the moment it comes into existence. I still don't get how Ralts evolutionary line is any better than the original articles. Same amount of ludicrously in-depth coverage of hopelessly minor characters. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, I didn't see the discussion up north. But can someone reference all this in the first place, then? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
yes, that's something i've had a problem with... many of these merged articles are merely that - merges of the bad articles under a new name. I've seen no improvements made as the merges are happening, just some clipping, copying, and pasting. Raven I'd like to ask your opinion on Eevee evolutionary line and to a lesser extent Abra evolutionary line. The Eevee article i wrote myself from scratch, building on the original articles, but hopefully you'll be able to see they are heavily rewritten (with the minor exception of Leafeon and Glaceon not getting as much attention). The Abra article was reformatted and i really only reworked the Bio. Char. sections, trying out {{cite video game}} for inline citations of the pokedexes. hopefully (for at least the Eevee line article) you'll agree that adequate, but not extraneous, information is given. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaah, just when I have a packed week ahead of me?! OK, I'll try to get to it this Sunday afternoon or evening (per IST, +5:30 UTC). Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Height and weight are completely negligible information. About the only gameplay mechanic that even uses weight is the move Low Kick, probably some others. If it isn't even that relevant to me, a Pokemon video game player, what is the relevance to the average reader? Check Serebii/Psypokes/Bulapedia for that kind of information. hbdragon88 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking "comprehensiveness", plus, unlike shiny colors, height and weight are officially verifiable info. What does WP:FICT say about this kind of verifiable, but irrelevant, stuff? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 05:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I was thinking of not indiscriminate collection of information more than WAF. Just because it can be verified doesn't mean that it should be here. hbdragon88 01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
yes WP:NOT is the more appropriate guideline/policy to apply here. the only saving grace for height/weight is that it can (in some cases) add to the understanding of the pokemon in general. I was personally surprised by how short Swampert actually is when i saw it in stadium.... of course this may be similar to why we don't include specific numbers for strengths of attacks or base stats - but unlike those numbers, everybody can appreciate the difference between a foot or two (where 100 vs. 150 base Attack means little to non-players, 3ft. vs. 6ft. is a generally understandable difference). -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope that someone restores the previous Species infoboxes, as they were informative. Their lack in the articles, I believe is the only bad thing about the merged lists.DragonOfLegend 05:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)DragonOfLegend

Spelling and punctuation

I did my usual check for instances of apostrophe abuse on Wikipedia, and for the first time ever, I didn't have to correct a bunch of Pokemon articles! I found only one article; that never happens. Someone (or several someones) has been keeping up on spelling and punctuation of these articles. Thank you and please keep up the good work! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophe abuse!? Oh, you mean Pokemon > Pokémon-style apostrophe abuse that people tend to commit. Heh, sorry, for a moment there I honestly thought you meant abuse from User:Apostrophe. I guess I made that connection because about a year ago you were involved in an arbcom case with a now-banned user who in the year before that was claiming abuse (of sorts) from users like Apostrophe and A Man In Black on the Pokémon anime talk-page.
But thanks for the compliments anyway. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, i think he was talking about the kind of abu'se commited by idiot's who keep apostrophizing all word's that end with a "s". ;) --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ye's, that is' what I wa's talking about! Anyway, thank's to whoever ha's been fixing them! You s'aved me hour's of work! Firsfron of Ronchester 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Page?

I found a page for "List of Starter pokemon." I think this is already covered in Pokémon game mechanics. I'm kinda new, so I'm not really sure what to do about it.

Dude902 19:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a merger into Pokémon game mechanics. Joiz A. Shmo 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
i don't think this qualifies as a controversial move, all the content is redundant to info at Pokémon game mechanics#Start Pokémon. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 00:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New discussion for merging

I said I'd be back, and I am. I'm creating a new proposal for the Pokémon creature articles. Simply put, I want minor creature articles merged into 25 different lists, ordered by Pokédex No.: Template:Pokemon directory.

When we take a look at the current creature articles, they're generally like so:

  • Intro
    • A paragraph detailing the Pokémon franchise
    • Assumed meaning of the name, definitely original research
  • Biological characteristics
    • A description of what you see in the image (a bit redundant)
  • In the video games
    • A long summary of attacks and when the creature gets them
    • (sometimes) The first game the creature appeared in
  • In the anime
    • Long summary of the plot related to the creature

When they are merged, I say they should be cut down to one section with the following:

  • What games the creature is in
  • REAL WORLD INFORMATION: When/where introduced? (magazine, games, internet?) Was it used in any promotional material? (advertisements, basically anything) What merchandise was created for it? (toys, action figures) It's important that the latter two aren't for every creature - if a certain promotion/merchandising was created that employs all/most Pokémon, do not include it.
  • Short summary of the plot related to the creature

This is so we can conform to basically every fiction-related policy and guideline on Wikipedia:

  • WP:FICT: Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."
  • WP:WAF: Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective.
  • WP:N: Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. [This is a "no" for most creatures]
  • WP:NOT: Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. [This can't really be achieved, so it is better to partially achieve with a list]

But aside from blind rule following, this proposal will actually make the articles better. There will be clean and concise coverage with actual encyclopedic information. The creature articles look nice, but they read very badly. A merged list will get to what matters - not every single move that Stunky can do, and that some random person wore a mask of Stunky in Episode 5. The evolutionary lines are quite a ridiculous alternative, and I don't want people to waste their time with it.

Well, uh... what do you think? --Teggles 06:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything's fine, but cut out the plot summary. WP:NOT#INFO. I can imagine mentioning "Ash Ketchum has a Donphan", or, at the most, "Wattson has a Manectric" but mentioning which Pokémon is owned by which random trainer in which filler episode?! Please. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not every creature has near-nil plot. If there is a case you described, it's probably best to cut it out. But that's my opinion, there's nothing wrong with mentioning minor plot details, especially if they're the only ones for that creature. --Teggles 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From the infamous Whismur article:
My question: WHO CARES? This isn't iportant to the general public, this isn't important to Pokéfans, it's only important for noobs who want to dump everything they know into the Wiki! If a character isn't important, it's not for us to salvage every bit of info there is about it and present it as important. (On a side note, Whismur has now been redirected ad hoc to Whismur evolutinary line, violating GFDL. Can the Species Task Force get itself out of theory and coordinate the merging, please?) --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My beef with Dex# merging is still the fact that merging by number seems arbitrary. Still, I agree that if there was a better way to merge into a list, I'd go for it.
For now, though, I still think that merging by evo line is our best option. Don't think of it as a fix but rather as a step. Think about it this way: We already have to put up with a lot of friction merging solo articles into evo line articles. It would be just short of impossible to find enough help to merge everything into Dex# lists from solo articles.
By the way, there were two small inaccuracies with your merged page skeleton:

  • Intro
    • A paragraph detailing the Pokémon franchise
    • Assumed meaning of the name, definitely original research
  • Biological characteristics
    • A description of what you see in the image (a bit redundant)
  • In the video games
    • A long summary of attacks and when the creature gets them
    • (sometimes) The first game the creature appeared in
  • In the anime
    • Long summary of the plot related to the creature
Biological characteristics deals with information from various flavor texts, dex entries, and recurring behavior in the anime and manga, not entirely appearance. Actually, I'd say that this is the most important part of the species information; I'm surprised that this was not included in your merge-by-list skeleton. In the video games deals with what distinguishes that monster from others in the games, in addition to miscellaneous characteristics. Other than exclusive and signature moves (Conversion, Sketch, Transform, etc), there really should not be any attack information at all, much less when/where to attain them. You Can't See Me! 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Raven - i don't think that a poorly written summary is grounds for removal. the only notable appearance of Whismur was in #315, so the rest should be cut out. Also, the summary fails to adequately discuss Whismur's role in the whole episode... it did more than stay awake and fall asleep. This means I agree partly, we shouldn't go into detail over every appearance, even if they say who owned it. While Espeon has appeared in at least four episodes only two of them are really of any importance since they dealt with a recurring character - unusual for pokemon - IMHO Espeon is a good example of how we should handle anime sections. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Teggles - your summary is similar to others I've seen: superficial and unfair, but sprinkled with good points.
  • YES - remove the details of the franchise, context is provided in sections.
  • YES - etymology is more often than not complete OR, and while interesting and informative, should really be sourced... I personally wouldn't be above quoting serebii or some other well known fansite and quoting their etymologies as opinions on the subject, but my POV doesn't reflect consensus.
  • NO - (UCSM discussed Bio. Char.) I agree descriptions should be cut out (however that may conflict with WP:ACCESS and people who are using text-only browsers, but we could always change the alt. text for lead images).
  • MAYBE - While video game sections are magnets for gameguide and IINFO, several pokemon are able to retain encyclopedic, verifiable sentences after removing these things. Many members of this project try to regularly remove that junk. I'm hard pressed to find a majority of articles where "A long summary of attacks and when the creature gets them" comprises the entire section (or even most of it) - location guides are actually the more prevalent in my opinion. But you're right in assuming a large number of pokemon (but not all) simply have nothing encyclopedic to say beyond their release and something like, "There's a lot of Rattata."
  • NO - I actually find it humorous that you would refer to most of the anime sections as "long summaries." there's usually so little info that the summaries for NN characters comprise only a paragraph or two. What I will concede is that summaries are often very poorly written and usually don't focus on the specific pokemon's role well, but even the above Whismur example should show you that these aren't something to be called "long."
WAF is assuming a character is only present within that specific medium. To be fair and comprehensive, we must include "short descriptions" of that pokemon in each medium. This simply creates too large of a list to be done easily. And in fact, this is what we're doing. If there only existed a video game, the two-three paragraphs presented in video game sections would be all we needed. I agree there are content issues, but these are not directly tied to organizational issues and can be addressed without reducing each entry to a couple sentences. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for changing my proposed format, that was the point of this discussion. But I disagree when you say it creates too large of a list. It only creates too large of a list if you are describing in full detail. A couple of steps you can take for this: 1. Don't describe biological characteristics in-depth, give a general overview. Three sentences at most - this includes attacks/weaknesses/strengths. 2. If there are multiple anime appearances, only describe ones where the Pokemon is of importance, and create a short summary. Using these techniques, we are given ample room for real-world information. Most of the Pokemon will not extend three paragraphs, and three paragraphs each is not too large - Wikipedia is not paper. I will prove it can be done. --Teggles 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My Proposal

NO - "Real World Info" for every Pokemon would be very hard to find. Most non-game Pokemon merchandise, aside from cards, is made with some "mascot Pokemon" in mind, for example Pikachu, the unevolved starters, or something. Therefore most of the articles wouldn't have any "real world info" since they appear solely in the games.

The "in the anime" information is trivial compared to the game. Also, some Pokemon may have abilities in the anime that they wouldn't have in the game, for example Pikachu being able to beat every single type of Pokemon or Meowth being able to talk. I think the sections should be:

  • Intro
    • A paragraph detailing the Pokémon franchise
    • Any real-world info, if applicable
    • Assumed meaning of the name, not OR because it is pretty obvious what the name means for most if not all Pokemon
  • Appearances
    • In the video games
      • Includes signature Biological Characteristics, any signature moves. NO moveset summaries or lists, in-depth biological analysis, or strategies. Pokemon don't stand up very well to that kind of stuff, and strategies would be UE.
    • In the anime
      • A few sentences about what episode it was in, and what it did. NO battle play-by-play. Could be more if it played a MAJOR role (for example Meowth) or was featured in a movie (for example Mewtwo, Deoxys, Lucario, Lati@s.)

--Zxcvbnm 23:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is no real-world info, there is no way there should be an article. Otherwise the article is a plot summary and violates WP:NOT. But I know there can be, introduction in magazines/release dates count as real-world info. That's not enough for an article, but it creates a very good list. --Teggles 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, "Assumed meaning of the name, not OR because it is pretty obvious what the name means for most if not all Pokemon" is a ridiculous statement. You made it up. I don't care if it's obvious. It's original research all in the same. --Teggles 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact is, there is real-world info for every single one of the Pokemon, but it's very obscure - e.g. strategy guides and cards, maybe some random publications. Plus, the designing of the Pokemon can be packed into one single article, unless you want to go interview Ken Sugimori on what he was thinking when he designed each and every one. So, based on what you're saying, we should have one article for the "famous" ones like Pikachu and group the rest into another article since all the Pokemon articles fail WP:NOT. This wouldn't be advisable. Could we just assume that the articles have real-world info and are not just part of a plot?

