Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Contents

Category:Pokémon species by type

I'm wondering whether we should have this category, though I decided to bring this up at the project before I took it to CfD. So, yeah, should we have this category? I dunno, it seems a bit trivial (maybe game-guideish) to me. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the categories inside of that? I think the reasoning was that as we make more and more articles split, this categorization might help. It is only for types with like 5 articles though. New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) made the categories, so he will be able to tell you the reason for their existence. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon "appearing" in games

In the species articles we have made, it has been somewhat of a standard to list the games they appear in. While I originally though this meant they were catchable, New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has brought it to my attention that he means they appear, which means that a player can trade it to a game where it isn't normally catchable. I think this is silly, because that would just be listing every single game since it was revealed, and isn't really informative to readers at all. Listing the games they are actually catchable in makes much more sense. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to list every single game, we can simply indicate to readers that a certain Pokémon appears throughout the whole main series. It is a single sentence and explains to readers the nature of the game and its recurring nature, while anyone who's only semi-aware of these nuances may be confused and believe that a Pokémon is unavailable in unmentioned later games. I think that to limit to only "catchable" Pokémon is only helpful to those looking for game guide information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned, but only for about one sentence and not focused on. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
So something like this?
  • They first appear in the video games X. They later appear in all subsequent sequels, but are catchable in x, y, and z.
I think this might work as an alternative. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems good. You've got to remember that the articles should be accessible by people who aren't Pokémon fans (who won't know about trading and the like) as well as those who are (who will). Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
That is why I didn't include games that they can be traded to. Because it is trivial and somewhat obvious to the people who actually care. Only the ones they actually appear naturally should be mentioned. If we go into any more detail then that, it's creeping on WP:GAMEGUIDE. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

{{TOCright}}

I went and added {{TOCright}} to the first two generation's Pokémon species lists and am about to do it to all the other lists. It frees up a lot of space and hopefully we might even be able to condense and merge some of the lists (here's hoping). Is there any opposition to me doing this? Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its a big change from what we are used to, but I suppose it helps. Freeing up whitespace does nothing to help the page's bit size though, which is the main problem. I think they have been merged enough. If they were to be expanded to their full potential, they might even require splitting into more lists(or possibly more articles if reception is found). Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it doesn't help the bitsize, but having more than half my computer screen filled with a Table of Contents and white space is never a good thing. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PokemonOfTheDayHunk

What did we decide on using "PokemonOfTheDayHunk"? His reviews/guides can be seen here. Do we have enough problems with PokemonOfTheDayChick that we wont even try adding this guy to our arsenal? If we could use him, there are a few species that could get a helping hand in reception. Although most of the reviews done are for species with articles already. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't use him, he's just a regular contributor and not staff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
[1] What about this guy? He doesn't seem to be the same person, and seems to identify as a part of IGN. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That is the same person. Although looking at the FAQs I posted, the person writing them seems to change. The last FAQs, Scyther, uses "miloticfan" as an email instead of the original "pokemonofthedayhunk" hotmail address. I think that proves that the account is sketchy and not to be trusted. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 Handbook

[2] - Does anyone live near any of these libraries? If so, it'd be useful if any of us could get our hands on it. It doesn't appear to be self-published, as both authors have done work for non Pokémon books such as Club Penguin and Star Wars. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to pick up a copy from one of the Brevard County, FL libraries in a few weeks if I head home for a bit once the college semester is over. But this would not be for several weeks. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I own it. I added references from it to Charizard and the anime characters list. If you want I could take a second look at it sometime. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Scratch what I said then, as the whole owning it solution seems much more convenient. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't sure how it would work for notability purposes. Tracy West writes all sorts of Pokemon books. I wasn't sure if it was considered "first party" or not. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's true that Tracy writes a lot of books about Pokémon, but she also writes books about The Magic School Bus, Ben 10, Club Penguin, Bakugan, etc. According to LinkedIn, she owns Pure West Productions, Inc. which "provides writing and editing services for the children's publishing community." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, thats good, cause there are 10 lists of 10. Best Fire types, Best Legendaries, etc. I will try to check it on Sunday if thats alright. School is crazy, and I am camping on Saturday. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What gens does it cover? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Just the first gen. lol. I got it forevers ago. It might have something about Togepi. It's really anime-based. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd say stripmine it for any reception on the original 151 and post the text here if you don't mind transcribing it...we should be able to at least get some meat on some bones out there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hopefully, we'll be able to get rid of enough of the Pokémon from the list so we can make a single list of Gen 1 Pokémon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I lied, it's up to 3rd gen. The Fire/Water/Grass lists consist of mostly starters. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say, how could there be a top 10 of Gen 1 legendaries? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I bought a Kindle book on Pokémon, and it discusses Jessie, James, Meowth, Ash, Brock, and Misty. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you give a teaser? Maybe show a couple of the lists so I can see what might be good to write next? :v - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, like I said, school is crazy, and I am going camping, so it might have to wait until Sunday. Like I said though, the lists are cluttered with starters. The top 3 fire Pokemon are Typhlosion, Blaziken, and Charizard. The top legendaries are Mewtwo and Mew. The book also has top 10 trainers, top 10 gym leaders, top 10 items, top ten Pokeballs, top ten battles, and top ten moments. This one source isn't going to "make or break" any articles though. They should be able to stand on their own with one source less. It includes stuff like Marill, Torkal, Tyranitar, and Cacturne if that helps. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

4 way evolution

What would happen if say Poliwag, Poliwhirl, Poliwrath, and Politoad or Tyrouge, Hitmonlee, Hitmonchan, and Hitmontop were all notable as a family/evolution line? Should the article be titled "Poliwag evolution line" or "Poliwag family" or what? Or should all four be listed by Pokedex number like above? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about asking this. I'd go with Poliwag, Poliwhirl, Poliwrath, and Politoed. In the case of Poliwag's family, the only reception seems to be for Poliwhirl (and some for Poliwrath), so you could might be able to avoid the situation and go with just Poliwhirl (or maybe Poliwhirl and Poliwrath. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd be safe to make Poliwag, Poliwhirl, and Poliwrath. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Harry, you can't make the argument that there isn't any reception for them. We never thought Machop, Machoke, and Machamp would have an article. I was just wondering, if there was a chance that all 4 were notable, what would be the standard for naming them? Because if we made a "Poliwag, Poliwhirl, and Poliwrath" article, it would end up having some Politoad info, and it might as well be split with them as well. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
While it may be argued that Scizor, Crobat, Probopass, and Steelix could be as extraneous, I don't think that it would work in the Poliwag line. Anecdotal maybe, but I rarely ever think of it compared to how much I think of the four above mentioned. Also, it's Politoed. :v - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Blake, I meant for now. If they later found sources then, y'know, they'd be added. If we work under the idea that "it might possibly in the future be notable", then Wikipedia would be a lot less encyclopedic. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I meant for later, not now. Of course only Poliwhirl would be notable right now. But in a weeks time, the three of them could be split. Their article will have quite a lot of content about Politoad, because Misty's Poliwag evolves into one, and Gold's evolves into one. It might end up being an awkward 4th wheel, but it could make more sense to include it then to not. It all depends on how much coverage it gets in reliable sources I guess. If there isn't any coverage, then of course it can't be added. I was just creating a preliminary discussion for future occurrences. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Types in split articles

I just realized that we don't have the types shown for Pokemon that are split unless one goes to their list section where they were split from. How should this be shown in prose?

  • Aerodactyl, known as the Fossil Pokémon, is a Rock/Flying-Type Pokémon that [...]
  • Aerodactyl is a Rock/Flying-Type Pokémon known as the Fossil Pokémon. It [...]