--Zxcvbnm 00:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles need real-world info. All that have real-world info can stay, all that don't need to be merged. This isn't Bulbapedia, this is Wikipedia, articles need to be encyclopedia articles - not plot summaries. You say it wouldn't be "advisable", but WikiProject Final Fantasy has done this (no real-world: merged!) and (surprise) we have two featured topics in our portfolio. Not to mention the guidelines say it is advisable. By the way, here's the real-world info on Cherrim I just found:
  • Cherrim was designed by Satoshi Tajiri
  • Conceptual artwork created by Ken Sugimori
  • Cherrim was revealed in the August 2006 issue of CoroCoro magazine[1]
  • Cherrim first appeared in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, published in Japan on September 28, 2006
  • Cherrim's English name was revealed at Toy Fair in February 2007. --Teggles 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then, how would you suggest they would be merged? Every Pokemon was designed by somebody, so elaborate on what deserves to stay or be merged and how they would be organized.--Zxcvbnm 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Check out my example in the next section. --Teggles 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thing. Why would that be a ridiculous statement? Calling something "Jigglypuff" clearly shows the words "jiggly" and "puff." Actually, I'm reconsidering this because they're probably too obvious to even state. The only argument for stating name origins is to show that we know what they mean, and that's redundant.--Zxcvbnm 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are introducing new ideas. Information like that needs sources. The basis of Wikipedia is verifiable information. If you disagree with that, I honestly don't know why you're here (no offense). Saying it "might" mean something is even worse. But in a case like Jigglypuff, it really is redundant. Have you seen Mime Jr.? I got a laugh out of that one. --Teggles 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever, I agree that it's not needed. End of discussion.--Zxcvbnm 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What if the names are blatantly obvious? Chansey, Hypno, Muk, Krabby, Mew, and Koffing/Weezing? Even some of the mixes like Blastoise? I've always liked the Name origin section, and for something that's really common sense like some names are, I don't see the use in getting rid of it. Do you honestly need a source to say that Muk comes from "muck"? Toastypk 06:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Are the readers so dumb they don't realize that without it being shovelled down their throats? Read WP:OR. The reader is to be left free to form their opinions. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well regardless, I only recently learned that Celebi's name comes from the japanese root bi. Up until then, the article had a hefty load of theories, most of which were definite original research, like "CELEstial BEing", "celery", and so on. But after reading that shortened part, it makes more sense than all the others.
...Maybe I'm just not on the same page here. I hate removing things from wikipedia a great deal, and I try to think of comprimises to help that. Toastypk 07:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way - if we let excess stuff pile up on Wikipedia, it will turn from an encyclopedia into a trashcan where people post random information that nobody wants to weed through to get to the important stuff. Even encyclopedias have to have limits to keep them under control.--Zxcvbnm 04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Example

I created an example of how this would look for Cherrim: List of Pokémon (421-440)#Cherrim. It's not fully referenced, but this is only because I did not have time can't be bothered right now. It's not long, it's verifiable, and covers everything needed. If it had coverage in the anime, the last paragraph would be merged with the second paragraph, leaving a third for anime details. --Teggles 00:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting, this would eliminate all individual Pokemon articles in favor of a series of lists. It makes sense and is more easily manageable, likc Creatures in the Metroid Prime series, as well as allowing waggle room for any new additions (God forbid). However, what about some articles that were featured, like Torchic? Would the list then be featured instead? Overall, I like it.--Zxcvbnm 01:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't mean eliminating every article. Torchic could possibly be merged, but as one of the starter Pokemon, it'll probably stay. --Teggles 02:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems strange that the starters would get preferential treatment. I'd prefer a unified solution now that the featured articles have lost their status.--Zxcvbnm 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
We have nil featured articles. Both Torchic and Bulbasaur have been delisted. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As a bystander, another important category of out-of-universe information, and one of the easiest, is critical reception. I'm sure these pokemon have been mentioned in reviews somewhere along the line. That will help to establish the overall notaility of the grouped pokemon articles. IGN is also a good source for stuff like this: [2]. — Deckiller 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Doubt it. We're talking about 493 species here..... Yes, they'll all have been mentioned somewhere or the other, but somewhere reliable? Doubt it. As for Cherrim, is there any reason to mention the attacks? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't need to be for every Pokemon, especially if they are being grouped into lists. However, finding examples of pokemon being cited in critical reviews can help enhance the overall out-of-universe perspective, even if it is scraping from the bottom of the barrel. Reliable reviews are usually websites with editorial staff, magazines, and newsletters. — Deckiller 03:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, attacks lists are probably unnecessary (since there are very few unique moves), unless it's a notable attack (something like "terrorism" or something that caused controversy). But I've been out of the pokemon loop for 5+ years, so I don't know of any extremes. — Deckiller 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I got yelled at by PokeZap for omitting attacks in the previous merge, so I've left them in this time. --Teggles 03:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No attacks need to be included unless they're unique to that Pokemon (such as "Sacred Fire" for Ho-Oh or "Aeroblast" for Lugia). In that case, you could mention how it learns that move. ("Ho-Oh's signature move is Sacred Fire, a powerful blast of flame") or something like that. I doubt any attack would be controversial, so they don't need to be otherwise mentioned.--Zxcvbnm 05:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I sort of agree, but we're not likely to reach unanimous agreement with that. For creatures with little information, I don't think it's a problem to mention their attacks. --Teggles 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is no useful information about a Pokémon, it doesn't mean we add any and every bit of cruft we can find into its article. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one has any problems with it, I will be redirecting Shellos and Cherrim to List of Pokémon (421-440) --Teggles 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started to merge the articles from that list into the list itself. I've noticed that all the articles have nothing extra that the list doesn't have, aside from a few height measurements and a crufty battle recap or two. They all have the same intro as well, which is a bit repetitive. I suggest that instead of all the merged evolution articles, we make lists instead, which have a much larger possibility of becoming Featured Lists as well as remove all the pain of trying to update the over 400 individual articles, which have been mocked for their sheer number.--Zxcvbnm 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I originally created the whole list and merged all of the articles. Unfortunately, ZapperNapper reverted the merges because there was no discussion of it. --Teggles 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, now this issue has been decided. I don't want this to become an edit war, so make sure that he doesn't revert the articles back without reading this. He should know that the 400+ individual articles are cruft at the highest sense of the word.--Zxcvbnm 00:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this fine for an initial merge (just scraping whatever is possibly useful off of the article)? You are going with the list format over the combined articles at this point, right? I don't want to get started on this just to be reverted. TTN 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

check the new article

I just made a new article ([3]) and I need someone to check/fix it. Can anyone help? -Fear teh Happy! 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are numerous misspellings (it's "Johto", not "Jhoto"), some apparent original research, a lack of references, no wikilinks, and you labelled Golduck as being a Bug/Grass Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my first article and the reason why Golduck is a bug/type was because I made Paras first and I copied that and I guess I forgot to change it. -Fear teh Happy! 21:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright fixed all the Johto typos changed Golduck to a water type and now I just got to figure out how to link things to the referance section and I will probably be done (I have the references I just don't know how to link them). -Fear teh Happy! 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Use ref tags. [ref] and [/ref] Actually, check articles that HAVE references (for example, Halo: Combat Evolved for examples.--Zxcvbnm 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon families

A helpful but bumbling newcomer created this. I think we'll all agree that "Pokémon evolutionary lines" would be a better title, but it seems to make no sense to move (if that's possible) it when all the articles it includes are gonna be deleted as cruft per our recent discussion. Thoughts? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, put it on CFD. We don't need type or evolutionary categories anymore seeing as the Pokemon articles are being merged in a list format. You ought to get rid of all the "evolutionary line" articles as well, (preferably in one mass deletion) and redirect the Pokemon names individually to their listing.--Zxcvbnm 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but lets get PokeZap (who is the main proponent of the evo-line mergers) see this first, or we'll end up carrying family feuds into the deletion discussions. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't go crazy just yet. Not everyone has agreed to the merging. --Teggles 04:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Plus I disagree with the name "Weather Pokemon" for Groudon, rayquaza, and kygore. Obviously there would be the Legendary Birds, and the Regis, but still, what would be the GSC pokemon? I hear them refered to as the legendary dogs, beasts, cats, etc. Obviously this will be really subjective. Toastypk 06:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The games call GrouKyoZa "Super-Ancient Pokémon". ZapMolCuno are called the "Mirages". Lugia and Ho-Oh are, I think, called the Guardians. Everything else is fan speulation which needs to be removed pronto. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember the games calling them anything except their individual species ("Continent Pokemon", etc.) but there is still the same amount of info on the legendaries that there is on the regular ones. And if PokeZap disagrees with the merge, he should post here, but I don't see any reason to keep trying to maintain 500 individual Pokemon pages, while there is only one person who disagrees on grounds that random, useless info should be used to fatten up the articles *Shudder*--Zxcvbnm 14:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? I'd like to add to it, that while I think there's plenty of Pokemon lines with nothing to make them worth keeping out of a list, some would do better with both. The Kanto starters would make the first list huge, if not separated out. Skitty, not so much. Spriteless 15:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion's up north under "Example". --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
See, there's the problem - even former Featured Articles like Charizard were removed from FA because they were full of unencyclopedic content. Some of the more prominent Pokemon articles are huge, but I'm sure that content can be trimmed. If not, you could keep a few and merge the rest, but the anime play-by-plays and strategy tips (see Charizard, which mentions "Bellyzard," a defunct strategy, for an example), have got to go.

And does this mean I (or someone else) can start merging any minor Pokemon articles (aside from stuff like Pikachu, which will be dealt with later or have their own main article)?--Zxcvbnm 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a Species Task Force for that, but t only has one member, so I suppose we can forget about that. As of now, I think it's best to completely focus on getting Teggle's prototype up to scratch, then using it as a guideline to merge the rest. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well people can still join the Task Force. FunPika 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
A better idea would be to close down the species Task Force (since it's going to be defunct anyway) and just help with the merge. Maybe the main page needs to be revamped as well, and the members have to be re-confirmed. Someone has to message everyone and tell them to re-sign.--Zxcvbnm 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second... I haven't been too active for a while, so sorry if I'm rising the dead with this question, but... Where was it agreed upon to merge into list format? The discussion under "Example," it only seems to confirm that individual articles are bad. Not that I'm against list merging; I'm just for evo-line merging more.
Whatever the case, I'm still trying to think up something that works as efficiently as the list without being so arbitrary as dividing the list by number. Hrm... You Can't See Me! 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Next merging should be Magikarp and Gyarados

I have no idea what's going on, on the Gyarados article, but on Magikarp vandals keep on going there because since it's so weak, or coming with some nonsense it isn't. I know page protection should take care of it, but that won't last forever. So I think someone should merge Magikarp and Gyarados next time. I would, except that the merging sections on pokémon articles seems extremely complicated to me. I really am confused on how to make a merged pokémon article. Any thoughts?

Ok, now for something off topic, but it needs to be said: I haven't been active for over a week because this is the last revision that was visible on my watchlist, probably because when I removed old for deletion pages I accidentally removed this project from the watchlist as well, it sucks doesn't it? This is NOT the first time that happened to me, before accidentally removing the project, I removed the noticeboard from my watch. TheBlazikenMaster 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first the list article has to be made. After that, merging is as easy as taking the pertinent information about a Pokemon (the intro, a few physical characteristics, one or two sentences about anime) and placing it into the Pokemon's section, then redirecting the article to the list @ #Magikarp.--Zxcvbnm 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone vandalized my talk page after I redirected Magikarp. Their IP address was 70.255.144.71 and they're from Kansas City.--Zxcvbnm 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Besides the point that the new list article is not ready to be redirected to yet, the vandalism is possibly and probably unrelated. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Why delete the redirect? It's not like the rest of the article will affect the content of the Magikarp section. Doing that would just make it harder to organize articles once they're merged.--Zxcvbnm 04:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

About notability criteria

Hi, I just want to know how did you reached to establish that ALL Pokemon's should have its own article on wikipedia. --Andersmusician VOTE 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Look up above. Most will probably be merged fairly soon. TTN 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Besides, I think it was the case that Pokémon had their own articles before this WikiProject was established, and it wasn't necessarily the people here who started those articles. There now currently seems to be what is at least some weak consensus in discussions within this project that each Pokémon is indeed not notable enough to have its own article, and that the reliable sources for what I bet is perhaps 98% of Pokémon are minimal, if any at all. A series of merges is currently in progress. These merges are designed to follow Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and the only reason that the Pokémon aren't all in one page is because that page would be much too large. Additionally, now that you've brought this up, I should call to the Project's attention that the Pokémon test essay should probably be rewritten to reflect recent changes. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you for keeping this up for me --Andersmusician VOTE 03:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally think all Pokemon are notable. If you were to have an article on Meowth, which is a very popular Pokemon, mostly due to his constant appearance on the show, then certainly his evolution Persian should be there too, since he evolves into it. Who is to say one is more deserving than the other just because it's more well known and has more screentime?
It's the same kind of thing with Lucario. He is a favorite on multiplayer battles, and has his own movie, but without having an article for his base form Riolu, it seems incomplete.
And even Pokemon that one would think wouldn't be notable could at any time suddenly be notable. Not many people think of the middle evolutions like Ivysaur or Croconaw. The more popular Pokemon are the first or last evos, like Bulbasaur/Venusaur and Totodile/Feraligatr. But Ash used Bayleef, a middle evo, for a considerable amount of time, and became one of his most used Pokemon. Does this make Bayleef instantly more notable? And what of Quilava and Croconaw, the middle-evos that go with Bayleef? Are they not as deserving as Bayleef until people think of them more?
Judging notabilty on each specific Pokemon is extremely iffy; and that's why I really think all Pokemon are pretty much notable, even if they're something like Stunky or Whismur. They should all deserve their own page, even if it is to be kept to a stub if nothing can be said about them without violating "cruft" rules and original research rules. Because when it comes down to it, they're all pieces to the same set and shouldnt be judged individually. Toastypk 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability is significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. WP:N. Any creature that is not covered in reliable secondary sources is to be merged, that was the idea behind it - not importance or popularity. Article existence is not based on importance or popularity. This means, basically, every article except Pikachu will eventually be merged (maybe), so your concerns are unwarranted. Your quote "they're all pieces to the same set" is a good one, and it's why they're being merged together to complete the puzzle. --Teggles 05:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability still isn't an actual official policy, and it's a concept that I personally think hurts Wikipedia in the long run. And even still, who is to say that Pikachu stays but everyone else doesn't? Who eventually gets to be the judge who gets their own article? Meowth is notable, Pikachu is notable, maybe about a good 10% of Pokemon are notable by that definition. And in regards to the importance/popularity thing, what else determines notability? Something that's "notable" by the definition would have to be either well known (popular) or important, and if there is a third thing, I haven't heard of it.
Regardless, one's opinion of a notable Pokemon is going to be different from someone else's, that's why I think this whole thing is just iffy iffy. Toastypk 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Actual policy or not, it's the only thing that prevents Wikipedia from being overrun by crufty articles like Some Random Guy. As for the popularity vs notability thing, popular stuff isn't always notable... Breloom is a pretty OU Poké, but I doubt you'll call it notable. And notability, not importance, counts. So even if Meowth gets an article, Persian wont. As for individual perceptions, that is exactly why inclusion guidelines in Wikipedia don't centre around who gives a damn for what. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur. You can't just say "all Pokemon are equal" when they clearly aren't in terms of notability. Not everyone plays Pokemon video games, and not everyone is as familiar with, say, Ninjask, as they are with Pikachu.--Zxcvbnm 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's true, I only know pokemons until the season were Brook reappeared.--Andersmusician VOTE 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Legendaries

I personally believe that each legendary Pokemon (or trio of legendaries, as in the Mirages, the Dogs, the Regis, and the Enlightened) should get their own article seperate from the "List of Pokemon", because I think that the legendary Pokemon are (with the exception of Pikachu) the most covered and most widely known Pokemon in existence. Of course, you don't have to listen to me...I'm just posting my belief here.Leprechaun Gamer 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about legends here, so no need to put an exception of something that isn't legend. Well, I agree, with exception of Zapdos, Articuno, Moltres, Entei, Suicune, Raikou, Registeel, Regice and Regirock, they should be merged into three articles. Especially Entei, Suicune and Raikou, as they all have similar locations in the games. And especially the Regis since they had the same movie appearance. Well, we aren't gonna merge them into lists, we are gonna merge them by evolution, or if the pokémon doesn't have any evolution, we put them together if they have a lot in common. Last time I remember Pidgeot was on the list, but got linked from it into the right article, so I see no problem with adding Rayquaza or Mewtwo into a list, since they can be linked to their independent articles. TheBlazikenMaster 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that some legends still don't have much information surrounding them, and their articles will probably turn into a summary of their respective movies anyway. Might as well merge them and put the extra information into the movie page instead. Plus, "most widely known Pokemon in existence" might apply to Mewtwo, but not to other lesser known legendaries such as Regice, Giratina, Kyogre, etc. It depends what you classify as known.--Zxcvbnm 04:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When was it decided to merge the articles by list instead of evolutionary line?