This would work in both the second paragraph of the lead(or wherever the species name is shown) and in the characteristics section. Anybody have a preference of which example above should be shown? Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

99 Pokémon split

What should be the 100th? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Poliwhirl is a good choice, because it for some reason was important in the beginning of the series. It was Red's first Pokemon in the manga, they gave it a lot of publicity in merchandise. Plus, it already has some reception and development info. I will continue to look for more choices for an epic article to split for the 100th. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Congrats on the ever-expanding, notable articles. I just looked at the information on Poliwhirl and I am curious where IGN checks their name derivations; I think that this evolutionary line's names are derived from polliwog and not the "pol" portion of tadpole as their guide entries contend. —Ost (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, all mention of species of basis that IGN has should be marked as being from IGN, I'd say. They are a reliable source and are therefore good for at least giving their viewpoint on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I wasn't trying to veto a RS with OR, but the derivation seems flawed. Noting that the information is from IGN should help, though I find it regrettable that the information looks like a fact in their guides. —Ost (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I vote that we go with Pichu. It's definitely been a long time coming. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Pichu; from what I remember, there was considerable development to make sure that it was well-received in both hemispheres. —Ost (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There, 100! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some reception for existing articles

User:New Age Retro Hippie/Pokémon reception - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is this separate from WP:POKE/R? Looks awesome though. "Magnemite, Magneton, and Magnezone" sounds like an awesome article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Because WP:POKE/R is prose, and this is links. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
And as for the Magnemite line, I'm not entirely sure that Magnezone fits in with Magnemite and Magneton. The links only cover the first two actually. I'm not sure that I have enough unique sources to cover the two, either. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Modifying the lists

In the event that we can split enough Pokémon into strong articles, I would venture to say that the final list should be formatted in a way to discuss the Pokémon as a species line. We would obviously give more emphasis to Pokémon not split, and use reception for only Pokémon not split. Before the list we would discuss the creation of this generation of Pokémon, and afterward, general reception of the generation's Pokémon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure. Each one is in its own right, a separate character. While they do evolve into each other, they are not "forms" that they freely change inbetween. Doing this may cause much controversy/chaos, and could be interpreted as WP:OR or WP:UNDUE or something. It's overall a fair idea, but probably not the easiest or best way to go about making the lists better. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that since the Pokémon are designed to resemble each other (or in the occasional exception become completely different), it does not give undue weight. If you're arguing that it's undue weight versus the split articles, I disagree, because a Pokémon that is split is inherently more important to be mentioned in greater detail. If we discuss, say, Ekans and Arbok as one section, we can remove a lot of redundancies that make the lists too big to be one. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Another idea to make the articles more compact would be to do articles for Legendaries by generation and Starters by generation. In my searches, I've definitely seen general praise or criticism here and there on starters and legendaries by generation, so it could provide a more focused area and cut down on the species list a bit. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Line articles

I'm making a list of Pokémon species line articles that will try to demonstrate a connection between the different species (if possible) by checking every URL used. Will post page when it's done. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I finished it. User:New Age Retro Hippie/Pokémon line articles Basically, if you think that an article works as is, indicate your support; if not, indicate your opposition. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur

I was curious of others' input on this. Should we make the Bulbasaur article a general article on the line? Personally, I think that it would be best to identify lines as one "character". While we should at the very least try to split Pokémon up when possible (such as with Haunter and Gengar), I don't think it's necessary to keep Ivysaur and Venusaur separate from Bulbasaur (which also rings true with Blastoise and Wartortle). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well...I've been doing some looking over of what articles we do have for the evolutionary lines, and a lot of them as of now have some serious problems, one of which being the reception does not actually link the characters together:
  • Weedle, Kakuna, and Beedrill: Weedle has some reception, but none of what it has really ties it to Beedrill. Kakuna is non-existent. Fleshed out though, Beedrill could stand on its own, while Weedle would need more reception and Kakuna should probably be back on the list.
  • Compared the above with Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot, which keeps reception on the line together and related, showing that you can't cite the real-world weight of one without the other and these work together as one article.
  • Rattata and Raticate: The former completely trumps the latter in reception, and a lot of what applies to it can't be applied to Raticate. However Raticate could be spun off, though it may still need an added bit of reception or two towards it.
  • Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat: Reception really could use some cleanup, but it's painfully obvious how tacked on Golbat and Crobat are, to the point that both really have nil reception tied to Zubat or stand-alone, and should probably be sent back to the character lists.
And that's just from starting glances. I get the idea here: get more out, get gen 1 down to one list and call it a day. But passing out inferior articles is just going to land up in another eventual culling, and we can't tie characters with lame duck reception together just because they're related. Koffing-Weezing and Abra evo line work as joint articles because the subjects are discussed in relation to one another consistently and/or the reception is inseparable and already shared between subjects. Right now...we really need to do some cleanup and re-weighing of what we have.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
While true that in a lot of cases one form trumps the other, I don't agree that this is true to the point where the above-mentioned examples have too much focus on one form than the other. Weedle, Kakuna, and Beedrill are related to each other in the sense that the article illustrates the species' growth. As for Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot, Pidgeotto and Pidgeot's connection in its anime appearance as a major character and the very similar design between the three should be adequate in allowing the three to remain one article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I added some more sources to Golbat and Crobat. Do you think that the situation there is better? I'm going to try and expand the Weedle/Pidgey lines too. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, while somewhat weak of a connection, Kakuna and Beedrill were released as a toy set. I don't think that it's too out of the question to consider the three of them at least weakly connected enough to warrant covering them in one spot rather than two or three. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently working on demonstrating that Zubat and Golbat work well together; I've encountered a couple reliable sources that discuss Zubat and Golbat as a duo of annoying Pokémon such as this one. I would venture to say that Crobat could be put back into the lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That may be best. I'm still not too keen when it comes to the Beedrill evo line though...the article's reception feels all over the place, with Kakuna more or less tacked on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a fair point; though while it's not accurately represented, I think that the Zubat line, especially Zubat and Golbat, are fairly connected. Zubat just has that much more information due to its comparisons to Woobat. Without that, the three species would have roughly exactly the same amount of content. Since Crobat is somewhat independent of the two it could definitely be split once it has enough content. But as is, the discussion in reliable sources that I've seen connects the three of them pretty well. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AOL's Comic Alliance

Is this a good source? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I used them for the Pokemon Apokelypse article awhile back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A "template" of sorts for Black and White Pokémon

Is there any way we could create a paragraph for Black and White Pokémon like is done with the first gen Pokémon? For example, in Mr. Mime, it discusses the general development of the species from Red and Blue that, while general, applies to Mr. Mime and discusses localization. I figured that since Black and White is so disconnected from the other gens in terms of Pokémon species, it might have some good information of that sort to include in species. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as it isn't fluff that literally applies to everything. What we used to have with the 2d sprites, and then 3D models, and they can only speak their name, blahblahblah was a huge paragraph or two of fluff that didn't need to be there. Try not to do the same thing. It should actually help the reader understand the species as an individual. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Main Pokémon template - not the one with all the species

Okay. The main {{Pokémon}} series template contains a large list of species. Lately, New Age Retro Hippie and company have been adding articles for a lot of Pokémon and it seems that the list is getting too big for the main template to hold them all. Should we keep a few essential ones like Pikachu and then have a link to the lists, or should we have links to categories, or should we remove that section altogether, or something else entirely? Tezero (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to chose which ones are "essential". We could link to the lists, since there aren't that many of them anymore. In addition to that, we should link to {{Pokémon directory}}. Then the main link to List of Pokemon. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

I am working on the List of Pokémon video games to bring it to FL status. I don't really know how to make a Featured List so can I get some assistance on the article? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it will be hard, and I congratulate you on wanting to take a swing at it. I would take a look at other featured lists of video games such as List of Wario video games, List of Donkey Kong video games, and List of The Legend of Zelda media. I used them to help create List of Yoshi video games with a high quality at the start. I am not sure how to go about cleaning up the PC and Sega Pico sections though... Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Jigglypuff peer review

I've nominated Jigglypuff for peer review. All comments are welcome. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

IGN's "Top 100"

http://www.ign.com/top/pokemon

They've started posting them...while the poll was the biggest piece of hogwash ever (seriously, why call it a fan poll when there's no real way to "vote"), there is reception to use in each page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So awesome. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll work from 100, okay? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears that they only got to 81. What kind of lazy people post a list before they finish it? :/ Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
They do that so it makes people visit over and over again. They do it with most lists of this kind. At least this means we don't have to devote an entire day's time to adding all of the content and can spread it out a bit more. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon articles

Do we need an article for EVERY pokemon articles? We currently have articles for Squattle, Jigglepuff, and Mudkip! Mudkip! Its not even a legandary pokemon or a Pokemon "legacy" like Pikachu --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion in Wikipedia is based off notability, not importance to the series. Notability is shown through coverage in third party reliable sources. The current articles show this. While some may be weaker then others, around half of the articles would definitely survive an AfD. I am not sure about the other half. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So are we gonna have an article for each an every pokemon that have "good reference". Also, I'm sure "notablity" is also dependent on importance to the series as well... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotta delete em all! for the request --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You are silly. Please do not mass AfD articles without actually knowing the rules of how Wikipedia works. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I do. And a bunch of Pokemon characters certainly is not notable!

Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png

At the very least its unencyclopedic. There is already a seperate Pokemon Wiki --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons hold no weight. They are notable for Wikipedia because reliable sources have covered them. By nominating Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, you are showing you obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works. It is a Good Article, which means it meats very high standards. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • For those who are unaware, this user's conduct related to this issue is being discussed at ANI. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
a. This is not a pointy nomination b. I think those Pokemon articles are certainly not encyclopedic. c. We already have a Pokemon wiki (bulpepedia) So is notablity simply deemed by the number of articles covering it? I beg to differ! There are tons of things out there that have tons of references but is not included. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You do realize that at one point, WP did have articles for each Pokemon (well, at that time), but since have parred down to the mentioned lists and likely 20-30 specifically notable species? --MASEM (t) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know if you have noticed, but we have been splitting more and more recently. We now have around 100 articles(Most of them being the original 151). Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can't we pair the articles down so as we can combine evolutionary lines? IE Evee, vaporion and other evolutions of evee would be one article, etc. So what decides what Pokemon are "notable" and what are not? Apparently you are not counting series notability --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That is because series notability has no matter in Wikipedia. Wikipedia writes articles from an out-of-universe view. Eevee is split from Espeon and Umbreon because what makes them notable, their Reception, is split. Charmander, Charmeleon, and Charizard all are split because their coverage is as individuals, not as a family. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How about Ekans and Arbok? Why are they combined? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
For the same reason. Their reception is as a family. Mainly from being Jessie's main Pokemon. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So what is the ruler for Pokemon articles notability? I'm pretty sure we are not gonna cover Kings rock and Psnberry or different type of Pokeballs... Professor Oak, is he notable? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How about Woobat or Slowking (he helped ash in Pokemon 2000? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability relies on coverage in third party reliable sources. Professor Oak is likely notable, but we haven't gathered the sources yet. Woobat is notable because it has gotten much coverage on being a clone of Zubat. Slowking likely won't be notable. It was a very short appearance, and he isn't really a popular character. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We definiately need a ruler to decide "Pokemon" notability? If not we are going to be overrun with Pokemon and ingame items like Pokemon (bicycle)]] and masterball, etc --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what you're talking about for having an article for 200 Pokemon? If you look here, you'll see that most of the Pokemon are in list articles for every 50 of them, which is completely within list policy. The Pokemon that have their own article, mostly Generation 1 ones, have had numerous reliable sources discussing them, which is why they were split into their own articles. For a random example, take the article on Scyther. Clearly this is more information than can be properly included in a list without violation WP:UNDUE. SilverserenC 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Each Pokemon and each game items, I'm pretty sure, is covered by tons of references. But that doesn't make it notable. So we are not considering in game notability? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
If the sources cover it, then yes. But they won't for things so trivial as that. A Mario power-up would have an article before Bicycle or Master Ball would. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
So we are going to cover all Pokemon items that are covered by sources? Pokemon bicycle over About 5,480,000 results hits. Also, I'm quite confused with Pokemon as it is not a "realistic" or tangable object so it would not be covered by news (the ruler I often use for Notability). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that does mean it's notable. "In game notability" means absolutely nothing on Wikipedia. We only care about real world notability, essentially that something has been discussed in reliable sources. SilverserenC 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Google hits are not reliable sources. How many newspapers, books, and reliable gaming websites (IGN, Kotaku, ect) have discussed it? SilverserenC 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
While there are 5,480,000 results in google, 99.9% of those are not reliable sources. See WP:VG/RS for a list of good sources. Good sources are magazines or news sites that have good editorial oversight. Also, the key word in WP:N is "significant coverage". This means more then a trivial mention, like "In Pokemon, you can ride your bike." It would have to be more like a couple paragraphs saying "Oh wow, the bike is so useful. Without it, the games would be very boring and it would take forever to get places". Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not quite familiar with gaming articles. I was throughly alarmed by the flux of Pokemon articles that are in Wikipedia/about to enter it. Also, we don't have an article on the legendary golems, the most unuseful legendary in the game... why is that? It seems notable, is it not? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources discussing the golems? Being legendary doesn't necessarily mean reliable sources will discuss them, especially since those golems were more secondary legendaries. SilverserenC 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a lot of references covering it... albit most negative as those legendaries are quite useless --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you link me to some of these references? Blake has a few below, but I wouldn't really call that a lot. Do you have any others? SilverserenC 19:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
At close inspection most of these turns out to be forums/other wikis. This is throughly a confusing subject. A "notable" ingame Pkmn is not notable in Wikipedia and vice versa. Also conventional sources (BBC etc) cannot be used. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, video game websites and magazines are not the only good sources. Stuff like the New York Times, and well known authors are good sources too. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
We rely upon reliable source covering the topic and we can't do anything if they don't. So, it's more of a failing of the gaming news structure than us, since they haven't covered anything about some of the legendaries. (Oh, and let me note that notable on Wikipedia does not mean the same thing as what you're trying to make it mean. Notable means that it has been noticed and discussed by news organizations and other groups deemed to be reliable. Essentially that it was important enough to note its existence and discuss it.) SilverserenC 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Not enough for an article because it is all scattered information about the 4 of them, but its a start. (btw, the IGN faqs are written by a confirmed staff member, and they are considered reliable) About twice more of this, and an article could be made. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I am going to be going somewhere soon and will be gone for 24 hours, but New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) should be able to help you if you want to learn more about how we make our articles, and why they are notable, and why the evolution lines are split the way they are. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I do think the pokemon articles have gotten a little bit liberal as to when an article should be spunout, specifically for splitting pokemon from different families. It seems that simply having 2 pargraphs of commentary seems to be enough. While it technically passes the GNG, I'd have to say that for this the GNG is probably not the best way to use it as in several of the cases I saw the commentary seemed to be essentially the same from multiple sources. That said, some like Charizard do have additional aspects that make them more notable.
Question: What is GNR? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The General Notability Guideline. SilverserenC 19:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an issue with Pokemon in particular, but given the number of Pokemon out there and the way Pokemon articles are handled, it seems haphazard which ones are lumped into a smaller group and which aren't; the commentary on all the ones I saw lumped together meet the GNG too. In addition those like Charmander and Charmeleon between them have about the same level of coverage as Ekans and Arbok.Jinnai 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the system is a little odd at this point, but many of them have only been split out this month. I think it is more of a working grounds while we search for more sources. Some articles may be merged back, and some may be split apart. For instance, Charmeleon was merged back, but somebody reverted and brought it back. Cubone's article used to include Marowak, but it was merged back into the list. Vulpix and Ninetails were in one article, but were split. It's all a work in progress. Remember, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, I'll just say that Charmeleon wouldn't work with Charmander. While a lot of Charmeleon's sources discuss the Pokémon in the context of Charmander, Charmander itself is discussed significantly as a separate Pokémon, and the two have enough content to thrive on their own. I'm sure we could sustain combining all three of the line's species, but I do not think it would be for the best. Ekans and Arbok's reception is, for the most part, linked; only a few sources for each form dicusses either one separate from the other.
    • Anyway, to Tyw7: for one, not all legendaries are notable. The Regis might be notable, but that cannot be determined at this time. Both Raikou and Suicune do not seem to be showing any usable reliable sources. And even Ho-Oh has been a pain to accumulate sources on. The point is that Smoochum and Girafarig have articles right now because there exists a certain threshold of reliable sources and size combination that makes the article worthy of existing. The latter two may not be very notable to the anime, video games, Trading Card Game, or manga, but that is very irrelevant - a subject is not made more notable by the actions of its creator. For example, if Pikachu had no sources whatsoever (highly unlikely, but hypothetical), we could not have an article on it, no matter how important it is to the series. We simply do not base our thought on the notability of a Pokémon in the anime or video games or what have you (though the extra content certainly does help and it's more likely that an important character will receive more reception). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Pokémon test for the most scathing and pointed reasoning for the current consensus for the articles. You think individual ones deserve to be deleted, nominate them individually. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest...I do think we need to stop cranking out new articles and take some steps back and really analyze what's been put out there, and do some cleaning. Yes it's nice and amazing to have so many individual articles back but the quality of the reception a lot of these are built upon is really bad. For example, Woobat: the entire reception section has little to do with whether or not it's notable itself, but the comparisons to the pre-existing Zubat. As a result I'm going to go with merging Woobat into the list, and bolstering Zubat's reception with that information (which is already there). And that's just one example.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Of the articles split out, I don't see that many that are lacking in significant commentary. Could you give specific examples of this? I admit that some of them are not up to snuff, but I don't think that very many qualify as "really bad". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm getting four-some books in the mail that cover Pokémon, so I may be able to strengthen some of the weaker articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
We also need to define a rule or something about which Pokemons are notable and which are not. Just because a Pokemon is covered by many sources doesn't make it notable? In that case, are we gonna write about a pokemon that have little to non screen time but have huge number of sources? The number of Pokemons are expected to rise to the near thousands in the considerate future. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 09:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The rule is that individual Pokémon must be notable and pass WP:GNG. If a Pokémon gets little to no screen time, we would still have a lot to write about from the reception. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
More specifically, if the only info out there for a Pokemon is its game related factual properties, even if repated by 1000s of sources, that doesn't make it notable. For fiction, notability of characters should be about how they were developed and how they were received by reliable sources. And that part needs to be significant. If a Pokemon species passes that test, then yes, we can have an article about it. --MASEM (t) 10:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The main problem right now is that very few of these articles have reception sections showing why the character in question is important as a fictional character, not just a gameplay element. Comments like quips saying they're memorable can't really suffice for a full sentence's material, and really it doesn't need to be re-iterated to death that publishers so-and-so consider a Pokemon to be "one of the best of its type" when outside of the context of the games that holds diminished water (I'm looking at you Diglett/Dugtrio). When you compare their reception to say Mewtwo's or Charizard's, there's a drastic difference in terms of quality of just what's being said here. We need to regroup and do some cleaning something fierce.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a fair point that I had not thought of. I spose I just wanted to get the first list into one badly enough and become the "standard". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon games only released in Japan

Should we merge Pokémon Battrio, Pokémon Mystery Dungeon (WiiWare), and Battle & Get! Pokémon Typing DS into one list article? I feel like they aren't really notable enough for a whole article, and as they are only in Japan, they don't have reception we can find. Although simply merging to List of Pokémon video games would cause much of the information to be cut. Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Battrio and Battle & Get could probably get enough references, whereas the MD game could be merged into a general PMD article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That is true. Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, while it looks like a disambag page, is actually a series article that is extremely lacking in prose. I will work on beefing the article a bit, starting with merging that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox VG character}} appropriate?