I can't seem to find that agreement here. Pidgey evolutionary line hasn't been merged to the list , neither has Lunatone and Solrock. TTN said that it's been agreed that the pokémon are going to be merged by list, instead of articles of evolutionary line, or big simulations. Can someone direct me to that discussion? TheBlazikenMaster 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing it towards the bottom of New discussion for merging. Not everyone may fully agree on it, but it is much better than sitting around doing nothing. TTN 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the surge came mostly from the Stunky AFD, along with the realization that whether we do Teggles' plan (which was once my own) to make it as a series of lists or PokeZap's plan of evo-line articles with series of lists to back them up would cause the development of the list series of pages anyway, since the series is conceptually used in both plans. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But I think we agree that the evo-line pages would be as bad as the individuals. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Keeping the evo-line pages would make the articles even more cluttered, since they're still not sorted by name or number.--Zxcvbnm 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So, which ones are being kept? Pikachu seems to be the only definite keep, and ones like Mewtwo, Jigglypuff, and some others can go either way (It'll probably decided after a good look for real world info.). TTN 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mewtwo has had 2? 3? movies based on it, so it's a probable keep. Jigglypuff was a minor anime character, so I don't think so. We should probably lean towards merging for most of them, just to instill balance.

--Zxcvbnm 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't just have some pokémon in list completely off topic to others, and other in evolutionary articles, that makes confusion. We should decide whether we want list or evolutionary lines, we can't have either, we have to have both, or neither, otherwise confusion will come. In fact it's starting to confuse me, since I couldn't keep up to date with this project as I accidentally deleted it from my watchlist, I've feeling I'm too late to have my point of view about the listing. TheBlazikenMaster 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We've already decided that a list would be better than evolutionary line articles. Why don't you help merge the evolutionary lines so we can mass-delete their respective articles?--Zxcvbnm 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Weird, I was just going to suggest this idea myself when I come onto Wikipedia and find that is all happening. It's a good idea in my opinion as there are too many very short articles on Pokemon otherwise. Keep up the good work. - .:Alex:. 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Only Merging Pokemon When Whole Page of 20 is Complete!

Although I don't agree with the process that people are merging the articles, I will accept that it probably needs to be done this way. One thing that is bothering me but is that people are redirecting Pokemon to incomplete pages, or even completely blank sections for certain pokemon. Please at least ensure the page is completed before doing these redirects. 61.88.131.144 05:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New comments to the bottom! Anyways, people, this is a matter of consideration, we're having too many mergist Nazis around. While it has been decided to merge them all into lists, it is dumb to redirect when the list isn't complete!! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In which cases has this happened? --Teggles 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It happened with Magikarp. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just keep reverting on sight. And of course, don't do it yourself. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem with merging Pokemon articles to incomplete pages? The section on that specific Pokemon is there; if they want to see another, they can go to the unmerged page temporarily. It's much faster than having to merge everything when you're finished. Anyway, you should probably keep the pages up till the section is done from now on, but please don't unmerge any more pages.--Zxcvbnm 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it looks stupid when it's incomplete. Merging's to be done only when the thing's complete. And it takes barely five minutes to redirect twenty pages. Don't jump the gun now that the decision's been made, take everything calmly. It'll probably be another three months at the least before all the articles are merged, and that's perfectly OK, as Wikipedia isn't working towards a deadline. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We ought to try and finish merging one page before starting another. I've noticed that there have been anons (probably kids) trying to add things to the blank sections where it isn't needed. Finishing one page quickly would prevent any confusion.--Zxcvbnm 02:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but linking to the page before it's finished just prompts anons to add more stuff. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete lists

Just in case anybody is feeling like it, List of Pokémon (481-493), List of Pokémon (141-160), and List of Pokémon (181-200) are merged, and ready to be cleaned and all of that stuff. TTN 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who Moved Magikarp?

Magikarp seems to have been moved to a subsection of the Wikipedia:Wikipedians page. I noticed this just now with a big picture of Wikipe-tan looking me in the face. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. TTN 19:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The tabs up top lead to Wikipedia:Wikipedians for me Scratch that, maybe I need to check my link on my watchlist. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT) Nope, not my watchlist. What the deuce happened five minutes ago? According to the page's history, it's a glitch. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

AND WHY SHOULD WE MOVE MEW?

Event Pokes were planned to get their own articles, right? Vikrant Phadkay 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we decided that. What's next!? Pikachu getting redirected!? FunPika 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We probably did not. The D/P event Pokes have been redirected. FunPika 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is based upon the possibility of real world info and sources. Only Pikachu and possibly a few others like Mewtwo have that possibility. Being legendary doesn't mean that it is possible (though it does help). TTN 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What about Deoxys? This Pokemon seems hard to adequately cover in a small section because of its four separate forms and movie role, unlike Stunky. Deoxys may have possible real-world info in its usage by NASA some years back, so maybe that should keep its page. The main reason the D/P event pokes were redirected is because at the moment there's much less to write about them than Mew and Celebi, but maybe there'll be some real-world stuff happening with the D/P eent pokes in the future. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
We can keep it around as a decent possibility, but like with Mewtwo, we shouldn't completely rule out merging. That probably won't be decided until a while after the merging is done, so there is a while to work on them. TTN 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. And a lot of fans would likely consider Mew more world-known than Deoxys, so... Best not to turn it into a redirect anywhere until much later, after the list pages are made, which is when we decide whether or not. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
They should actually assert something or have a decent backing for information to still keep the article. Mewtwo has an actual role in the the games, the movies, whatever things expand upon his creation, and all that stuff. That leaves a reasonable possibility for sources. Deoxys has the NASA thing that you mentioned, so it may be worth leaving. All Mew has are the giveaways, which may be better placed in another article and linked to anyways due to multiple ones sharing the same characteristic. TTN 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to really fight over this or anything. I just don't want people claiming that the rest should stay because Mew has stayed and other junk like that. It just seems best to say "(Possibility of) Sources or no article." TTN 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirecting Mew is sort of like the astronomical union making Pluto a dwarf planet. Sure, it was in a movie and is sort of famous for Red and Blue, but it doesn't have much background information and would only fill up the article with a summary of the "find Mew" cheat or the movie appearance. On the other hand, Mewtwo has a huge backstory with Team Rocket and whatnot.--Zxcvbnm 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If the creature can maintain real-world information other than revelation/release dates and mass-species merchandise, then it should have an article. Things like merchandise specifically designed for the creature... development of the creature... use in promotions by other companies... seriously people, if this stuff doesn't exist, there's no way the creature should have an article. Otherwise the article will never deservedly reach Featured Article status, it'll simply be a giant plot summary. --Teggles 23:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ummm... consensus???

(summary below) okie... so i get this nice little message on my talk page:

Deleting the evolutionary line articles
In order to list-ify the Pokemon articles, we are going to have to delete all the "evolutionary line" articles and redirect the Pokemon names to the lists instead. It'll provide an easier and less confusing way to organize the Pokemon, as well as avoiding any anime summaries/fan speculation, etc. If you have some good reason to oppose this, feel free to try and convince everyone.--Zxcvbnm 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So I come here trying to figute out what happened to the previous arrangment. Basically it looks like a debate between Teggles and Zxcvbnm not over whether we should listify everything, but just that we will (and TTN adding in), with Toastypk voicing some opposition to the etymology part and Raven interjecting responses to errors (but he seems to be in agreement with lists). A comment like "feel free to try and convince everyone" seems a little incindiery and a misstatement of what's going on. (i assume) BlazikenMaster, Toastypk, UCSM, Funpika, and myself don't agree with blanket listifying and I'm sure there are others (who like myself may have been preoccupied in meatspace over the past four days) who have valid objections based on the goal of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia. The discussions at #Example and #My proposal are hardly what I would call a consensus and if anyone here hasn't read about it recently, click the link and do so. Consensus is how things are done at wikipedia. The evo-line merger was the result of months of discussion, and to go against that with a few days of "these articles are crap so let's listify them all!!!" followed by massive non-consensual actions is a horrible precedent. Not a single argument has targeted merged articles following the guidelines outlined at WP:POKE/Layout (Abra evolutionary line - sort of, and Eevee evolutionary line). So i ask, what is wrong with those. As for the DP lists... even though i chastised Teggles for operating against consensus the first time, these merges are much more appropriate even if Zxcvbnm is basically guilty of the same crime (merging them the same day Teggles brought up the merge for discussion) - we operate by consensus when something could be controversial. I admit there's really not that much info for many of them, so (for now) lists are probably appropriate. However, pokemon like Eevee or Feebas have more than a couple paragraphs worth of info. And again - where is the TCG? merchandise? manga? and List of Pokémon (141-160) is horribly sourced, with "must merge them ALL" taking precedent over "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" claims are made in almost every section with no reference to specific anime episodes, or game data (pokedex) (Dragonite is especially OR-riddled).

Summary (b/c i know I'm long winded and people don't want to read all that):

  • The discussions above covering the span of only a few days do not constitute an overriding consensus of the lengthy dicussions resulting in WP:POKE/Layout b/c there is obvious opposition and issues need to be addressed.
  • Rather than targeting the articles (which everyone agrees are mostly bad) we need to focus on why evo-line articles are no better, if we need to reach a new consesnus, so be it.
  • IMHO, the DP pokemon are prolly better of in a list anyways (no TCG, manga, little anime)
  • While some improved merges have taken place, others are still rife with OR, not really fixing the fundamental problems.

My next book will be entitled.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Consensus can change pretty easily, and it seems that most people here have gone over to the list side, though they may not like it. The evolutionary line articles are useless because they don't come close to solving anything. The lists themselves don't automatically solve anything, but combining the useless articles into 25 rather than leaving a few hundred allows the problems to be dealt with easier.
The only useful information to keep includes the main descriptions, and any real specific video game or anime information. None of the generic crap can be allowed for the games, and the anime information needs to be either a movie role or about a main character's Pokemon (single appearances are useless). The manga and the TCG can be written off as nothing (the manga really isn't that notable, and the TCG sections have always just been useless, generic fluff). That way, the list are better suited to this task.
Regarding List of Pokémon (141-160), that is just an initial merger to get the important information from the articles. No real quality control can go into it. It is just so they can be improved in the future. TTN 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


First of all, nobody is guilty of a "crime." It doesn't matter if there's a consensus between everyone on this page and some AFK users who might oppose this, for the reason that it's against Wikipedia policy to actually keep these individual articles. It's not like we're doing this for fun, there is a concern that the individual articles can get too filled with garbage to easily deal with or revert. Plus, as TTN said, the evo. line articles are useless for our purposes and just increase the clutter. By the way, the evolutionary line idea is inherently flawed by the fact that
1) It's original research to assume that, for example, Abra+Kadabra+Alakazam is called the "Abra evolutionary line." Why not the "Alakazam evolutionary line?"
2) Some Pokemon don't have evolutions, so it'll basically be a distorted mess of lists and articles.
Regarding your "humble opinion" that the D/P articles and only those should be made into a list, you aren't taking into account future information regarding them.
Finally, if there isn't real-world info, each article would be a plot summary. Which they are.--Zxcvbnm 23:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I was surprised the articles were re-merged so quickly. I wanted to develop a consensus between everyone, and to argue the merits of merged articles (just so we're clear, I think it's agreed that there shouldn't be many individual articles). I even tried to compromise. I added in the heights and weights, but it was removed because it's "not needed", which is a bullshit reason, to be frank. For about 4 creatures, I tried to incorporate all information from the articles. This wasn't too difficult because the articles are smaller than they appear. But that apparently isn't enough, we need to have etymology (original research) and appearance descriptions (redundant, possibly original research). It's impossible to satisfy both crowds; on one side there are people who think a shitton of plot summary warrants a full article, and on the other side there are people who think the merged articles should have nearly all information removed. This is why there needed to be a longer consensus.
Now, as for the reasoning... the evolutionary lines don't solve anything. You're simply combining three bad articles into one. The lists, however, allow for non-bloated coverage of what matters, and real-world information is more dominant. Cherrim - List of Pokémon (421-440)#Cherrim - is a good example of what they should look like. By the way, trading card information is omitted because it's a bit redundant. There are many Pokemon in one set, and it's more realistic just to list the Pokemon on the set's page. Complaining about manga coverage is unfair, the articles and evolutionary lines don't have it either. --Teggles 01:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I think about it, basically any "biological description" is not needed unless it's something that's not readily apparent from the picture (for example, that Cherrim blooms or Dusknoir's chest opens). Otherwise, the summary should basically just say what they are, some sort of defining characteristic, a sentence with any notable anime appearances, and something else if they're special in the video game. As for the manga, it's safe to say that will not be missed, as hardly anyone reads it and it can't be considered canon.--Zxcvbnm 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Teggles - thank you for your attempts at garnering consensus and trying for discussion. To answer you briefly:

  • I wasn't really referring to manga coverage for Cherrim and other DP pokemon, but to the pokemon in general, whatever articles happen to have it.
  • Yes Cherrim is a good example of merged info, the problem is that other ones like Dragonite are very very bad. The main difference between these two articles is that one had a lot more info to be merged.
  • To argue that my merger proposal is worse b/c I'm "simply combining three bad articles into one" makes no sense when the current list merges going on are also just as bad as the articles.
    • (extra stuff)If you've read through the past discussions (which I hope by now you've had time to do) you can see that the idea to merge was not just to dump the old garbage into a new spot, but to seriously trim the articles down to WAF, TRIVIA, and NOT standards. Unfortunately this didn't happen for a lot of the newly created articles because the people creating them were more concerned with "hurry up and merge" than wanting to take the time to do it right. This is the same problem happening with the lists, "We'll merge/cut now... make it right later."
  • Etymology is something a lot of people like. I see both sides of the coin, while I'm intrigued by the revelation that Umbreon prolly comes from the root of umbre there isn't any RS saying it is fact.
    • (extra) A compromise I always liked was stating etymologies as opinions of specific quoted sites. This is like quoting an expert in the field, even if his opinion is controversial, it still exisits and has been recorded somewhere. (but that's a different discussion)
  • Descriptions can be moved into alt text for the main images for accessibility reasons, see this for instruction (I'm sure i mentioned this option before).

Zxcvbnm - Ok...

  • Each article is merely a plot summary huh? (Eevee seems to have some other stuff...) It's more accurate to state that "Most articles are made up primarily of plot summary." Each article has (or should have) release info and all RBYGSCRSE pokemon have been made into some sort of real-world physical object at some point.
  • 1 Read WP:POKE/Layout, it explains why an article is titled the way it is. The reasoning is non-arbitrary and follows guidlines at WP:NAME.
  • 2 Again, read WP:POKE/Layout the fact that some pokemon do not evolove has not been lost on the proposed guideline. Section redirects solve issues nicely. I'll address the other issues in my repsonse to TTN.

TTN - sorry to leave you last, but i like to go backwards, it makes for easier reading.

  • To complain about articles violating policy and then saying, "No real quality control can go into [the list merging]" is ludicrous. you're still maintaing a substandard encyclopedia, your merges offer no improvement.
  • Remember, WP:N is about article topics, not content. The notability of the manga has nothing to do with whether or not we discuss it, it's relevance to the subject is the determining factor.
  • The TCG info is real-world data. How that data is best reperesented has not yet been decided. Perhaps directory-like lists aren't the best way to go, maybe something like this is more appropriate as part of a larger paragraph.
  • I'm guessing you skimmed the summary, b/c I did take into account that there would eventually be more info on DP pokes when talking about having them merged into a list. in my lengthier post i said "for now." However, even though these mergers work, most of the other ones simply don't. why not show me that you can make a well-written comprehensive article out of something like List of Pokémon (141-160). When you do, it'll be either too long or be missing too much info. Right now when i go to Snorlax it doesn't even mention it evolves from Munchlax, a pokemon not introduced until four generations later. and an improved section like [this] doesn't seem to be violating any policies. The evo-line articles CAN improve the situation. read up on the subject first... maybe some of you could have made comments at WP:POKE/Layout first (the centralized discussion... supposedly). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I really can not be bothered offering a word-by-word rebuttal, I'll sum my viewpoint: the individual articles and evo-line articles do not have enough real-world information. None of them. "Biological characteristics", "In the video games", "In the anime" and "In the manga" are all plot summary. The only real-world information is trading card games and merchandise, all of which are offered in a "mass-species" way. There are a very few with merchandise in a non-"mass-species" way, and an example of this is Eevee, but it only has two sentences of it! This is simply not enough for an individual, and combining three cases of that still is not enough. This is why lists are used. To state that the list would become too long is rubbish, that's only correct if you give overly large coverage to plot. The articles can also be as long as we like. --Teggles 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, trading card information for each creature does not need to be mentioned. Just create a list page for the Trading Card Game. Otherwise you're "page-filling", something your "good" Pokemon articles suffer from. --Teggles 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The merging opens the door for the articles to be improved. Did you even look at the state of the one that you complemented before it was improved? That is the point of this: get the information there, and then clean it and source it. I'm more focused on getting them merged right now, so I'm working on that.
Comprehensive doesn't mean filling the lists up with fluff. They can easily handle the real information. That includes the general description and major roles in the video games (basically just the legendaries and some of the special ones), anime (important to the plot of the series, not one episode), and manga (really, really major plot things for that one). That means a central role, not just a "Hey, look at me!" role. 65.175.173.48 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, that's me. I hate that stupid cache glitch. TTN 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly support the lists concept, partly because this was the original merge concept I proposed many months ago (and AMIB supported it too, before his untimely absence from Wikipedia). I'm currently working on 261-280 as my contribution to this effort. It seems the one thing that remains controversial about the lists concept is whether to redirect the original articles involved to the sections in the lists while the lists are being made; I don't think we should do too much of that until later. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all well and good, but what should be done about the hotbed article Mudkip? As it sits, there's a dispute there over a meme, and it's semi-protected. Its talk page has also had to be semi'd. -Jeske (v^_^v)

On a side note, rather than deleting evo-line articles in one huge, messy AFD, wouldn't it be much simpler and cleaner to redirect them into List of Pokemon? That way, info from evo-line pages that had been lost in transition into list articles can still be salvaged. You Can't See Me! 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
But why redirect them if nobody's going to go to them in the first place? Without a link, I don't think people would actually type in "Abra evolutionary line."
To Zapper, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEEASE stop trying to get your way. The evolutionary line articles make a bad problem into a slightly less bad problem, with the same amount of cruft as the individual articles. The argument
"Listing is bad because people are merging stuff quickly without fixing it"
does not make sense, since it's not very hard to clean up the lists once we're done merging.
Also, the argument
"Not all Pokemon are only plot summary, so let's de-list them all"
Does not make sense either, since there's only a few with enough real-world information to actually merit its own article.--Zxcvbnm 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WAIT! HOLD UP! The rebuttals and treatises are getting confusing. Zapper, can you just list what you think should be included in evo-line articles so the listists can respond? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

sure... i've given the example several times, Eevee evolutionary line. The only remaining issues would be etymology sections which prolly should go, deciding how to handle quotes from the pokedex (either as in my example, or citations), deciding how to handle TCG info, and prolly more trimming of Umbreon through Glaceon. But all in all, it doesn't delve irrelevantly into plot summaries of the anime, and gives non-crufty, verifiable info.
I'm not "trying to get [my] way." I'm only trying to make sure people are given the time to voice their opinions. Two people came on going WTF? and they were merely directed to a discussion that wasn't arguing the validity of a list-only merge, just the logistics of it, with a note that, "It's been decided." There was less than a week of discussion. A single article's AFD gets more time than that. And my argument is not to de-list. It's a compromise of lists coupled with more in-depth articles. It is also obvious from many arguments made here that some people seem to be a little ignorant of the amount of merchandise created (try looking at Ebay's pokemon category listings, here's a specific (not "mass-species") toy - Pachirisu plush and go look at pokemoncenter.com for LOTS of unique items. how about second-party merch? Burger King only released certain pokemon). Again, not saying they should all have their own article, ur right most don't have enough real-world info to fill up their own. So we merge them along sensible, non-arbitary lines. And complaining about the idea that people wouldn't be typing in Abra evolutionary line is silly compared to the other option of having people type in List of Pokémon (61-80). Non-merch info could also include airdates for the "key episodes" of recurring pokemon, besides release dates for their introductory games and publishing dates for the manga-notable species. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But then, won't the articles simply become a list of merchandise? That's just as much cruft as the rest, unless it's notable. As for Eevee evolutionary line:
  • No episode summaries, but still contains a list of appearance in every trivial episode. That's ignoring the spirit of the mergist's argument for the letter... What should be included is NOTABLE mentions. For instance, Donphan's section can say that Ash has one, and, briefly, cover its history. Jigglypuff's can include the Jigglypuff that kept tailing Ash and Co, and trace its history. Eevee's should not include when it first appeared, even though the episodes's very important from an Eeveeish perspective.
  • Video game info. Stat coverages. Gameguide. The only thing to know is that all the Eeveelutions evolve from Eevee, not the specific methods of evolution.
  • Biological characteritics seems OK, just cut the word "Biology"!
  • As for the TCG info, ditto the anime. Charizard's info should include that it was one of the most sought-after cards at a time. Weavile's should include that it's a banned card. Eevee's should not include that it was first released in foo expansion set.
  • And, of course, the contentious name origins are still open to debate.
Remember, the guideline is notability and importance. The entries mention it only if it's important, and it gets an article only if it's notable. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PrincessKirlia

PrincessKirlia is saying that articles recently delisted from GA-status (such as Mudkip and Bulbasaur) instead passed (Examples: [4], [5]). I have warned her, but could someone see if she has done the same to any other articles? -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting 20 pokemon perpage is STUPID

I'm ok with pokemon and their evolved forms having one article, but putting 20 different pokemon on one page is stupid. All 20 pokemon on the page lose their pages, and lots of IMPORTANT information is being lost.--Ridley76 19:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it stupid, and what important information has been lost? --Teggles 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That info belongs on a fansite, not in an encyclopedia.--Zxcvbnm 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that important information is being lost. Try looking at the value the information might provide to someone researching children's toys (this is not an insignificant chunk of the market, either!) or to a father of a child who plays with such toys. Try to refrain from looking at the information from the standpoint of a materials scientist or life scientist, or the standpoint of an old-world librarian who need no nothing other than the index number. The money that has changed hands as a result of Pokemon is a sum comparable with the wealth of the richest human beings on this planet, it is not acceptable to attempt to save at most a whopping 30 megs (less than ONE CENT WORTH of a modern 400GB hard disk at US$100) or so of hard disk space by erasing hundreds of articles on the phenomenon. Thats right folks, the Pokemon franchise has passed enough money thru its coffers that it could afford the disk space for an individualized and totally uncompressed copy of every Pokemon article on the site for each and every human being on the planet, and then some. So yeah, deleting these articles IS extremely stupid. Zaphraud 05:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Bulbapedia? Fan stuff, amazingly, goes there. -WarthogDemon 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone who's serious enough to perform research should be serious enough to use better sources. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon video game glitches

Is this article necessary? Besides MissingNo. and the D/P one, none of these really seem verifiable with real sources (none of the fan sites that are used count). And after that, the two verifiable ones still have a lot of OR in them. This should probably be cut down and merged somewhere. TTN 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say AfD the page and merge the well-known stuff into the respective articles. -Jeske (v^_^v) 00:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh god, now this article? Is there anything nobody will leave not AFD'd?
The berry glitch and glitch city and missingno are all verifiable, they're in the games. In fact, long ago I posted a website talking about Glitch City.Toastypk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The big guys are Missingno., RSE berries and Japanese DP...the rest are pretty meh. I don't see the problem with deleting that page and just merging those glitches into their game articles.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Listed it for deletion.--Zxcvbnm 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The only glitches covered on that page are the ones I'd consider big ones. The cloning glitch should be more general but if you compare to the glitches Bulbapedia has articles on[6], this is the big stuff. --Sonic Mew 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a good part of my time here reverting crap like the "tweaking glitch" from D/P and GSC cloning, so I won't be sad if the page goes. I'm sure there are enough others watching diligently on the other pages to revert this stuff on sight on the game articles, which will happen if the glitches page is deleted. hbdragon88 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User:PrincessKirlia (Again)

Could someone from here keep an eye on Pokémon evolution? PrincessKirlia is adding lists of Pokémon that don't evolve, and both of us are about to exceed 3RR. -Jeske (v^_^v) 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it for a bit. I'm hounding my watchlist at the moment for this, so it's not out of the way.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Geez! Mind if I helped out there? -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
..yeah let's trade. ;D:—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't soeone just report her to WP:ANI? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

what 's with the merging?

why? and why are the first gen pokemon that only ones with article, what the hell is going on here?--DSDark 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the above discussions, you'll see that they're being merged because they don't have enough real world information to stand on their own. All of the articles besides a few notable ones will be merged eventually. TTN 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consolidated navbar

This is my attempt to merge all the existing PokéNavbars, and then some. Thoughts?? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

HELLO, ANYONE HOME? There're merges besides the megamergers up for discussion, gang! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to work out. It can probably be condensed here and there, but otherwise it seems fine. TTN 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Condensed as in? Tips, dude, I want this ready before copying it into {{Pokémon}}. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Individual game mechanics

Why do these exist? I can imagine PokéDex might have some real-world context, having been featured as a Hasbro product, but Pokémon game features looks like it should be redirected to Pokémon game mechanics, and the rest look like pointless gamecruft that should be sections of Pokémon game mechanics. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, enough with the cruft talk! Every time I hear that word, I get a little more peeved. I hate when people categorize things as cruft so very much. Everything in those articles, at best, can be merged into the game mechanics/features articles, like the Shiny Pokemon article. And the Gyms article could probably be merged into the main series article. But the contents of those artilces are all good and are in no way cruft. Toastypk 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Type matchups aren't what I'd term encyclopedic info. Neither are evolution methods. WP:NOT#GUIDE. Also, when does Nintendo use the term "Shiny"? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You can cruft with this, or you can cruft with that. I've got my AFD, my weapon of choice. YO!--Zxcvbnm 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Take them to AfD then. I'll guillotine Pokémon in other media in the meanwhile. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And whenever you take something to AfD, make sure to mention it on the Noticeboard. Looks very backstabbish otherwise. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Pokémon article mergers/redirects

I definitely see a point to get rid of most of the seperate articles per species, but the process seems to be highly seems to be highly unorganized and not to be based on a broad consensus, as evidenced by the existence of articles based on number ranges (e.g. List of Pokémon (61-80)), evolution lines (e.g. Abra evolutionary line) and associative groupings (Lunatone and Solrock). There is both redundancy and inconsistency between these variants and remaining articles in the traditional scheme. Charmander and Charmeleon still have their own articles, while Charizard already redirects to a list, etc.

If there has already been a real consensus on how to proceed (which I can't see from going over the talk page), I'd ask you to state your points shortly. If not, I'd recommend to talk this out a little more thorougly. I'd prefer merging relevant information, then trying to InterWiki as much feasible content (which wouldn't meet WP guidelines though) as possible and only redirect after this process has finished. I can't stand the present state of the Pokémon articles. Don Cuan 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The group articles were going to be the solution before the lists, but they soon became pointless. They'll be removed as the Pokemon are merged. The single lists are still being worked on, and all of them will eventually be redirected. It's a shaky process, but it'll be over with in a few weeks. TTN 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, the only reason the individual and evolutionary line articles are there are because they haven't been merged yet. Please read a little more into it before you start criticizing this.....--Zxcvbnm 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You're talking about weeks, which I think is indeed the problem. How can you want to leave the articles in this state for several weeks? And reading into the discussion would sound great, if it wasn't too cluttered for bystanders to look trough. --Don Cuan 07:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no deadline. Work is in progress. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The list merging are stupid. The merges limits the amount of important information that would of been in the seperate page about the pokemon. They should not be merged. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colletyon (talk • contribs).