Something Jinnai said on the Fictional characters WikiProject's talk page got me wondering whether {{Infobox VG character}} was appropriate for the Pokémon characters. While for some characters they're most prominent in the games and any appearance in anime, manga and films are just promotion or unimportant one-offs. However, characters like Pikachu make me wonder, as Pikachu is, IMO, a lot more prominent (or at least, as promnient) in the anime than/as he is in video games, and it seems undue weight to give him a infobox for video games characters. The same thing applies for Meowth, Brock and Misty, really. I can't think of a good reason for keeping the VG infobox on Ash Ketchum's page though, as far as I know he's only ever appeared in one game, and one that certainly wouldn't be big enough to eclipse his anime appearance.

I see three ways around this:

  • 1) Switch all characters to the ordinary {{Infobox character}} (however, this template could risk some people adding fields not really needed for a Pokémon article)
  • 2) Make case-by-case choices on which infobox to use (probably always going to be a bit subjective on characters like Pikachu, though)
  • 3) Make a {{Infobox Pokémon character}} (may not be enough independent Pokémon parameters to justify its own template, however)

The other choice is to simply leave as-is. It's not too big of a deal after all, as long as the infobox has the correct parameters (Portrayed by, Created by, etc.) it doesn't matter too much. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the choice was ultimately made by Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs). We had separate templates for Pokemon species and Pokemon characters, but they got unused, and then deleted/moved. The species template was archived here, but the character template got deleted. I am sure it could be revived if we got a consensus though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I can see why the species infobox was deleted (almost all of it was cruft, and once you remove that you get about a single parameter), and if we do make {{Infobox Pokémon character}} it should try and cover both species and normal characters. The trouble is, I can't really see enough stuff unique to Pokémon worth noting that really justifies it's own infobox. That said, even if we don't get a new template or go with option 1, though, I definitely think we should change Ash's infobox to the animanga one. He's not really a video game character, even if the series he comes from is mostly connected with video games. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The main reasoning behind the VG character infobox is a simple one: this is where the characters originate, and is the most straightforward way to represent them. Doing it case by case would result in just problems and arguments of which characters really transcend their media, making another template would introduce too many in-universe elements that could be argued as cruft or confuse a reader unfamiliar with the source material, and the generic character infobox would result in the same information in the same thing, since there's not much to go beyond what's already used in the VG character boxes. Nintendo's Mario for example can be argued to have transcended the original game he appeared in, but VG character still ends up covering everything you need to know at a glance.
Also, Ash is a representation of Red from R/B/Y, still making his original character the video game character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The player character in Red and Blue is called Red. He appears again in Gold and Silver, which makes this moreorless "official". Ash is based primarily off the video game character, so video games play a deep part in his early development, but Ash as a character as a whole is an anime character, and as far as actual video games go, he is in no way a video game character. Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 22:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree. While Ash is still a video game character in part, the article discusses the anime character more than anything. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding whether Ash = video game "Red", you have the Satoshi Tajiri interview in which he compares "Satoshi" in the anime to "Satoshi" in the games as if they were the same character:
"Tajiri: No! I really look up to Miyamoto-san. In the TV series, Shigeru is Satoshi's master. In the game, they are rivals. Shigeru is always a little bit ahead of Satoshi. "[3]
On the other hand there isn't much to argue that they aren't the same character save for diverging plotlines, but that exists with different incarnations of every character (Superman comics vs Superman anime, for example). As it stands it's an odd case that Nintendo isn't entirely clear on other than a few choice lines. And at the same time it begs the previous matter of does any other infobox really add anything of significance? All the necessary basics are still covered.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I agree that Ash is Red more so in Japan then they are worldwide. I also agree that what infobox is being used is of little importance, and if they are to be uniform, then I think the VG infobox would be best. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Species articles

We currently have 20% of the Pokémon species split off. I find this a great accomplishment. I think we need to work on expanding them to be more worthy of being split. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pokédex 3D

Currently redirects to Nintendo eShop. Come on guys, I’m sure you can do better than that. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if there was something to write about it, I am not sure where it would go. It can't be its own article, because it simply is not that notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I threw something together at List of Pokémon video games#Pokédex 3D. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


I don't know how reliable some of these sites are, but here you go:

I hope that helps. SilverserenC 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a subject like this is yes, sometimes you have a topic that satisfies WP:N, but doesn't always have enough to say on the subject to warrant its own article. A footnote could be added to the online store that it was the first release and what it does, but a full article is hardly necessary.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If you say so. It seems to me that there's enough sources and information to make at least a Start level article. If not C. SilverserenC 05:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There would not be nearly enough information to make a good article. It might could go in a Pokédex article if we had one. It should be find in List of Pokémon video games. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Bumping this section as people have recently created an article, which I redirected for the reasons above. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White

I feel like Pokémon Black and White would easily pass for GA, but I am sort of hesitant on nominating it. I don't feel like I have the time to work on everything that gets brought up to fix. Would anybody be willing to help with the process? Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Checklinks shows a hell of a lot of 'suspicious' or 'dead' links. Those will all need to be fixed before any nomination if it is to be successful. The overall article looks good for the most part, that nonwithstanding. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Pokémon Company

The The Pokémon Company article could really use a lot of work. I tried fixing the first part of the lede to make it flow better, but I still feel like the introduction is too long. Any suggestions? Anyone willing to contribute? cReep talk 07:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job guys!

It seems that your project has helped create new pokemon entries like Gyarados from the pokemon lists. Before, there was a massive merge of not so good Pokemon articles after the Pokemon test was rendered obsolete. I'm really glad that this WikiProject has matured a lot since then.--Lenticel (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! For some reason we found it easier to find reception these past 2 years, even if some of the sources were written a couple years before. Although many new sources have also popped up, and we have grabbed them and put them to use. There are some articles split out which are somewhat "on the fence" and will probably be merged if a few more sources aren't found, but I for one am proud that we went from having 5 species to 20% of everything(including Gen5). Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat

This is something that's been bugging me for a while since the flood of new species articles we got awhile back, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it till now. My problem is that several of the articles are propped almost solely on the utility of the subject in question in relation to their particular games, namely the article here. Outside of how the characters are in the games there's next to nothing of actual character reception. Really all we have there keeps saying the same thing: "these species are powerful in the games, and Zubat was annoying to run into constantly". However as fictional characters and reactions to them, there isn't much if anything, which is what the bulk of reception should fall back on.

To paraphrase, telling people these three are tough is something any player's guide can say. The reader isn't given any reason for these characters to be notable outside of their games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