Important information? Keep in mind that WP:NOT, one of Wikipedia's pillars, says that these articles should have "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance"; so important would mean real-world information. Feel free to give an example of important information lost. (Hint: there is none)--Teggles 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review the VERY FIRST ITEM ON THE WP:NOT list. there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover. So it doesn't matter if you personally don't think the information is important. As a scientist, I wouldn't either, but as someone researching marketing concepts and related trends in children's toy's, I would find it to be an absolute goldmine! Likewise, as a soon-to-be father, I can reasonably anticipate being asked some of these things someday! If you flat-out demand documented proof of the significance of this anyways, take a look at http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/Pokemon_Sales_Figures_4479_2640_0.htm Pokemon has sold about 110 million copies since it the first game was released in 1996, which translates to about $15 billion in retail sales. (Hint: USD $15,000,000,000 is serious business, anywhere!) Zaphraud 04:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOTINHERITED. That makes only the franchise notable, not every individual species. Also see WP:NOT#INIDSCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#GUIDE, as also WP:FICT. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

List of lists of Pokémon

I was thinking of starting an article called List of lists of Pokémon that contained all the Pokemon lists inside it, then link List of Pokémon to it on top. (For numbered lists of Pokemon, see List of lists of Pokémon). This would act corollary to the category. Plus, an article with the title List of numbered lists of Pokémon would be too ungainly.--Zxcvbnm 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just using the main list and adding the list template to it should do the trick. There's no need to create any weird articles (it would have to be a disambiguation page instead of an article in the way you're proposing it). TTN 02:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, adding a link to the category should work.--Zxcvbnm 03:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Doing both would be the best. Putting the Pokemon directory template on all the List pages including the main list, and putting all those pages in the category, should be enough to make it easy for navigation based on the lists themselves. And of course, one would search for Silcoon and get section-redirected to Silcoon's section in a list page, with most of the other Pokemon. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"Lists of Pokémon" would follow the standard. --Teggles 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Human characters

All of the human characters should probably be merged to lists as well. They also have no out of universe information, and they're pretty crufty (the lists of Pokemon of the anime characters are ridiculous). Are there any reasons to keep any of them? TTN 04:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging sounds good to me. The Pokemon lists are looking great (and I currently have all on my watchlist; gonna try to look out for the fancruft) and so I think it'd be a good idea doing the same with the humans. Though if we do so, how are we going to list them? Group them alphabetically, organiation (like Team Rocket), or something else? -WarthogDemon 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I was gonna suggest the same thing once the PokéMerging was done. Must be contagious. :P Anyways, I'm thinking Pokémon anime protagonists or something. Merge all except Ash there, he's got some potential. It's TR I'm worried about. They are covered as an organization in Pokémon crime syndicates, and as their anime avatars in Team Rocket (anime), which is excessively long. Even if we cut down all the cruft (lists of Pokémon and running gags and fanon history and whatnot)... do they have NO real-world info? Team Rocket has spawned quite a following, and I doubt it's 'coz they appeared in a few random games: We have JJM to thank for it. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know I shouldn't be giving WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS crap, but I still wanna ask something. Do the GTA protagonists have any outside-universe info? Well, they have their own article.
Ok, I'm done now, let's talk about what's going on without giving further examples: I think the 4th generation characters shouldn't have their own articles yet. But since the others have so many episodes I think there can be many sourcable information. The main characters deserve their own articles in my opinion, we should just leave the 4th generation pokémon in list until they have more episodes of them. And what's wrong with Elm or Birch? They had pretty damn-good appearances in the anime on the series of their region. No wait, we don't get biographical entry from them.
Anyway, I think Ash, May, Brock, Misty, Oak, and possibly Ash's mother can have their own article, since they are pretty sourcable. You can get further info on Ash's mother and Oak on the special pokémon episodes. TheBlazikenMaster 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
From WP:FICT:

Major characters and major treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are covered in the article on that work. If an encyclopedic treatment of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article.

Here, the characters just include gigantic plot summaries and nothing else. Not encyclopedic treatment. The lists, as everyone seems to be forgetting, are just a beginning... If you can encyclopedically edit something in a list so that it's too large for it, it gets forked into its own article. The keyword is encyclopedically. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, meaning Embracing many subjects; comprehensive. What kind of a moron thinks the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia will be increased by an act of vandalism that results in the replacement of an article with over 60 references with a mere stub, in a list of 20, grouped together for no reason other than their serial number? This so-called project is merely a thinly veiled attempt at censorship by people who do not wish such information to be included in wikipedia at all, and the rules they repeatedly refer to only serve to prove this point even further.Zaphraud 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As in not violating WP:NOT. And now you've violated WP:NPA. Please be civil. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you fix the boxes?

I've tried to fix the infoboxes with minor success. For example: List of Pokémon (1-20)#Charmander. All evolves to boxes look like this. The only ones I've been able to correct are the ones that didn't evolve into anything. How do we fix the others? -WarthogDemon 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? They're misaligned? - that's because the image is supposed to be beside the box. I can fix it if that's the problem. --Teggles 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I just checked and whatever the problem was appears to have been fixed. The problem was that the "Evolves Into" box were all messed up links. -WarthogDemon 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This was the problem, someone reverted. hbdragon88 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah thanks for figuring that out for me. I'll be sure to check the template pages next time something doesn't look right. -WarthogDemon 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

TCG in Grouped Articles

Are we treating it as a nonnotable bit of information or do the people making these articles not know enough about the trading card game to make mention of it? Last time I checked, the Pokémon TCG regained the position of top selling TCG after Yu-Gu-Oh had been on top for a while, so it can't be completely devoid to make mention of. --ArrEmmDee 18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggested to make an article about the Trading Card Game with a list of what Pokemon are in what series. Putting it in the lists creates a lot of redundancy. --Teggles 04:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles to keep

OK, I just want to make this clear, so when people ask for the discussion, I can just point to this. At this point, the only definite keep is Pikachu. After that, Mewtwo and Deoxys are in a "probationary" state where they can be looked over and assessed later. All others are being merged at this point. That includes the two former FAs, Bulbasaur and Torchic. If anyone wants to suggest any, please provide a decent rational (so we don't get any WP:ILIKEITs from bystanders).

One I'm wondering about is Jynx. Would it be possible to reinforce Jynx (Pokémon)#Controversy or would it be better to just trim it to a paragraph for the merger? TTN 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend putting a single line in the Jynx section and linking it to Criticism of Pokémon#Racism. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a Poke-person, just a drive-by asking are you considering merging the FA poke-articles? If you are, here is one view for "don't do that!" It would be a shame. I should add that otherwise I strongly support the merge to cleaner, less crufty lists, you are doing a lovely job with that, and I think your approach is correct. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, there are no Pokémon FAs. Both of them got delisted ages ago. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd put the following monsters on the table:
  • Jigglypuff - for its recurring anime role and its inclusion in a crossover fighting game series.
  • Meowth - for its relative importance in the anime; more reasonably, perhaps in can have a Template:Main link to Team Rocket (anime)#Meowth
  • Arceus - Pokegod, 'nuff said. There's not enough info on it now, but I'm sure we'll get some good info in the near future.
As for Mewtwo, I feel that Mew is a very important part of his story, plus Mew has a lot of backstory from the Cinnebar Journals. Perhaps rather than a Mewtwo article, it could be an article for Mewtwo and Mew. You Can't See Me!

I would recommend demerge Bulbasaur and Torchic to their own articles, because they are good, long and detailed articles, and they are not crufty, they only need to be assessed a bit. Being former featured articles is a proof of this, why they have become FAs if they were crufty?

For short, I would suggest the demerge of Bulbasaur and Torchic.Master Spider 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A better question would be: Why have they been delisted from FAs if they're not crufty?
As for UCSM: Jigglypuff seems to merit only a longer section. Arceus has no info, it hasn't even been confirmed to exist, I believe I could yank it off Wikipedia for lack of RS on a whim. A {{main}} for Meowth is perfect. As for Mew... Well, backstory doesn't count, it's the real-world info. Now, Mewtwo has starred in a movie, a special, appeared in a stageshow and probably has had trememdous real-world impact... So we might keep it, but not Mew. Also remember that the first few movies created more hype than the later ones, so Mewtwo and Lugia'd probably be easier to source than Lucario and Deoxys. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And the answer would be this: They are delisted, because they are not perfect. FAs are the best articles on Wikipedia, and they my be not one of the best. I also said below that they may need a little assessment. Plus, if Bulbasaur and Torchic will stay as merged, Mewtwo and Deoxys (and other like Lugia and Slowbro) should be merged, because Bulbasaur and Torchic don't have any cons compared to Mewtwo, Deoxys, Lugia, Slowbro, etc. They are needed to be treated equally I think. It is just my opinion anyway, I will respect the final decision. Master Spider 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, they were both demoted for miserably failing WP:N. See the discussions. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A Tiny Infobox For The Pictures Too Maybe?

Perhaps it'd be nice to add small templates to go along with each picture of the pokemon? Obviously we can't use the old infoboxes, but using Bastiodon's infobox as an example, maybe an infobox that just has generation, height, and weight? -WarthogDemon 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your idea is that making the infoboxes vertical would increase the whitespace of the list sections. Plus, who cares about height and weight, it's not like we're comparing boxers here. However, it might be a good idea to reinstate the height and weight in the horizontal infobox, since there's empty space there.--Zxcvbnm 03:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I made it confusing. I wasn't suggesting we touch the horizontal infoboxes at all. Just add a second under the picture. This was suggested on Talk:List of Pokémon (421-440) and even though I'm a little iffy - I think this could be a good idea. I dont' think it would be a deviation from Wiki's standards. It'd just be adding a little more info along with the one-paragragh of text that each Pokemon has already. I would suggest, though, we not add "abilities" as that might make the lists look a bit like a gamer's guide then. -WarthogDemon 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not what Zxcvbnm said. Simply add a "height" and "weight" parameter to the horizontal infobox. I did this before, but TTN reverted it because he claims it invites cruft. --Teggles 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand abilities would invite fancruft, but how would height and weight? The pictures themselves could, technically, invite it Well as I said, I was iffy on this. Plus it's just my rewording of someone else's suggestion on aforementioned talk page. I could go either way, honestly. -WarthogDemon 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember TTN removing the height and weight, but I think it could be interesting and that it should be back. A few numbers aren't that crufty, right?--Zxcvbnm 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't have a strong opinion either way. They're not really important, but they're definitely verifiable. I'd say the default should be "include". --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it would be a good idea to include height and weight. Just looking at the images, I would not be able to tell, for example, that Wailord is any larger than Walimer. Yeah... I don't see how that invites cruft any more than type does. You Can't See Me! 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I just see it as unnecessary, but I guess it doesn't matter that much. That'll have to be the absolute limit, though. TTN 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the absolute limit. Where I had previously suggested add the generations, I take that back as well. Only the height and weight can be considered; nothing more. -WarthogDemon 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Colloseum/XD/Battle Revolution bosses

Should we make pages for them? We have all the gym leaders, and even the frontier brains. If there is, ignore my comment. ~Crowstar~crow calls 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Each one of them doesn't have a page, we just have lists like List of Kanto Gym Leaders. In any case, if there's sufficient information about them, just go ahead and create List of Pokémon Colosseum/XD bosses and List of Pokémon Battle Revolution bosses. If not, just list them on List of Pokémon characters. Remember, the keyword is the amount of content... No point making an article that's only ever gonna consist of 5 lines. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I know Team Snagem and Cypher used to have sections on Pokémon crime syndicates, but they seem to have been cut. That seems the best place for those two anyways.Spriteless 15:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're looking for the recently deleted List of Pokémon video game villains. I don't remember seeing them on syndicates ever, but someone who's played the games should just be bold and add them there. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need them. They should be adequately covered within the plot sections of Colosseum, XD, and PRB respectively. I think gym leaders are more notable because they appear in the anime and magna as well as the video games, while these are just exclusive to the video games. I had already been thinking of merging into the video game articles before the AFD for the video game villains page went up. hbdragon88 03:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The future.

I'm not opposing with merging to list, not really supporting it either, but I'm wondering about the future.

When we're finished with the merging will there be ANYTHING else to do? I have big feeling that this WikiProject will meet its end once we're finished with the merging, as we mostly edited the pokémon species articles, so tell me, will this WikiProject meet its end? TheBlazikenMaster 14:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the majority of participants will fade away, but a handful of us shall stay to look after various articles... There'll still be around 300 of them, I guess. So the Project probably won't die out, instead, it'll be Demented. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know it's kinda off topic, but do you think it would be good idea if I'd join Bulbipedia? After all, the good info of pokémon don't belong to Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster 14:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it'd be great if every Pokémon inclusionist working on Wikipedia joined Bulbapedia... That site is pathetic now, but it has potential, and might well be the next source for all things Pokémon if only people work on it. At least then our external link sections can include, with good reason, a link to Bulbapedia, for fans who want more information. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You can still help make these better. Other than the fact that they aren't bloated, they're pretty much the same. They need sources (real world and in-univserse), and they need some copyeditting. TTN 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
THIS IS THE PCP! But, um, we should probably go for a serious effort to GA and possibly FA the core articles – the games and the two main Pokémon and Pokémon (video game) articles. hbdragon88 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Improve the lists! Get them all to Featured List. --Teggles 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikiproject will probably become inactive (since there's less articles to maintain) but now everyone's freed up to transfer all the excess information to Bulbapedia (where it actually is needed). However, I agree that the main article should be featured, as well as all the lists.--Zxcvbnm 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Important note on this . . . I just learned minutes ago that the licenses between the two wikis aren't directly compatible so a simple copy/pasting is not acceptable - when we transfer, we need to reword. Sorry if this has already been stated but I thought I should make it clear if it hasn't. -WarthogDemon 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that even applies to content removed from Wikipedia articles? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we just have to reword, rephrase. Read here: [7]. -WarthogDemon 02:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Magikarp

Someone needs to keep an eye on this. Rb9 keeps on reverting the redirect. Let's not be too harsh, since Rb9 is new, we should guide that user, but I don't know how to do it, please help. TheBlazikenMaster 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Post a warning on his talk page. If he keeps reverting, report him to be blocked.--Zxcvbnm 14:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think it's too harsh to give the user warning just yet, the user edited the very first edit only two days ago. TheBlazikenMaster 15:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Warnings are intended for new users. If you try warning an experienced one, you get a {{Templater}} splatted onto your TP. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Final draft of consolidated navbar

As TTN suggested, I've now created a more condensed version of the Navbar.
Navbar: Here
To be templated as: {{Pokémon}}
Intended to replace:

In default of opposition and/or criticism, I will template the consolidated Navbar as {{Pokémon}}, replace all instances of the other Navbars, and drag them to TfD beginning 20 hours from now. Feedback is appreciated. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't, that's going to make a huge template that's going to be no use to anybody. Combine anime characters and Gym Leaders (especially 'cause they're very related, and most are lists). See Yu-Gi-Oh! Directory, just a huge mess. It was split off at my suggestion and it looks much better now. hbdragon88 03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
On another note, you could possibly combine anime, Gym Leaders, and directory, as all can be considered characters, in some sense. hbdragon88 03:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
TEMPLATING POSTPONED 'TIL ISSUES RESOLVED. Ummmm, check out the draft first, you'll see that every section has a show/hide feature. that prevents it from cluttering up the whole screen. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't help at all. It's a hack solution. Templates should not be so big as to require a show/hide. Part of the principles of AMIB's navbox proposal to make the infoboxes small enough so that they didn't need a hide/show. hbdragon88 22:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine, IMO. Better than users having to sort through a bunch of unrelated navbars.--Zxcvbnm 00:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, and where does this new template criterion stem from ,Hb? There sems to be no logic for it. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
"hb"? You could at least call me hbdragon. Hb sounds bad. I, on the other hand, do not see the logic of compressing so many templates into one. They work fine as-is. hbdragon88 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point of using templates is to group related articles, and a consolidated template does that better than disjointed ones. The disjointed ones group in-universe stuff, the consolidated one groups the whole franchise. And the answer to a question isn't a question, I still see nothing discouraging the use of show/hide options. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, can others bother commenting? Two on one isn't really what I'd like to call "consensus". --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

IF NO ONE HAS ANY MORE OBJECTIONS, I'LL BE CREATING THE TEMPLATE IN 48 HOURS. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Even with the show/hide function, the box is still enormous; it's about the size of a medium-large show all infobox while everything is hidden. Perhaps the "Characters" section is not necessary. Bosses, Proffessors, and Crime Syndicates are all region-based, and can probably fit with the locations.
Oh yes, and you forgot about these people if you decide to keep the "Characters" section after all. I'm not sure where they'd go otherwise. You Can't See Me! 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that already. Pocket Monsters Special protagonists. I was working on it 'til a few days ago, I'll be resuming this Saturday. If that works out, I'll redirect everything else to it and add it to characters. That tab should probably stay, though, "Regions and characters" sounds podd. As for size, it's only 6 lines long with everything hidden! Just look at the size of {{India independence movement}}. And it's not OTHERCRAPEXISTS, simply because you can't call WikiProject India a bunch of noobs, they have 71 Fas!!! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection.

I have noticed something. The redirect pages are often being reverted to unmerged version, or replaced by some info. Should we ask an admin for full protection to prevent further things like that? TheBlazikenMaster 02:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is that-a-way. -Jéské (v^_^v) 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it probably won't do, since there are very many merged pokémon articles, it will take a very long time to list them all there. TheBlazikenMaster 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you request protection for each page as it becomes a hot spot. -Jéské (v^_^v) 02:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we just request protection for every..single..individual article at once, then just leave it permanently protected? Since there are absolutely no changes that need to be made to them (besides random categories?), then there shouldn't be a problem.--Zxcvbnm 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
But would histories still be available? It'd be rather hard to get information from the pokearticles for bulbapedia if we couldn't access them. Unless I'm confused on what full-protection applies... -WarthogDemon 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You can still access page histories while full-protected; you just can't edit the pages in question. -Jéské (v^_^v) 02:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then I'm all for it. Let's just hope there's someone willing to protect 493 pages... -WarthogDemon 02:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Shall I list them all at once then over there? -WarthogDemon 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Protection requires constant vandalism or really bad edit warring. A few people a week isn't enough to protect one article, let alone a hundred. TTN 17:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. However, how much is enough for one article? -WarthogDemon 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Not if we count all the Pokemon articles as one single mass. Basically, though one article might get vandalized a few times a week, combined vandalism to ALL 493 articles adds up to much more. Therefore protection is needed for maintenance reasons. Plus, it's not breaking any Wikipedia laws since users can still edit the lists to their heart's content. The merging achieved consensus and anyone who reverts it is causing unencyclopedic content.--Zxcvbnm 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Slide evolutions, buku!

So, as I was looking at Gardevoir, I realized Kirlia doesn't have Gallade as it's evolution...so as I looked on, a lot of Pokémon don't have their other evolutions...Gloom, Slowpoke, and such. The only one I saw that did was Poliwhirl, and even then it was "Poliwrath/Politoed"; in a red link. Is this a work in progress or is there nothing about this yet? -Sukecchi 11:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, someone familiar with those needs to fix that. TTN 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Read, soeone familiar with the templates. Wikigineers, to work!!! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The way to fix it you'd have to take the brackets out of the template and re add them to the entries. This will also make it possible to have Voltorb link to Electrode rather than Electrode (Pokémon). Or, even better, Electrode. But my eyes glaze over when I try to read templates. :( Spriteless 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, now all linking needs to be done manually, but everything will work like it should. TTN 17:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

Which one should be used on the lists? I've seen both on the single articles, but singular seems more popular. That's what I have been using so far, and I switch over when necessary. TTN 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Singular's generally less awkward, I guess. But that's just my opinion. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Plural, since we are talking about the pokémon in general, not a particular one.
Furthermore, if we can't agree on singular or plural let's take other articles for example, let's read as many real life animal articles as possible, so we can see what is more used, since we wanna describe pokémon as species we should have it similar style. TheBlazikenMaster 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I doubt articles on real animals are anywhere near consistent. -The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Plural except for Legendary Pokemon.--Zxcvbnm 17:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
They shouldn't be any exception. There is no proof of only one of each of them in existance. I will list anime examples that prove that legends aren't alone:
  1. Pokémon 4Ever - Check the end.
  2. Destiny Deoxys - Proven for the entire movie.
  3. 3-part episodes in Master Quest - Proves existance of two Lugias.

These are just some example, so legends shouldn't be any exception, they are rare, but there is no proof of being only one of these species. TheBlazikenMaster 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So, unless it's explicitly stated that there's only one, such as Mewtwo who destroyed its laboratory before a second was made, it's plural. That makes sense, but do creators like Palkia, Dialgia, and Giratina count? Spriteless 01:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As Mew doesn't (movie 8), I doubt they do. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up Participants.

Was that really necessary? I mean, now there will be edits in several days of the members re-adding themselves, that's not what I'd call cleaning. TheBlazikenMaster 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it was to cleanup the page itself, not the edit history. We did this last year too b/c a lot of ppl come here and just add their name, then leave wikipedia altogether in a few months. There were at least three ppl (other than myself) still on the list who have appeared, for all intents and purposes, uninterested in contributing to pokemon articles. Rather than make a unilateral judgement about anyone in particular, it's fairest to just clear everyone off and redo the list from scratch. I only did this b/c there has been precendent for it and it seemed necessary with 175 names on the roster. I'm betting about half will readd themselves. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Final Fantasy Wiki Project has a monthly roll call, so an annual cleanup doesn't seem too bad in comparison. Personally I haven't had much time to devote to the project (or Wikipedia in general) so I won't be adding myself back just yet. Bhamv 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone's noticed, we have a bunch of links on the main WikiProject article to various Pokemon articles for being GAs, former GAs, and former FAs. Most of the species links go to articles that have already been merged into lists. What should we do about the links, and, more importantly, what message does this send to users thinking of joining the project? Leprechaun Gamer 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, they're pointless, I would do it myself, but I'm just too nervous. TheBlazikenMaster 20:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants me too, I'll put the bell around the cats neck so to speak. I don't thing we'd be sending a negative message . . . I must admit I was surprised at first about the merges. However, had I known about the merges before I became a member, I still would've done so. Of course I only speak for myself, but I don't think we'd detract THAT many... -WarthogDemon 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the article links have been brought down to the five remaining GA articles that have not been merged, either because no one has gotten to them yet, or they just won't be. It looks like Pokemon and Pokemon Diamond and Pearl are safe no matter what, but what remains to be seen is whether Mewtwo, Pikachu, or Golduck will be merged or brought under GA review any time soon. Torchic is also still an A-class, so that needs to be addressed one way or another as well, but either way we didn't lose everything. All the old links were just removed entirely. Nall 03:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

Talk:Pokémon#Use of PokeBeach.com Info/Pics --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will handle this. WPM is essentially right on all points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It was coming. Even if WPM hadn't objected to our use of his images, we'd still have a problem - twenty non-free images per page is an issue on its own. We'll have to find a way to work around this... You Can't See Me! 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Shall I remove all images for now? Or keep them up? -WarthogDemon 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to find out from WPM which images are his and what content is his, and it will shortly disappear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

uh.... about 50% of our content is his, and there really is no reason to remove it all. his complaint is about attribution, something easily solved - the largest issue is TCG info and scans which need to be sourced immediately or removed. UCSM, there is no "magic number" for fair-use images, it's how they are being used. Take a look at media-related featured lists for scores of precedent. gah.... ikeep getting sucked in...... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking to WPM right now. The copyvio text is going to die, we need to get rid of the card scans that are taken from his site (which was something we needed to do anyway), and there are some conditions for the Sugimori art but they're pretty reasonable ones roughly in line with Wikipedia policy. Details forthcoming. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image solution

Okay. Talked to WPM, and he had three problems, all of which are solvable.

  1. I confirmed that the transparent Sugimori images do originate with Pokebeach and that they are indeed promotional art. (He wasn't terribly forthcoming on where they came from beyond that.) He did have a ton of work done on them, procuring them and making them transparent, so he really didn't appreciate having them taken without credit by other sites.
    That said, he's amenable to Wikipedia using them, with simple conditions roughly in line with Wikipedia's typical fair-use guidelines. All we need to do is reduce the width in both articles and image pages to 110px and ditch the unnecessary transparency, and give credit to Pokebeach for the images. The details are here (which will be incorporated into his general "Don't steal my images, please" when he redesigns the site), and while we don't typically use with-permission images, we are still adhering to Wikipedia's fair-use standards. The alternative is no possible fair-use claim due to explicit non-permission, so WPM's being pretty reasonable.
  2. The card scans, in general, need to go, unless they were uploaded by the scanner. We need to make this part of the project rules; swiping card scans off of random websites isn't acceptable when we can just scan our own cards. Plus, no sense having to step on the rights of two coypright owners when we can limit it to just one.
  3. There's some copyvio text copy-pasted from Pokebeach. Delete that on sight, obviously.

We have a lot of work to do on the images. They need to be reuploaded to 110px width, the transparency needs to go, and a new "This image came from" message needs to be added. {{KSimagefrombeach}}, when it turns blue, will be a substable template for linking to Beach. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an easy way to remove the transparency? I've tried it in GIMP, but I'm not too familiar with stuff like it. It ends up really bad around the edges or the transparency still sticks. TTN 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
i'll subst the image template when it's ready (apparently it isn't yet?) with AWB, just leave me a note on my talk page. As for removing the transparaency. See if he'd be willing to email me a .zip file with all 400+ images. It would be a pain in the ass to have to right click and redownload them all. I can just give them a solid background matching wikipedia white in photoshop, but there's no way i'm gonna spend the extra time downloading them when i have to make the changes by hand (no AWB feature for auto-uploads quite yet... but maybe we can ask a bot). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll ask WPM about that for you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


To do list:

  1. Reduce the width of the Sugimori images actually in articles to 110px. Right now, we're using 120px as the standard width.
  2. Replace the source info of every single Sugimori image with {{subst:KSimagefrombeach}}.

All the tools are ready to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Finished Sugimori Images

It's easy to batch convert them when you have all of the originals (even though it took an hour). :p

http://www.pokebeach.com/kensugimori/wikipedia.zip

Also, could you change that one statement to: "Larger and transparent images are available there."

Could you guys tell me when you have downloaded them so I can delete the ZIP? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Water Pokemon Master (talk • contribs).

i've downloaded the .zip would have done it sooner but was expecting a msg on my talk. pray tell, how do i remove the transparency in a batch convert (never had to do it before)... will converting to BMP throw out transparancy data? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Those images are finished. The transparency is removed, and they are to what I specified. All you have to do is upload them to their pages, and you're done! :) Water Pokemon Master 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah... i saw that... oh well. I need to get some feedback from the group before I go ahead with this. I've mass renamed all the images in my possession to "Pokemon lead image #.png" I did this because I've always felt that undescriptive names like Image:388.png were unhelpful for wikipedia. To keep everything consistent I'm asking if you'd rather have a mass upload of the new images (because Images apparently can't be moved to new names) and tagging all the old ones with {{redundant}}, or is this a non-problem and we should just update existing images? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I've long been slightly worried about having the Pokebeach images on Wikipedia during the time when it wasn't formally agreed with the webmaster to have them there, unlike what's turning out now. :) We might be told off for not paying attention to Wikimedia's "Avoid Copyright Paranoia" guideline, but I honestly have to wonder how that guideline could ever be considered seriously by any sensible Wikimedia project... It's like saying "don't worry about causing lawsuits until you're the subject of them". Heh. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 06:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Zapper, just tag any images that aren't used in articles any more with {{subst:orfud}}, and some admin will be by to delete them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Index

I have constructed an article index so that the Pokemon articles can be seen as a whole and what their condition is. Feel free to add any that are not listed, and add their GA or FA symbol next to them if they are at that quality. Judgesurreal777 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Recently, I made the call that Bulbasaur is one of the articles that should not be merged into a list. I did this on the grounds that it is a former Featured Article (therefore showing that it certainly has merit), and since it has ample encyclopedaic information. Thus, it deserves an article of its own right.