...so nobody cares if these bite the dust? Because really I'm leaning towards merging them back in until we can get some real reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I care, but I am not sure what to argue other then I don't see why their reception has to be out of universe praise. A film maker is not notable because the press covered him out getting coffee, but because of the critical acclaim of the film he created. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the article. Similar comments from reviewers, so long as they aren't identical comments (per an Associated Press article, for example), doesn't decrease the importance of those reviews or the notability they confer. It just means that there are certain features or comments that stand out about the subject, so most of the reviewers comment on those points. Again, I don't see the issue. SilverserenC 03:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
My problem is 99% of what's said there for each species is about the gameplay. Them being "strong contenders" and "abundant" in the games says really very little about them as fictional characters. There's at most one or two sentences per species that has nothing to do with them within their games. This isn't telling anyone why these characters are important, it's imparting game guide information at this bulk. How are they significant as video game characters? They're strong at early stages, plentiful, and people said such? Heck in that logic I could write an article about the 10mm pistol in Fallout 3, granted I had enough people to cite.
To someone that's never been familiar with this series at all, how does this tell them "these stand out from the series"?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. It's partly why I was resistant to Caterpie getting mainspace all those months ago. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to side with redirecting back to the list. Generally, discussion of its affects on gameplay should stay, but be condensed to a line mentioning the significance of this to the Pokémon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
.... You are saying that significant coverage from 20 reliable sources does not make this trio notable? I think you are drawing a line where there shouldn't be one. I will agree to merging articles like Goldeen and Shaymin, but this is ridiculous. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You've done a great job of showing why they are notable in the context/environment of the Pokémon games. No one is disputing that. What is severly lacking, however, is the context outside of the games and franchise. Notability in the outside world is what determines whether the subject is notable or not. I could use twenty different walkthroughs to reference an article, but that says nothing of its actual notability in the real world. And that notability is what determines the status of an article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
So what kind of source would actually make it notable? You are making no sense. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Basically, a reference demonstrating real-world impact. Nothing there really takes it outside of the franchise. If Zubat was listed among a list of "most annoying characters in video games", that'd be a source to help make it more notable. However, as it is, all of the sources are discussing how good they are or how annoying they are in their own series. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to side with Blake on this one. The article is notable because it's recieved media attention - whether that be as a "really annoying video game character" or as a "Pokémon character with bad gameplay". – Harry Blue5 (talkcontribs) 14:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue here is whether or not it's significant if it doesn't cover outside of the games. Mewtwo, Pikachu and others end up clearly examined outside of their titles, with character and design analysis at the basest form. To someone that's only watched the anime though or never played the mainstream Pokemon games and only has a base knowledge of the subject, this tells them nothing other than, again, it appeared a lot and had strengths/weakness as a gameplay element in just those games.
This tells the reader very little if they wanted to know about the character the article is about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Where exactly is this policy that requires characters to have coverage outside of their series? I mean, I understand that makes it a stronger article, but it should not be required. Like I said, lets focus on the articles with really weak coverage overall, instead of narrowing it down like this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I posted some info on WT:VG, but suffice it to say that the info does for reception does not seem to give notability when put to scrutiny. The sites do not seem to show a level of 'significant coverage or their coverage is not discriminatory, ie they cover every pokemon in which case there's no way to discern what pokemon is more notable. The latter is similar to a television guide that gives a brief synopsis of every television program. That doesn't show notability.Jinnai 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have asked for clarrification on how to use the sources at WT:N#Pokemon and discrimination by sources when they cover so many pokemon from a single title.Jinnai 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012

Does he need to include other quotes from the series in his campaign? Hcobb (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, his writer using a quote doesn't really put it under this category.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuzzy tree

Is fuzzy tree a relevant redirect/dab page? I don't see it mentioned on Sudowoodo and I suspect the source was Google Translate: [4]Ost (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking Pokémon: The First Movie to Good Article (GA) status

Hello, my name's Nineteen-Eightyit(s). I've recently improved and expanded the article Pokémon: The First Movie, and I wanna take this one to Good Article status. There's currently a peer review for it. What should I do to get it to GA? 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 04:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review link: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pokémon: The First Movie/archive1 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Just popping in to comment, the first thing I note is that the lede should be expanded to be a full summary of the article. It's a bit short at the moment. SilverserenC 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Ofcouse, I will do that. And Thanks! 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 16:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
See this link: [5] 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 18:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And another "diff" link: [6] 9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a much better lede, yes, good job. SilverserenC 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why can't we put English names on Rival Destinies

Because as of 12 February 2012, we do not have all of the English names for the new Pokémon or characters. Really, who thinks that the names of the Unova Gym leaders, Pokemon, and city names are not known in English yet. Black and White have been out for almost a YEAR.--1966batfan (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Please note

Regarding Pokemon Black and White Rival destinies page :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon:_Black_%26_White:_Rival_Destinies_episodes I changed ref [1] and added the word "trailer" as the link does not lead to the Pokemon company it states but instead leads to a youtube page which has very little info about the show beyond the trailer. I wasnt sure if this was intentional but it was certainly misleading, can someone pls check the link is the 1 intended and not a replacement someone has substituted, ty. despoiler

The title you changed was the title of the actual video. Adding "trailer" is unnecessary. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pokemon games glitch article?

I was wondering if there is an article associated with WP:Pokémon that is focused purely on any glitches found in the games, weird but interesting things in pokémon or even something similar to a pokedex or section that has information on the games about IVs and EVs and other such stuff like that. Also would like to know if there is anything I need to do to join this project? (Lunashy (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

For joining this project you should add your name in the participants' list at the project page. Moreover, MissingNo. is an article that's based upon a graphic error in the early video games.-- Pg 6475 TM 11:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful information Pg 6475. I didn't know that to join a project you had to just put your name in the list, I thought it might have been some thing like sending in a request and wait to be accepted, anyway, thank you again. (Lunashy (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC))
Hi, Wikipedia has strict guidelines on content, and game-guide information, or very detailed information about the subjects is not allowed. So a list of glitches, or a "Pokedex that shows EVs and IVs" are not allowed. Go to Bulbapedia for that. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Blake, with the list of glitches, is it fine if it is a page the is a list of articles such as missigno. or does missigno. class as a species of pokemon not a glitch? (Lunashy (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
Not quite sure if I get your point. There are no other Pokemon glitch articles besides Missingno. If one searches "Glitch Pokemon" or "Pokemon Glitch", Missingno. is first on the results, so it is not exactly hard to find. One of the other results is Pokémon (video game series), which has a small "Codes and glitches" section, mostly populated with Missingno info. Eventually, more notable, sourced, glitch information could be located there. Other then that, no list or article solely devoted to glitches is needed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of creating an article on a glitch in pokemon yellow, I'm unsure if it is in red or blue, but the glitch doesn't really have a name. which is why I was wondering if it was ok to create a list and to create article on glitch about pokemon because I wanted to add to the pokemon project with a bit of my knowledge about glitches I have found in game or on the internet.(Lunashy (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC))

Poké Ball.svg

It was determined on commons that File:Poké Ball.svg is usable again. It can be hence used on stub templates and etc if desired. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White manga

List of Pokémon Black and White chapters I have started this project in an attempt to add the new Black and White manga into the Pokémon Projects. I do know it needs to have the Japanese information added and if anyone could fix the title it's all in italics and it shouldn't be that'd be great. Swifty*talk 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The manga that page refers to is part of the Pokémon Adventures series, and belongs in List of Pokémon Adventures chapters. Although for some reason, I can't find any evidence of that fact. :( Just letting you know. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it might have belonged to one of these two: Be a Master! Pokémon B & W, Pocket Monsters BW. Swifty*talk 04:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, the art style and writers are completely different people for those. The manga focused here has the same art style, same writer, and same publisher as Pokemon Adventures. I just can't find anything that links them together other then those facts. Blake (Talk·Edits) 06:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't even find the Japanese versions. LOL! The only thing that states they are is Bulbapedia but we don't use that as a source on here often. Plus that seems to competitiony if you ask me using a Wikipedia knock-off as a source. LOL! It doesn't even post the Japanese version what the heck??? Swifty*talk 06:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think, each Pokémon Adventure should've been separated anyway cause of WP:AS. Swifty*talk 06:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Score errors

Hi, I have recently been disgorging the contents of a review-rich issue of Famitsu and I have noticed something strange. So far there has been a total of 4 times when the magazine disagrees with the score Wikipedia already had listed. In one case there was no ref for the claim at Wikipedia so I just changed the score and reffed it. But in the other three cases, they all had reliable refs that backed up the claims. And strangely, all 3 of these scores are for Pokemon games (the 4th score wasn't a Pokemon article). I'm not quite sure why that would be unless it's just a weird coincidence. I'm hoping that someone with more expertise in Pokemon issues than I can look into this for me. I've brought up the three conflicted scores at their respective talk pages here:

Some of the potentially relevant essays I've found include:

I can provide scans for the Famitsu articles I have access to, but if any of the issues need to be cleared up by using such scans then I'd like to get this taken care of as soon as possible. Thanks in advance, -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It was probably some annon who changed them to be better then they were. Did the sources shown actually support those scores? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah they did. As I described on the talk pages for Snap, Stadium, and Ruby/Sapphire (linked above), the factual conflicts are between a 2006 collection of Famitsu reprints published by Famitsu and either contemporary third party reports from RSes (IGN articles from 1999 and 2000) or "Situational" RSes (The Escapist article from 2010). The details of these discrepancies can be viewed at the respective talk pages, but the gist of it is that if I had the original Famitsu score I wouldn't hesitate to correct the 3rd party error, but since all I have is a reprint collection published in 2006 I'm unclear on whether the error is Famitsu's or IGN's/The Escapist's. That being the case, and per Wikipedia:Conflicting sources#How not to handle conflicting sources, I don't feel comfortable simply deleting the old RS source without some oversight by people who know more about the subject than I. Any help here would be most appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It bothers me that the discrepancies are all Pokemon related because the only other consistent element to the equation is the fact that the discrepant source is Famitsu in all 3 cases. This suggests to me that Famitsu is likely to be in error here, but at the same time it seems like they'd be the better authority on their own prior scores. So I'm torn. Anyway I'd really like to wrap this up soon so I've posted a link to this question at WT:VG. Thanks to anybody weighing in. -Thibbs (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Famitsu reprinting its own reviews" is more reliable IMO than "IGN reporting Famitsu scores". Use the scores in the Famitsu magazine and update the references accordingly. Salvidrim! 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Salvidrim. I'll go with that then unless anyone objects in the next few days. -Thibbs (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
OK I've made the changes. Thanks for everyone's help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Pokeconvert

So among the bunch of templates i created for use here, one of my more ambitious {{pokeconvert}} has made it's way to TFD due to a lack of use. The original idea was to use it in order to simplify infoboxes and lists, removing the need to lookup information externally. If you guys would like to use it, please comment on the TFD. otherwise it will be deleted. i don't really contribute here anymore, so i have no vested interest, but u may not have been aware of it's existence or flexibility (if requested i could easily add the more current pokemon to the template as well). any responses requiring action by me should be directed to my talk page, thanks! --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD notification

Pokémon regions has been put up for AFD, which can be found here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Pokémon

May I nominate List of Pokémon for featured list?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistence in List of Pokémon parts as well as in stand-alone articles for specific Pokémon

Hi! While some Pokémon such as Bulbasaur and Venusaur have standalone articles, others such as Ivysaur do not. But those Pokémon that have no stand-alone articles like Ivysaur are descripted more detailled in the various parts of List of Pokémon like List of Pokémon (1–51). You see there is some inconsistence.