However, User:TTN reverted me, citing this discussion, and stating that this established a consensus to merge. It does not. I see 2 people (User:KillerChihuahua and User:Master Spider) in support of a separate article, and just one in favour of merge (User:TTN himself). Not that we're counting votes, but that doesn't indicate any kind of consensus on this issue.

Further, I would have added my views on the issue had I seen the discussion. The proper procedure for merging is to add {{merge}} to the top of the page, and to discuss this on the talk page of the article. This did not happen, and interested editors had to have this Wikiproject on their watchlist to be aware of any proposal.

Thus, I have restored the article once more. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously concerned about TTN's efforts at unilateral merging without demonstrated consensus or notification at the individual articles. While the wikiproject is good for organization, it doesn't actually WP:OWN articles. When concerns are raised, discussion should happen. He is obviously on a crusade to merge what he thinks inappropriate, regardless of other's opinions. However, WP:CONSENSUS is still a policy that applies. While the lists are great for completeness and summarization, there is no reason articles for major characters should not exist side by side. Wikipedia is not paper, there are no limits to the knowledge we store. pschemp | talk 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think TTN needs to step back for a while. He needs to discuss much more than he does (I'm not the kinda guy who can criticize others for not discussing, but I'd say I do it more). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we've already decided that, since Bulbasaur isn't currently featured, it should be merged. Had it actually been a featured article, it probably would be kept, but as it is it doesn't deserve its own page just for having more information. It's not more notable than other Pokemon in any way except for being #001 on the Pokedex, therefore it should be merged. Plus, it probably still contains unnecessary information that is better suited being transferred to Bulbapedia instead. You're free to transfer as much as you want there. By the way, Bulbasaur isn't really a major character, since it probably played as much of a role as something like Togepi.--Zxcvbnm 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
By that logic any article on WP that isn't an FA should be merged. Silliness. The simple fact that it ever was featured, and that on the FAR no one suggested it shouldn't exist, lends credence to it's ability to be a stand alone article. As to the assertation that Bulbasaur isn't a major character, that's simply untrue. pschemp | talk 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The logic we're using is that these pages are fluff, so they don't belong. Would you like me to trim Bulbasaur down to its real information?TTN 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Fluff? I was hoping you could do better than that. Life is full of fluff. Wikipedia reflects life. Not to mention fluff is in the eye of the beholder. pschemp | talk 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has happened, over and over. We have the set consensus to merge, the main people are agreeing with it (not some random people that feel like jumping in without any research or random WP:ILIKEITs), and we're going froward with it. There is nothing that states that discussion must happen on every single article. We have Help:Merging and moving pages which gives one way to do it. Projects do this all of the time, and I'm sure you'll find most people are fine with that.

The second part is just your opinion, and it has been answered dozens of times. TTN 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't discount people's opinions just because you don't like them. I happened to be part of the crew that got Bulbasaur featured to begin with, so I'm hardly just jumping in. Now, stop waving the I like it flag and come up with a real reason. By the way, when objections are raised, individual discussion *is* required by WP:CONSENSUS. pschemp | talk 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that you should not be mixing your opinion with your point of needing to discuss every single article. It comes of weird, and needs to be placed elsewhere. It is just so common at this point that there is nothing to respond to anymore anyways.
Up until you have come along, there has not been any need for discussion. Points of "you need to discuss this" and "I like it" have no place in forming a new discussion. You are the first to really have any valid claim and all that jazz. Now, we are discussing anyways, I guess. If you need a real reason, look all over this page. TTN 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And again, I have looked all over this page and found neither sound reasons nor consensus. I'm sorry if this is messing up your master plan to merge everything in wikipedia, but that's how this websites works. When there is a disagreement on an action, consensus is sought. Your attempts to remain ignorant of this are truly amazing. pschemp | talk 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you looking for a single discussion related to the one article or what? We already have the consenus to merge the articles unless something is brought up. We don't count WP:ILIKEIT opinions and I belive that is all that we have encountered on this page. We don't rediscuss things when anons revert, with WP:ILIKEITS, or when one single person has a problem with it (in the first place). TTN 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Charizard is one of the most discussed pokémon, and to be honest, I have seen more Charizard discussion than Bulbasaur discussion. I'd rather have that on the own page than Bulbasaur, I mean Bulbasaur isn't any more notable, maybe less notable. Besides, after it's been re-checked a lot of people noticed it didn't deserve its featured status. Like TTN said, the only notable thing that other pokémon don't have is that it's 001. May and Ash own a Bulbasaur, but that's not good enough reason to let it have its own article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Bulbasaur is one of the main characters in the first few seasons of the Pokémon anime, being one of the main characters that Ash keeps and uses. He's one of the three most important characters in the video games, being a starter Pokémon. He's been the protagonist of various published children's books. The major characters in various mangas own him. He's #001 in the Pokédex. he passes WP:FICT for having an individual article. Please, will people stop saying he's just like any other Pokémon. Sure, many don't merit an individual article, but Bulbasaur clearly does. —Celestianpower háblame 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? Being one of Ash's Pokemon and #001 in the Pokedex doesn't make Bulbasaur merit an individual article. Other Pokemon, e.g. Pikachu or Charizard, are CLEARLY more famous than Bulbasaur, so your argument doesn't make sense. All I want to say is, stop ignoring the facts and saying that Bulbasaur deserves an article just because it's a main character in the first few seasons of the dreaded anime. I also don't see how Pokemon that speak only their name can be characters.--Zxcvbnm 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its roles are easily summed up in much less space than they currently take, and being a "main character" is not the reason to create an article. It is about them being able to follow WP:WAF, which requires real world information. Bulbasaur lacks that greatly (please look around at the discussions before claiming that it actually has any). TTN 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how on earth a guideline on style which discusses "articles describing fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." relates to whether or not an article can exist or not. It seems from the many many times you have been told otherwise you still have not got the message that you may not merge anything you like at will where contested. It seems to me from your talk page and edit pattern that you are a die hard mergist - fine, using the reasoning you provide why not go and merge all the Dracula films that have the same plot into one article - thye are in Category:Dracula films.--Alf melmac 12:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If fiction cannot be talked about from a real world perspective, it cannot be the topic of an article. We provide an analysis of topics, not a substitute. I discuss when we actually require discussion, not "just because" or for invalid reasons such as skewing what consenus really is about. TTN 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that it's totally impossible to treat the subject from a real world perspective? I just don't buy that. You may say the discussions you don't agree with are invalid as many times as you like, but to say it's skewering consensus if further bottom-of-the-barrell-scraping. IIRC the consensus starting point about pokemons was that they were to merge with some immediate exceptions and individual articles could be demerged when there was enough to make a decent article. That appears to be the case here, the article was improved (as is usually the case) after going through FAR, despite the fact that it was delisted for not fulfilling criteria 1(b) ["Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.] Sounds like still some room for improvement and no indication anywhere there that it didn't merit being an article.--Alf melmac 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me started about "most-discussed" Pokes. In fact, the meme disputes are lessening somewhat since I brought up the merger in progress. -Jéské (v^_^v) 22:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bulbasaur

I have an idea. Instead of bickering and arguing about this while the pages still get merged, how about we actually call a vote? That way, we have a definite way of seeing if people think we should merge or if we shouldn't. 1 = we should merge, 2 = we shouldn't merge. I say 2. Leprechaun Gamer 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Because polling is silly. All you have to do is go through the page and add up who supports and doesn't in the discussion to gauge consensus. If you do that, you'll find it's a stalemate. If you'd like to add your opinion to the discussion...please do so. pschemp | talk 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it's a stalemate, then why are we still going along with this whole merging thing? Shouldn't we stop merging articles for a little while until we can talk about this and have all of us agree on one course or another? I say that until we all agree on what to do, we stop merging these articles in case we decide we don't want the lists. User:Leprechaun Gamer 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any reason you can't have both a list and then separate articles for Pokemon that have enough info for an article. The presence of one does not preclude the other. However, yes, if there isn't consensus for a particular article to be merged, it shouldn't be. There isn't any reason not to merge though, for the articles no one objects to. This is how wikipedia works. If there is a difference of opinion, you stop and have a discussion. If no one is contesting it, you go ahead until someone does. I don't think anyone here is saying the entire thing should be stopped. pschemp | talk 13:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'd be glad to see at least some of the articles that were merged again. Ever since the merge, it's almost been like the other articles have been getting deleted, because, you type in the name of the Pokemon, or you click on a link that should take you to that Pokemon's page, and you get redirected to the lists. Other than what seems like a random few that haven't been merged yet, I'm not able to find individual species articles anywhere except on Bulbapedia. Leprechaun Gamer 13:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As everyone has said time and time again, the individual Pokemon articles are too hard to maintain and too crufty to allow. You are free to merge all the original information with Bulbapedia, but leaving both the lists and the Pokemon articles would mean a ridiculous amount of unnecessary information, as well as disputes. I highly doubt you would be willing to copyedit, reference, and monitor almost 500 Pokemon articles.
By the way, there was a consensus, and from the way you are trying to stop the merge, it seems you don't really understand why Wikipedia exists. Nobody's going to gain anything from the individual articles except true Pokemon fans, therefore it's not encyclopedic.--Zxcvbnm 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw the discussion that started from the premise that generally they should be merged but a few indvidual pages would kept immediately and those who a good article could be made, would be allowed to, your words suggesting it's a cut deal are just plain wrong, it never was and this being wikipedia, it never will be. We are not talking about 500 articles we are talking about one article and nothing more than that.--Alf melmac 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The list pages

I've noticed a problem with the small tables at the beginning of every list entry: the evolvesfrom/to tags refuse to recognize a Pokemon name that is also a non-Pokemon-related word, such as Gloom, Persian, or Golem. Anybody know how to fix this? SubStandardDeviation 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the link simply type: [[Gloom (Pokémon)]] and that'll solve it. -WarthogDemon 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If (for some reason) there is another related article, you should put on the pokémon section "X redirects here, for other uses see X (disambiguation)", that footnote isn't required to be at the top of the page. Take Petalburg for example. TheBlazikenMaster 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't use a "for other uses" tag because the problem text is within a table, not the entry itself. Having some tables with links and others without will look odd, but I suppose it has to be done. SubStandardDeviation 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I've added the entries for #74-76 (Geodude line) and #69-71 (Bellsprout line) to the list page, if anyone cares to merge them. SubStandardDeviation 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur merge