If you check history of the stand-alone article of Ivysaur, you see that it became merged into the List of Pokémon because it 'doesn't have any solid reception saying why it is notable'. I can't agree with that argument because if you check the last version of the individual article of Ivysaur, you won't find any significant difference in description of reception. The choice of which Pokémon are allowed to have a stand-alone article and which ones are only receiving a more detailled description in lists of Pokémon appears to be taken subjectively. There is a lack of any system and clear definitions when reception is big enough. It appears as if either the stock of stand-alone articles for specific Pokémon or the sections in the various lists of Pokémon are incomplete.

I would like you to bring some system into both. If some types of Pokémon have stand-alone articles, others with similar reception need to have them too. Or as an alternative no Pokémon is having a stand-alone article. In the lists of Pokémon the grade of detail into each section of a specific Pokémon should become adjusted. I would suggest to treat all types of Pokémon the same way because then we have a clear definition: Pokémon or not. Thanks in advance, --217.227.116.78 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ivysaur was merged because editors brought up a point that it doesn't matter how many sources talk about the subject, but they need to talk about it in a way that makes it feel important. Most of it is just talking about how Ivysaur is an awkward middle child, and was lame in Brawl. A species of Pokémon should have an article if it is shown in reliable sources to be important to the series. Gyarados arguably does this much better then Aerodactyl does. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Pokedex

FYI, someone has proposed to create a Pokemon Index project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pokédex -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Pokémon universe

Ncboy2010 (talk · contribs) created an article in March, Pokémon universe, which covers the "fictional continuity" of the series. Right now, it looks sort of odd, and is an awkward content fork. Here is what I propose:

  • Merge the Pokémon regions article into here. The AfD was pretty weak and unsure of whether this article should really be a full article. I think this suggestion improves the situation.
  • Maybe move some elements of the series that are less gameplay-oriented.(Pokémon Gyms, Pokédex, and Pokéball come to mind.) My only concern with this is that people searching the Gameplay article may be puzzled to find that these subjects are not in that article, so a summary of the strictly gameplay elements should be included, omitting the anime and managa info, leaving that for the Universe article.
  • I am not sure why the "works" section is there, and think it should be removed.

If this proposal fails, I suggest that Pokémon universe be redirected to Pokémon regions. Although I think universe is the better name for the article, and the merge should happen. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This should be in a Pokémon (franchise). There should be a List of Pokémon media for the "Works". Perhaps Pokémon regions can be standalone if enough reception exists. The rest, history, gameplay elements, etc. should be in a franchise article. Salvidrim! 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Pokémon (franchise) sounds more like Pokémon. The "Works" is List of Pokémon video games, episodes, and volumes. What I think Pokémon universe should be is more of Universe of Pokémon, similar to Universe of Kingdom Hearts and Universe of The Legend of Zelda. The gameplay elements should stay in Gameplay of Pokémon while the plot, setting, etc are in "Pokémon Universe" or "Universe of Pokémon". Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Podkamennaya Tunguska River in the Japanese releases of the main series Generation I games and their Generation III remakes

So I had added this to Podkamennaya Tunguska River without thinking twice but then decided to ask it on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Russia and the conclusion that it isn't meant for that article was reached by both parties and that it would be better to ask here. I just deleted my addition to the article.

My question is: to which article(s) covered by WikiProject Pokémon should this be added? Basically, it's that in the original Japanese releases of the main series Generation I games (Red/Green/Blue/Yellow) and their original pair Generation III remakes (FireRed/LeafGreen), a Scientist on 6F of Silph Co. during the Team Rocket invasion indirectly mentions Podkamennaya Tunguska by claiming that the company has a Russian branch in Ponaya Tunguska (ポナヤツングスカ, Ponaya Tsungusuka). This was altered for the English localizations, where refers to the branch as being located in the Russian city of Tiksi instead.

Also, I don't have his Japanese dialogue from before the battle but do have from after it. Here it is (as in Generation I): ポナヤツングスカ してん? ああ⋯⋯ ロシアの おくの ほうだよ. The equivalent English dialogue is (again, as in Generation I): TIKSI BRANCH? It's in Russian no man's land!

Damn, forgot to sign the post. 85.246.176.112 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall, it is trivia, which is discouraged, and really minor trivia at that. It doesn't add much to the article, and should not be added. If it was more then a passing mention, and there were third party sources discussing it, it may have been different. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I see. At best, it's speculated that it was changed to avoid controversy related to the Tunguska event of 1908. But that is just speculation after all. 85.246.176.112 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing information on the Development section about Gold/Silver

The Development section of Pokémon Gold and Silver is missing information prior to 1999, such as the games' release being originally scheduled for late 1997 and the names clearly announcing the games as sequels to Red/Green, "Pocket Monsters 2: Gold & Silver". 85.241.123.122 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Generation 6: Pokemon X and Y

I've just been checking Bulbapedia and Generation 6 is being released the games will called Pokemon X and Y, I'm not sure what could be an official source but anyone who has CoroCoro or any other manga magazine can back up bulbapedia--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on the new games, though it's a little sparse at the moment as so little has been officially announced. The actual games were announced on the official Pokémon website(s) anyway, so no need for any translations yet! BulbaThor (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I believe we also have articles on the new Pokemon, if not we need to do so as there are currently 5 whose names, appearances and types and other small tots of information has been release. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Last generation was a bit messy, so doing it nice and clean this time would be nice. I say we go ahead and create List of Pokémon (650-). Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem would be towards how would we number them with having any references to do so? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Project SPR

I have made a project to help promote Super Pokemon Rumble to FA status.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 13:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on Reshiram, Zekrom and Kyurem

I would like to try creating an article for Reshiram, Zekrom and Kyurem in my userspace; by now, they've probably been covered enough by sources to pass the notability guidelines, and gathering enough sources for the article will verify whether that's indeed the case. Are there any procedures to follow for making the article and passing it by admins to see if it can be moved to the mainspace? Eh! Steve (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You can nominate an existing draft or user sandbox to Articles for Creation by adding the template {{subst:submit}} to the top of the user page. This will place it in review and if passed will be moved to the main space. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation for more info. Salavat (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's the article in progress; the infobox doesn't seem to be working, is it supposed to be that way for userspace pages? Also, is there a way to allow other users to contribute? Eh! Steve (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The Infobox seems to be working fine, what do you mean? Also, anybody can edit it, just like any other article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 07:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not Slowking?

So I randomly stumbled across the Slowpoke and Slowbro page and I was wondering why Slowking wasn't part of it. Its essentially another evolution type for Slowpoke so it feels like its lacking. GamerPro64 06:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To be completely honest, the article's sources don't support it as a stand-alone subject. It's discussing them as a game element, not as fictional characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree. It is pretty weak. Would be fine with a merger. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article for Poliwhirl

Poliwhirl is a Pokémon species that has been particularly promoted in merchandise and was, indeed, once a toothbrush -- or so someone told me, so I ended up on the second List of Pokémon page. Poliwhirl's section there was better than the other ones I looked at, and so I got thinking about making it into its own article. So, voila, I copy/pasted it and added a bunch of sections headers in my userspace.

What's there isn't quite enough for an article yet, but I think it's on its way already -- though I am a bit edgey because of all the individual Pokémon articles there already are. The "lead's" also hardly ideal as well right now, I think. However, I must admit that Pokémon isn't exactly my most knowledgeable area; and if any of you have any comments, suggestions, opposition, or anything else, they'd be appreciated.

Poliwag and Poliwrath should probably be kept separate, if it is split out. Not many sources discussing either of them. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

While it does have a lot of things that others do not have, I would keep it as one of the better sections instead of making it one of the not as good articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hello.

I'm here to invite you to the Pokémon task force on WD.

For now, the main task is to find and link every pokémon or group of Pokémon. First generation is done and we are doing the second one. 十月 三日 (^o^) Call me Ju (^o^) 09:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Pokémon in Pokémon X and Y

Someone has taken it upon himself to singlehandedly create the page, disregarding several policies and guidelines across the project. I've seen items that appear to be copyright violations, mistakes in Japanese names copied from various fansites that have been wrong, not using the Hepburn system, and originally titling the page to use numbers despite the fact that numbers have not yet been given. I would like for the group here to begin working on it so it's not just me yelling at him and him getting upset because he does not realize the problems his version presents.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Scyther and Scizor and Smoochum and Jynx

Looking for opinions about the topics that can be found here and here. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Denno.ogg

image:Denno.ogg has been nominated for deletion on health grounds. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also some discussion on the inclusion or not of the video. Opinions to form consensus are appreciated.-- cyclopiaspeak! 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon regions cleanup

We'll need to work on incorporating necessary relevant information into other articles such as, say, Red and Blue, the anime, etc. Another relevant topic is the use of the region images - I don't feel any of the region maps should be featured in place of their real-world inspirations. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The region images are more relevant to the discussion than a map of the real world inspiration. You cannot replace one for the other. Both have their relevance.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't about replacement. The inclusion of real-world images in an article is not harmful because the images are relevant and free use, and therefore the only concern editors must have is whether they look good in the article. Using the in-universe region maps are relevant but they are not fair use. Fair use images should not replace free use images, and as was established with Pokemon Black and White, the gameplay screenshot shows the comparison. Having fewer images accomplish more things makes the image rationales stronger and reduces the number of fair use images. In other situations such as Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire, there is no strong rationale to include the region image as the exclusion will not create confusion for Wikipedia's readers. The similarities can be discussed using free-use text and images. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese names on Pokémon Origins

There's a bit of nitty-gritty over on Pokémon Origins over the use of Japanese Pokémon names over the established English ones, the argument for using the Japanese names being the special hasn't been released in English yet, whilst really, the established English names which have been used over a decade, should be used, rather than alienate English speaking users by having them look up who each of them are. Wonchop (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument is simple. If it's not out in English, English language names shouldn't be used as it is discussing the events in the Japanese version.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Scyther and Scizor

Someone who knows how to create a good image with the two characters could put an image in this article? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I would, but I have this jank MS Paint that doesn't work with transparency, and that's it. Tezero (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Channel

Does anyone have, or know where I could find scans of, print materials relating to Pokémon Channel? I'm preparing that article for a GAN, and I need Nintendo Power's review (January 2004 issue) and any other previews or reviews that they or any other magazine might have published. There are two users on that one page who claim to own that issue, but they're both on indefinite Wikibreak. Tezero (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've done the article fine without them, but it'd still be more complete with them. Tezero (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating transcluded table

I've noticed that a table on the Pokemon (anime) is out of date, but I can't update it, as it's transcluded and I can't find the original. It's the one under the TV Series subheading, and it currently states that BW: Adventures in Unova and Beyond is the current international season airing, when it should be XY. I believe the international version of Adventures in Unova and Beyond has 20 episodes, as the extra two were not broadcast like they were in Japan. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone understand Polish?

[7] I need someone who can properly translate this URL. Seems like a lot of good stuff (it was found in the reliable sources Google search so it's all good). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How about to try Wikipedia:Translators available#Polish-to-English? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging the lists

I think we need to work on making the lists into one article per gen. As it stands, there's no way that the lists as they stand could ever become good or featured articles. As such, I think we need to come to a consensus on how we want to accomplish the trimming that will be necessary.

In my opinion, our best bet would be to do a mixture of splitting and trimming content. Trying to condense as much content as humanly possible to a concept and creation section. For trimming, my suggestion would be to remove discussion of a Pokémon's role in the anime or manga unless it's significant. It would go further for Pokémon that have their own articles, as we can simply cover the base info. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, "good or featured articles". Ha, that's a joke if I ever heard one. I don't think there would be any way you could make the species lists GA/FA, and it isn't worth compromising real quality for a fake badge that says it is quality. But on that note, yes, the lists could use some quality workings. As for which Pokemon need expansion or trimming, I think it would be best to go on a case by case basis, or at least use some examples of what would be best to include/exclude. The best thing to do would be to expand/rework the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style/List page. You may also wish to fix up Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Style for stand-alone articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, I'd like to make the lists on a game-by-game/generation basis (e.g. Pokémon of Ruby, Sapphire and Emerald or List of Generation III Pokémon), which would then allow a concept/creation and reception split related to those games ("For Silver and Gold, Developer 1 decided to revisit X. New designer Blahblahblah was brought aboard to help.", "Critics reacted negatively to the new generation of Pokémon, believing them inferior to their previous counterparts. Critic Name commented..."), with a fair real-world basis.
However, given the sheer number of them (151 in the first generation), this may not be feasible. It would definitely take heavy cuts, more so on some Pokémon than others. Characters of God of War has all the characters in a bullet pointed list, which might be useful if we really want to do any condensing. Not without its flaws, though, so maybe not. Just throwing out random ideas. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather the list be the same format we've got now, it works better with the Pokémon than the regular list (like the Characters of God of War example above) does. I remember something about how the franchise can be split into three parts: Games, anime, and manga, so if that's true, we should keep stuff about all three. The developer stuff is fine, but we need to make sure we don't get too crufty with it. Keep the individual Pokémon articles if they're really well-known even outside of the community, like Pikachu and Charizard.
Okay, enough with the critiquing. As for the best way to sort them, my best idea is by type: there's 18 types for 719 different Pokémon (ignoring dual-types, that's slightly under 40 per type on average, although if I recall correctly there aren't any Flying-only) and they're a well-known classification. Dual-types would prove a problem, and I don't know how to handle that without creating a massive number of lists, having way too much redundancy, or having a small handful that are way too big. I dunno, it's just an idea. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The best naming scheme would either be to keep what we have now(numbered lists cut down in sizable portions) or a Pokémon introduced in Red and Blue. The only thing that needs be discussed is the inclusion guidelines of content. The best way to do this in my opinion would be to list examples on Wikipedia:POKE/list of what is considered fluff, and what is valuable information. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I say that before everything, we make a point of rewriting content to be less about their in-game biological junk. I'd be willing to take the gen 1 lists and do some trimming. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It also may be a good idea to do some sectional merging. ie, "Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur," "Caterpie, Metapod, and Butterfree." I feel that for a lot of the Pokémon, what we've got is stuff that really isn't worth mentioning, so the sections as is are going to be pretty small. While it's not ideal to combine sections, it's probably the best way to trim the content down and make them all worthwhile with one list. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't even understand what you are doing anymore. Why are you cutting everything down to a couple sentences plus reception?(which honestly nobody cares about, it's just there to validate notability purposes) At this rate, you might as well not even have a list at all. Unless you are doing one of those things where you remove all the bad content and then refill it later, but I don't see how that makes any sense. I was under the impression that the list sections should have just as much valuable content as the split off articles. The split articles just have extra fluff or in-depth information. In some cases, the list sections had information that was uninteresting or fluffy, so it could be removed, but with a cut of this size, you are just making the lists have no value and you might as well get consensus to delete them, not nominate them for GA/FA. Again, if you are just purging to make room for new, better content, that's cool, but you are removing content created by yeeeeeeaaars of people's accumulated contributions, so I can't say I approve. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'm not removing content just for removal's sake. The content, pretty much, was bad; a lot of it was just trivia. However, we need to make an attempt at merging the lists after the removal has taken place and then expand, so we know how large the article can be made. We also need to come to a consensus on what constitutes a significant role in the video games or anime. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Further, the reason why they had to be stripped down to one or two sentence paragraphs (in some cases) is because that is all the worthwhile content there was. For example, most of the things said about either of the Nidoran lines is either biological trivia or that Giovanni has one in the games, which is borderline gamecruft. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Side games?

Are we mentioning side games here? Conquest, Gale of Darkness, the Ranger games, Mystery Dungeon? I noticed they aren't linked on the project page, and I don't know if they should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle S Brown (talkcontribs) 21:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

All Pokemon-related stuff, including the side games. I'll get on linking them on the project page, but it'll take a while. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pokemon barnstar?

My idea for this project's barnstar

Hi all, I noticed the other day that this WikiProject doesn't have its own barnstar, so I decided to make a prototype of one (I'm not very good on MS Paint, but it gets the point across). Any thoughts? Better ideas? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait, just stumbled upon a different barnstar (actually along the lines of another idea I had. Never mind.