OK, discuss away. TTN 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Haven't we already said everything that's needed to say on why Bulbasaur can't have its own article? TheBlazikenMaster 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just make it so those two have nothing to complain about (I linked the merge tag to this discussion). TTN 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no such discussion, I do see that a number of experienced editors saying it's a bad idea to merge Bulbasuar.--Alf melmac 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They might be experienced, but they're wrong. Bulbasaur has the same prominence as, say, Torchic, so by their logic all the starters should get their own page when there really is no reason for it.--Zxcvbnm 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you having no problem at all with Charizard? It's way more notable. TheBlazikenMaster 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The logic of what it is, is not at play here, at least not for me, you may set up your own standards for inclusion if you wish, I will not and will continue to judge each article on it's own merits, regardless of where it fits with others (unless against policy). By your logic, we should merge all King and Queens of England into one list as only a few are really prominent, see also my comments about the Dracula fims, there is no diference there.--Alf melmac 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not wishing for anything, or playing, or having my own standards, all I'm doing is agreeing with TTN. TheBlazikenMaster 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really been discussing because I don't have much to add that isn't already said. You want a vote, then merge. Merge alot, we don't need to be a freaking pokedex! There's better pokedex resources than Wikipedia could ever be: Wikipedia's policy on verifiability means it will never get scoops from nintendo like Serebii, it's not a game guide, and the wiki software isn't suited to useful tables like Veekun's dex has. Get it? You want the old info, when you goto Bulbasaur and are directed, go to the top of the page, click the 'redirected from Bulbasaur' link, then click the history tab to look at past versions. And what Pokemon ruled England? England is more important than Nintendo, regardless of which one has more bearing on your life personally. :P There's books written by historians on all of them, with sources and verifability moreso than any work of fiction that is less than 20 years old. Spriteless 15:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your advice for finding an old diff for info is of no use to readers, who are those we are here for. There is no limit on space and we are talking at the moment about one specific page, not something that needs 'a lot of merging'. I have neither Ninetendo nor any other game machine, I was merely pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments that 'because we said we'd merged them all - this one is included' and the silly spaghetti that has been used to try and salvage that position.--Alf melmac 15:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't gotten my point. I keep telling you that Charizard is more notable than Bulbasaur, and you still haven't answered my question on why you have no problems with Charizard. Your Dracula example doesn't answer my question. TheBlazikenMaster 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why should I have a problem with Charizard, it looks like a nice page to me. I don't see the relevance of the question, though I'll answer your question in spite of not being adequately answered elsewhere on the page. I don't have a problem with Charizard because my default position is not to automatically have a problem with a page because of a pre-set notion.--Alf melmac 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's get back to what we're talking about, I still can't see how Bulbasaur is any more notable than the rest. TheBlazikenMaster 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That again is the wrong notion of deciding on whether the subject deserves a page or not, you're using pre-set notions of notability in a small subject field, not using the wiki-wide notions of what is for and what is not for inclusion.--Alf melmac 15:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The only arguments for not merging seem to be Cel and pschemp's ILIKEITs and Alf's OTHERCRAPEXISTS, neither of which are valid arguments. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Had you bothered to read my posts carefully (at all?) then you'd notice that at present I have not indicated whether I feel that it should or should not be merged. I am expressing my (increasing) disatisfaction at the number of bits of inappropriate silly spaghetti and nonsensical arguments dragged in to defend a policy type decision where none applies. I'm only defending the position that tag-teams and project members do not decide on what happens to individual articles. A by point I have not yet stated is that it looks pretty darn shoddy when many other wikis in other languages have a reasonable article about this subject, but here it is objected to on principle. Sheesh, even the English simple wiki has an Bulbasaur article.--Alf melmac 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, we are not in an xfD discussion, and I have not once used a comparative to any other article stating "see this, why not this" as you suggest by your silly spaghetti, please either re-read my posts or stop attributing silly spaghetti suggesting I'm saying anything other than the words I choose to use. I don't need to intimate bad motives by saying "ooohh see that - (silly spaghetti!!!)" myself and wish to God others would see sense and do likewise.--Alf melmac 16:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, i must have misread something. But your later argument is OTHERCRAPEXISTS all over again. As a matter of fact, policy does apply. See WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. From what I see, the article consists almost entirely of plot summaries of anime and manga, TCG card lists, redundant biological characteristics, and OR about the name. Incidentally, also see WP:NPA. Also incidentally, you're ignoring the spirit of the law for the letter. As a matter of fact, you did point out the Dracula movies and the other language wikis. No WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Indeed. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry then I have failed to make the point clearly to show the fallacy of a previous argument when I used both the Dracula and the Kings and Queens argument - maybe I should have tagged with "caution - sarcasm may be at work here". I also strongly disaproved of you splitting up the discussion that had already started, as you have done again.--Alf melmac 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not split up the discussion. This is the merge discussion. The above is about why this discussion should take place along with some random bits of discussion. I want this to be over and final. I don't want people to say "Oh, that wasn't a proper discussion" for some pointless reasons. TTN 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It looked to me like you were splitting up the ongoing discussion rather than being inclusive of it, there are valid comments there which apply here. And I'm pointing out that this insistance on being merged is on principle only, which is not something done here or on any other wiki I know of, and it looks shoddy by comparison for the English wiki to do so, you may care to read each and everything I say as some form of breach of silly spaghetti, I'm not in control of that.--16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They can readd their comments to take part in this "vote." It is way too cluttered up there to be useful. Comments like that show that you have not done any real research on this merging process. The reason these are being merged is because they don't have enough real world information from non-trivial sources to sustain an article (per WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Only Pikachu definitely has that much, and a couple of others have been put on hold until they are researched. TTN 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, now you're making them re-add their comments. Even a cursory glance at the two pages and their cites show that their isn't as much difference as you'd like us to believe.--Alf melmac 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to say restate (just to have an absolute view of their points). It's only two people anyways. Which two pages are you talking about? TTN 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The same two that you were talking about, the subject of this discussion - Bubasaur and the one you state is the only one meritable enough to deserve an article - Pikachu. We don't delete stubs because they don't have all the requirements of a full article, if the subject merits it, it stays and gets improved - we're teetering on suggesting that a different principle applies here. I also count more than two people (like Killerchihua for example) --Alf melmac 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking at their current status. I'm looking at their potential. The staple Pokemon of the series has real world information and it can obtain even more. Bulbasaur has like one small bit, and that is it. I'm talking about the previous discussion, not one from last week. TTN 17:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, though by the way the discussion was going I was getting worried it was. If you ignore all previous disccusion then how on earth will you be able to judge the consensus fairly, KillerChihuahua may not be even aware that this discussion is taking place, does that discount his view in terms of consensus? I mean "only those who show up can get their say" is a bit poor form when we know there are relevant views recently made on this very subject.--Alf melmac 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Their comments may be relevant, but we don't mix and match discussions with regular mergers (as in the case if I had just started this discussion on the list). I guess you can drop them a note if you feel like it. TTN 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stop you, but I still disagree, I already said my point earlier. TheBlazikenMaster 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the Chewbacca Defense! All this card game and anime stuff can be better used in a fansite, PERIOD. No plot summaries are allowed, neither are game strategies. "Silly spaghetti" is being used to defend a (correct) policy decision, which you are somehow defending by saying "I like Bulbasaur, and articles are like this somewhere else."--Zxcvbnm 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me the policy decision that says 'Bubasaur may not have a page'.--Alf melmac 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability: It doesn't assert its real world notability, any more than the others.
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Noone can find enough verifiable sources to fill a whole article, without turning it into 90%game guide, trivia, and plot summary..
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): Wikipedia shouldn't have alot of plot summary and in world context for such articles, but a large collection of stubs can be combined into a list, if as a collection they are notable. Large articles and lists can be broken up into sections.
Please don't make sarcastic remarks. It makes me get all patient. Spriteless 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Bulbasaur is far and away more notable than the countless articles we have about obscure music groups and movies that 3 people have seen. Additionally, verifiability issues in no way preclude an article from existing, they just mean it has to be sourced better. That means you work on it, rather than delete it. pschemp | talk 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then, practice as you preach and find a verifiable source detailing its real-world impact - not the games, not the anime, not its cards, just real-world impact or references. Neither myself nor the Project have been able to do so. -Jéské (v^_^v) 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I used to like this project, but ever since this started happening, I've lost my respect for what's going on here. I honestly thought that the evo line pages were a good choice, but, then everyone seemed to forget about the evo line pages when the mass merging started happening. If you want to do this and kill off this WikiProject, then do so; I simply don't like the idea of such a project ending. So, if you need me, I'll be at Bulbapedia, where the site isn't overrun by "oh, this cruft doesn't belong on such a respected site as this, so I'll merge it." Leprechaun Gamer 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I like alot of the evo-line pages myself. I wouldn't have any problem with Bulbasaur evolutionary line, as it would still cut out the huge amount of 'cruft'. I think Pokes that have evolutions spread throughout many generations in paticular gain alot context from it. But not every Poke family has enough to warrent a page, either; Bidoof evolutionary line would be a stub with two sections. Bulbasaur evolutionary line wouldn't be paticularly useful, since the others are right on the same page, but it would be harder to maintain. Spriteless 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is an article of high quality and should be kept and if possible restored to FA status. I can see no conceivable reason to merge it. Tim! 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is full of junk that is going to be cut either way. I would imagine three paragraphs at most. TTN 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice threat. pschemp | talk 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Users Celestianpower, A link to the Past, Tim!, Leprechaun Gamer, Master Spider, Killer Chihuahua, Alf and I have all stated in this discussion, in the above discussion, or on the article talk page that we are not in favour of the merge and have stated various reasons for this. This can't be ignored, and doing so is a backhanded way to force the appearance of consensus. I see Zxcvbnm, TTN and Raven not in favour, and disregarding the reasoning given. Celestianpower has given specific reasons where this character was emphasised. Not a single person has in fact, said keep it because I like it, but pointed out it's a major character, there's enough info for an article, Wikipedia is not paper and so forth. As no policy violations have been pointed out either, and the FAR of the FA did not lead any of the reviewing editors to suggest the article doesn't exist, there is hardly consensus to merge the article. Claiming that it's too crufty is not a defence either, Wikipedia is here to capture the sum of human knowledge, not just the knowledge a particular person thinks is worthy. pschemp | talk 18:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, that isn't a threat. That is the truth, and it is going to happen either way. This is not an AfD. We don't count votes, making numbers irrelevant. We use argument strength to decided in the end (Consensus is not about numbers. If it were, the anons and some of the bypassers would have a consensus to stop the merging). Cruft means game guide material, OR, and unneeded plot summaries, all which of which we have WP:NOT for, so it does fit. TTN 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The people arguing a merge keep trying to boil everyone's arguments down to simple acronyms. Never in this discussion has anyone said they think it should be kept because they like it, or because other articles are similar. Please read our actual words. You may, of course, disagree, but please stop trying to refute them by pointing to acronyms (look, I can do it too). —Celestianpower háblame 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because you guys think that the article should be put back, and make huge paragraphs summarizing that Bulbabaur is more notable than some rock band, still doesn't prove that the article isn't in violation of the guidelines that were just posted. Those "mere acronyms" are what is proving you wrong, no matter what. I read your argment, and it still fails when faced with What Wikipedia is not.--ZXCVBNM 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, er, I mean, please try not to jump down each others thoats over every percieved slight (and don't take that as permission to give underhanded slights and claim AGF in your favor). The reason people keep pointing you to those acronym pages is they say wikipedia policy very concisely, and they don't want to reinvent the wheel, personally. The reason this is upsetting is because it appears to sidestep the arguments for keeping bulbasaur, and gives the impression of elitism.
The reason the mergers want to merge bulbasaur, is if you take out all the original research, game guide, and plot summaries then the article would be reduced to a mere stub. You say to keep the info, but just because giving a tiny acronym(WP:NOT) is snarky, doesn't make the name origins, how to get it in Pokemon Yellow, or the description of how he did in every tournement in the anime any better to keep. Linking to the policy is an attempt to give the argument more precedence without taking forever to type in the response. Spriteless 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, quote the policies (WP:NOT, etc), but stop trying to "summarise" the arguments made by turning them into an acronym (like WP:ILIKEIT). —Celestianpower háblame 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Since 'someone' bothered to collect a bunch of arguments that bear little weight, you might try to find a different argument. But I agree about the acronym shortcuts, I think they should all be gotten rid of, as they encourage people to not actually tell you what they find wrong with an argument, but to use a snarky soundbite. WP:CIV
The burden of proof for an article's encyclopedic potential lies on the defenders of the article. Just because Bulbasaur is already here, doesn't mean it should be. Maple Village was an article for years before I found it put it up for deletion. Hence, any argument that says the article is good enough, or will be eventually, without providing proof (especially from someone who hasn't edited an article as much as the opposition) gets grouped into ilikeit. The existance of other crappy articles on indy bands likewise has no bearing on bulbasaur, put them on articles for deletion or merge if you'd like. These arguments tend to be grouped into othercrapexists. These two in paticular are common arguments, and familiar to long time editors, so explaining repeatedly gets old.
In summary: I am Ms. Exposition, and hate snarky shortcuts. But they point to decent counter arguments. Spriteless 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for taking the time to say everything that I wanted to say. This should be bolded and placed on top of the discussion.--ZXCVBNM 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, looks like I missed out on a lot.

Bulbasaur represents the failure of the original goal of WP:PAC: specifically, to write a complete article on every single Pokémon. This is meant as no sleight to the admirable work of Celestianpower and everyone else who brought that article up to featured quality in every sense but one, but the lack of that one quality is why we were back to revisiting the Poképrosal and merging the Pokémon into lists.

That quality is notability. There just aren't the reliable sources who have seen fit to comment on the vast majority of Pokémon. We don't have the raw material to do anything but write our own original synthesis of primary sources and personal observation.

It's why Bulbasaur was defeatured, it's why it is no longer a Good Article, and it's why all of our FARs and GARs end up defeaturing or degooding our articles.

I would be elated to be proven wrong. It's why I hated to send Torchic to FAR. But, unless someone can find the sources to use to build individual articles, it's time to continue with the merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is, there is simply too little real-world information or references in the articles being defended by Celestianpower, etc., to make them articles and not plot summaries of the video games, anime, and Pokemon world in general. If even a famous Pokemon lacks information on the character development by Sugimori, and all things relating to it in the press, there is absolutely no way that all 500 could have that information...unless you have a crystal ball I can borrow.--ZXCVBNM 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't at all help that Sugimori is famously reclusive.
This debate is about Bulbasaur in particular, any other example, or the entire mass as a whole. With a few exceptions, there just isn't any possibility for an article, and I strongly feel that our experience with Bulbasaur and Torchic fall on the too-little side of the line. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I think the Charizard article has an example of "external info" that I was talking about:
Due to Charizard's appeal, it has featured in many lines of soft toys    

In 2004, the "Charizard Medium Plush" was part of a major recall
Things like that will probably not be found for every article. Not to mention that you will probably never find Sugimori saying anything because he's so reclusive.--ZXCVBNM 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
so is something like that why charizard still has an article? if so... then why was Eevee merged? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Charizard is only back right now because a user has stated that they will provide a rational soon (though it has been a while as of this point). TTN 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So can we go merge both Charizard and Bulbasaur now? This thing's been sitting a day without any objections raised. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I refute that it's not notable and carries as much crap as you think. Either take it to AfD or RfC or something.SmallPotatoes 06:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we did. Two years ago, with a huge wiki-wide debate and vote at Wikipedia:Poképrosal. Ever since then, we've been running on borrowed time, based on the argument that we could write these articles based on reliable sources.
We tried, particularly admirably in the case of many users (and if you think I'm talking about you I absolutely am), but unless someone suddenly figures out how to come up with reliable sources it's time to merge the Pokémon, just like we merged the human characters and places and fictional things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language Categories

What should I do about categories like this

es:Mudkip

when merging an article?--ZXCVBNM 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at what I did to Pokémon crime syndicates. I think there's no other way. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you're supposed to put the links directly on the page. They're more like categories. But an idea would be to place all of them at the bottom.--ZXCVBNM 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
But then they'd all jus pile up on the right left side, with no indication of what link refers to what article. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Championalex

All his contribs are Pokévandalism. And sneaky ones, including hoax articles. I'm still not sure what spedies to apply to them. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Pokevandalism, anyone else notice User:Meganium and his/her legion of pokepuppets? -WarthogDemon 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Cut the anecdotes and get to reverting him on Pocket Monsters Special protagonists, will you? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if that went off-topic. I'll try and keep an eye on him. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I've gone and reported him to WP:AIV, but it might be ages before an admin strolls by. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Think I got it cleaned up! -WarthogDemon 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Muhahahahaha! Keep up the good work! --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 05:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plusle

I merged it into a list, I didn't include any anime appearance since they weren't important enough in my opinion. Maybe the Deoxys movie is important, I just copied the biological section, if that's the wrong way to do it, please tell me the best way to merge, I need to know the best way to merge (if I didn't merge this right) because I'm going to merge Huntail tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You should copy the nihongo template. Descriptions that can be found in the picture usually aren't necessary. You should remove any references to sites with 'dex information. We need to switch over to quotes and the Template:Cite video game (I guess you can replace them if you want). Then just clean them as you see fit. TTN 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there are others too in my watchlist that haven't been merged yet, I decided to help on the merging instead of sitting on my ass doing nothing about it. Thanks for the info, I will try to keep that all in mind when I merge the Huntail article, and also when I merge Steelix. TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me I need to get to work on Pocket Monsters Special protagonists. Cheers. The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of sitting on our asses doing nothing, I'm starting to think this page needs an archive and pronto. :P Okay, actually there's been a lot of great work put into creating the lists. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Game Freak (1999-10-01). Pokémon Yellow (Game Boy Color). Nintendo. Sleeps 18 hours a day. If it senses danger it will teleport to safety even as it sleeps.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Archive_18&oldid=1249258417"