Redirects from foreign-language versions of Pokémon names

Apparently there are a lot of redirects out there from foreign-language names of Pokémon, at least some of which seem to have been created by a bot. I'm discussing one, as a sort of test case, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 23#Otaria (Pokémon). Your input there would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Pokémon Trading Card Images in Articles

Hello! I have noticed a lack of Pokémon Trading Card images in articles about Pokémon, e.g. the Charizard article does not have a single image of the card despite its popularity. Is there a reason for this? If not, what are the guidelines for clicking a picture of the cards and uploading them to their respective articles? I look forward to hearing your comments! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Pokemon cards are copyrighted, so unless we can demonstrate a reason to put it on (like the back of a Magic: The Gathering card on the respective page to show what it looks like), we can't have it. If you can scan a low-resolution picture of the back of a Pokemon card, that'd be great IMO, but we can't have a bunch of card pictures laying around for minimal reasons. I think WP:FAIRUSE might be the guideline you want. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply User:Supernerd11. What I am wondering is can we have a picture of the appropriate Pokémon Trading Card for each Pokémon article. For example, could we have an image of the Charmander Trading Card for the Charmander article? I look forward to your reply. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anupam: A few should be fine, but having one for each Pokémon would probably be a little excessive for Fair Use. I'll be off-wiki from a few hours from now til late Sunday for my senior trip, so I unfortunately won't be able to help you any more anytime soon.
By the way, if you want to call someone out like I think you were trying to do, you can use either the template {{ping|Example}} or put the username in double brackets like [[User:Example]]. That'll leave them a notification, so they'll come back sooner. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Supernerd11:, thank you for your reply. I am aware of the notification format although I usually do not use it. I hope you have an enjoyable senior trip and it works out fine because I would not be able to start the uploads for some time anyways. When I am able to, I will let you know and we can work together on them. Take care, AnupamTalk 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anupam: Sounds good! I won't be able to be as active as I am now come summer, but I should still be able to help out with whatever. Good luck! And yes, it was quite fun! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 11:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reassess Eevee Article

Pretty sure it isn't a "Start" article anymore so I recommend someone re-evaluating the page. And probably the Klefki article as well--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Klefki has mostly third-party sources (not sure about the Polish(?) or Japanese refs), but the article's still pretty short, so a solid C-class. As for Eevee, I've been editing it a bit too much lately to do a reassessment for it. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've assessed Eevee as C-class. It's not bad; I'd call it B-class if it was better-sourced. That shouldn't be a difficult exertion; you could do well to scrounge up some sources for everything and put it up at WP:GAN. Tezero (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

Reminder to keep an eye on these articles for the next week or so, as fans migh insert wild guessing and speculation. KonveyorBelt 03:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We should consider getting them semi-protected. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection should not be used preemptively, but I agree that we should keep close watch on them and if there is too high a volume of vandalism, then semi-protection would definitely be a good option at that point. Artichoker[talk] 04:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pokémon (4th nomination)

This deletion discussion may be of interest to this Wikiproject, and / or it might prompt some interest in working on the portal. BencherliteTalk 10:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just speedy close it like you did the one for this WikiProject. Shausa is trolling.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Expansion into other WMF projects?

Following a discussion at the WikiProject Council about WikiProjects expanding into other WMF projects, I've decided that we could really do some good at WikiNews with the upcoming Hoenn reboots (and whatever else comes up about Pokemon in the news). I'll be really spotty for the next few months for when I can get on, otherwise I'd start myself, but just thought that it'd be a good thing to bring up here. With the base we've got here, it shouldn't be too hard to expand into most of them, but WikiNews seems like a good place to start. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Third version merger proposal

This is the same as has worked for Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 merged into Pokémon Black and White as well as Pokémon Crystal into Pokémon Gold and Silver. With the exception of Pokémon Yellow that is not merged into Pokémon Red and Blue because it is the "Special Pikachu Edition" and more closely follows the anime so its a separate game and not just a third version. Much of the content can already be inferred into reading the main two paired versions, seeing as how the gameplay sections and a handful of other statements in the articles is a restating of what has already been stated. As evidenced by the Crystal and Black 2/White 2 sections in their respective predecessors, Emerald and Platinum having being split out into their own articles only adds more content to their articles based off of restatements of what is already stated in Ruby and Sapphire and Diamond and Pearl and can be taken for granted as part of the paired versions and therefore the extra article space does not any more allow for the coverage of these games as separate titles than if they were sectioned off into the paired versions respective sequel sections. Merging the articles down so as to allow coverage of them as having added new features but still not being a repetition in whore or in part. This does not discount any third versions status as a separate game or remake or third version, considering how reading into anything that is new that has been added to the game would make no difference as to how the content is conveyed either as a section or a separate article. Thoughts? —Mythdon (talk contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. As I have said on the "Black and White" talkpage, "Black 2 and White 2" do not have an article because I believe nobody has tried hard enough to make it so. The fact of the matter is, yes, if there is enough original content to make a new article, then it generally should have one. Most of Pokémon Platinum is original content that is distinct from Diamond and Pearl. As for Emerald, I am not sure, as I don't have enough time to look in detail at it. But please try to keep this discussion constructive and not focused around "what happens to one should happen to all". Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the notation that Black 2/White 2 do not have their own articles stems from that there has not been any serious discussions or edits regarding them having or not having their own articles. Most of the plot summary in the Platinum article as I can tell is actually that of what was originally introduced in Diamond/Pearl so the notion that Platinum has mostly original content is primarily due to whatever content is in relation to the Diamond/Pearl article that is extended upon or flat out not included in the Diamond/Pearl article where that information actually belongs and most of what is original content is in conjunction with the development and reception of the game but is otherwise mostly what either belongs in Diamond/Pearl or is extended upon from Diamond/Pearl. I was using Crystal and Black 2/White 2 as examples of how the sectioning off approach has worked in the past, no reflection of its own as to whether the other articles should be sectioned off. Yellow is in a similar position with Red and Blue as Diablo II: Lord of Destruction is with Diablo II as that game added enough of its own game content and features to warrant it being a separate article beyond merely it being an issue of size and therefore it must be split. Size wise those pages actually take up less article space than a lot of expansion pack or sequel articles we do have on video games. This is indicative of how this discussion is not seeking out the mere technical process of "these pages don't have their own articles, therefore these shouldn't have their own articles either". I just feel as though these certain pages are only their own articles based off of the fact that the repetitions/elaborations contribute enough to their article size that it would appear as though they have more of their own content than they actually do. Remakes (a la Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, etc) are a different story as those non-main series games serve as part of an all new generation and introduce certain game concepts and aspects such that it would irrelevant to the base of the original games to include all their (original) content in those articles, no matter much changed the feel of those games are from their Game Boy counterparts. As such, merging these pages would refocus all their content to where it is supposed to be and this should become the standard for whatever future releases are in the Pokemon "[Color] Version" game series, depending on the context of the merge and the assessing of the originality of the content of the article. —Mythdon (talk contribs) 05:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The plot section means little in whether it is a different game or not. The development and reception are completely unique to Platinum, as well as the "New features" gameplay section. I think the plot/setting section could probably be expanded, and does not even cover most of the changes that are made in Platinum, and only briefly goes over what it does cover. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC:This WikiProject should be deleted

Closing frivolous RFC. WP:GAMECRUFT only applies to articles, and Wikiprojects devoted to improving notable content don't need to be "deleted". Artichoker[talk] 05:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

violates WP:GAMECRUFT.09:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats a pretty compelling argument. I guess there is no choice but to shut this project down. Salavat (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
2edgy4me Tezero (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leaflet for Wikiproject Pokémon at Wikimania 2014

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PokémonS Marshall T/C 10:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible new articles:

  1. Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions
  2. The Pokemusical
  3. Those cheesy but awesome albums like Totally Pokemon.

--Coin945 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

New Article: Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions

I have recently created my first article Pokémon: Symphonic Evolutions and would like to ask for the article to be reviewed. This article may soon undergo copy-editing to improve content further. Lucasstar1 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for information

Hi, everyone. I know there was a debate a few years ago about whether extensive information about trading cards, battle tactics, movesets and so on should be included in articles, with the consensus being "no". Can someone with more knowledge than me point me to the discussion? Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Pokémon up for GA reassessment

Pokémon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. On behalf of @DragonZero, czar  10:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles

Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon Crystal and Pokemon Black 2 and White 2 articles

I'm thinking of creating these. Would anyone be interested in helping out? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you've considered this, but why would they stand up against re-merging this time when they haven't before? Tezero (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think B2/W2 got a fair shake originally, and neither one of them had me try to find a gaggle of sources (mostly kidding :P). I definitely feel as though B2/W2 should be made into an article though. I'm sure that there is stuff to add about development, it definitely got attention from reviewers (who likely discuss the idea of the first direct sequel), it has a new story (which could make one, perhaps two paragraphs), and if I recall, it has new gameplay elements to discuss. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with B2&W2 having a separate article. I can contribute with a review infobox. For now I'll put it under the B&W article but then you can move it for your new article. Expect it by the end of the week. Jotamide (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages in Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles

Does anyone know why all the pages listed at Category:Top-importance Pokémon articles are talk pages instead of article pages? Seems a bit strange. Jodosma (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Jodosma, that's how all articles in all WikiProjects are categorized by class and importance, as far as I'm aware. It's because the WikiProject banners are placed on talk pages, not articles, and these banners include code to add whatever pages they're on to the appropriate categories. Tezero (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)