Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 6

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


Noticed the page was getting longer that perfered and archived it. Feel free to restore anything needed. Alvin6226 talk 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: FFA and "Things to do until Saturday" are NOT archived. Alvin6226 talk 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD nominations

Skarlotte (talk · contribs · count) nominated Dialga, Parukia, and Pokemon Diamond and Pearl at AFD. These seem to be bad faith noms: please help! TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

All this person has done is nominate things for deletion...seems fishy. I also find it irritating that he/she suggested it be translated into Japanese. Like it's so easy to do that. >_> How the hell could people read it if it's in Japanese?
The AfD for Diamond and Pearl has been closed. Speedy Keep was the result. Dialga abd Parukia are still open though. -Sukecchi 21:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
AfD template is not even on the Dialga and Parukia talk pages... Alvin6226 talk 05:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
They've all been speedy kept -Zappernapper 06:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Category:Frontier Brains could and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'll be getting to it when I've got enough time; I got Template:Frontier Brains deleted already. The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 06:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what is this?

Cleanup of specific Gym Leader and Elite Four articles?

There are a bunch of Pokémon articles, such as Steven Stone which feature lists of Pokémon and their levels. This is simply not encyclopedic content, so how should it be dealt with?

Also, I feel we're in need of an image cleanup here. Articles like Phoebe's represent the person in question by a fan-made image. Is this actually deemed acceptable when it leaves no credit to the people who created the image? --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend cleanup as per the Gym Leader articles. Merge the first four from all games into List of Elite Four members. As for the Champions, we can have a List of Pokémon Champions. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of listing their Pokémon with their levels and their attacks, how about just the Pokémon so the reader can more or less see that each character is pretty much single-type oriented? --SaturnYoshi 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't even think that listing all their pokemon is necessary. In a conglomerate article we can simply say, "Steven focuses on pokemon with high defenses that are either of the rock, ground, or steel types. These include Aggron, Cradily, and others." Talk a little about allusions to his father being the head of Devon and move on. And no, Tetsuya-san, Phoebe needs a real anime or at least GB screenshot, i'm bad with the photos, and couldn't even find Phoebe on serebii's char. bios.... so someone else will have to find something... -Zappernapper 06:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be okay for someone to just crop the picture of her at the bottom of her page. That one seems to be an official one. --SaturnYoshi 14:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of WP:PAC/S

i've noticed there are many things we allow for in the various articles, but are not supported by our own style guide (the most glaring example is the simple use of "Biological characteristics" in Bulbasaur). We either need to review and update the style guide we wish everyone to follow, or make a concentrated effort to at least bring all articles up to speed in form and content, not necessarily quibbling over grammar or sources (e.g. half the articles have "biology" and "appearance" sections and the other half are split between "Characteristics" and "Biological characteristics"). then in many other articles content is strewn in various locations, not following PAC style, and different articles refer to "In the TCG" or "In other media" PAC says "In other media" but i prefer "In the TCG" as it seems most other people do too, perhaps this should be updated in the PAC? comments? -Zappernapper 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things:
  1. Not everything has to be totally the same. While these are similar topics, they are not the same, and there is no reason to be totally prescriptive over everything.
  2. "Biological characteristics" makes much more sense than simply "characteristics" to me, so I'd support the style guide echoing this.
  3. "In the TCG" is there when we can have 2 or more paragraphs of TCG. Otherwise, we use "In other media". Ditto for other similar ones (theoretically, if there was one paragraph for "In the video games", we'd want that merged into "In other media" too).
Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for you feedback Celestianpower! I agree with you that Biological characteristics is more descriptive. However, i disagree with your reasoning for why all pokemon (species) articles do not have to be the same in content layout. If each article was a bunch of paragraphs of prose, then perhaps I could side with you, but since we are dividing things up into Intro. and Bio. Char. we should maintain a standard throughout everything. If you were to look at different species of animals in a reference, you'd find the intros relating the same basic things over and over, and each species should have things in the same order. Here on wikipedia i suppose it's impossible to make sure even every mammalian species is set to a standard, but we are dealing with a very finite and relatively small number of articles. Since you (and others) wrote a majority of the style guide, i feel apprehensive about making changes to it. Would you be willing to look it over a maybe bring it a little up to date so we have something more solid to refer to? -Zappernapper 00:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to change it yourself. We can always fix anything :). What you want to do so far sounds great, though! Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Petalburg dab

The new dab is located here, and as a result, the trivia section of Petalburg City was removed. This actually falls under WP:NIN's purview due to its coverage of a Paper Mario game. I wanted you to know because this dab was long-needed since PM:TTYD came out. Before, it would have been OK to just provide a Petalburg Woods link in the Petalburg City article, but when the Paper Mario town was revealed, a dab was needed in full force. It took 1.5 years to get a dab of some type running. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken Links

The site appears to have gone down and been down for awhile, so I began to go through the first 20 or so Pokemon articles, removing the External Links to Smogon. I don't quite have the time to do all 380+, so some of you good folks might want to get on that. --InvaderJim42 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it, but what if the site gets back up somehow? Alvin6226 talk 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, DON'T work on it... I just now checked if Smogon is up again, and it is. I feel like an idiot now for having gone through and removed some of the links, but I'm sure it can be easily rolled back to previous versions. --InvaderJim42 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Concept for types

I have created an idea that takes all 18 types and assigns them logical colors.

The following is a listing of the colors involved in proposal 1:

Water: #0F2B5B Ice: #6BC9DB Grass: #076D54 Bug: #8CD600 Fire: #E5053A Fighting: #F74902 Ground: #6D3321 Rock: #544726 Electric: #E8DD11 Normal: #ADAFAA Dragon: #602144 Psychic: #9E2387 Shadow (for XD and Colosseum): #512D44 Dark: #30383A Ghost: #666D70 Poison: #353F5B (blue, due to three uses of purple as color) Steel: #26547C

TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we used to use colors in the old style box, but not anymore. Then again, that was just to signify what colors were which on a shiny pokemon. Toastypk 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and for color conflict, I use a pink for psychic, a purple for poison, and a dark puprle for dark. Maybe a black for Shadow. Actually, it looks like a lot of your choices are wack... blue for water, green for grass, cyan for ice. Bright purple for Dragon... I just go by the official color code. Here, I just copied the color hex from the game icons:

NORMAL #A8A878 FIRE #F08030 WATER #6890F0 ELEC #F8D030 GRASS #78C850 ICE #98D8D8 FIGHT #C03028 POISON #A040A0 GROUND #E0C068 FLYING #E0C068 PSYCHIC #F85888 BUG #A8B820 ROCK #B8A038 GHOST #705898 DRAGON #7038F8 DARK #705848 STEEL #B8B8D0 SHADOW #403246 Toastypk 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What would the colors be used for? People might begin to complain if we start coloring these words in the articles. They might call it crufty. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
And Shadow isn't a type. Seeing as how any Pokémon has the potential to be converted into a Shadow Pokémon. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think they're referring to Shadow-type attacks like Shadow Rush. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
While we're at it, here's the hex value for Curse's attack type, ???: #68A090 --Brandon Dilbeck 00:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article images

I just noticed that the main images for Latios and Latias had been removed due to not having any copyright info. Wouldn't this info be the same as the other Pokémon? I'm not sure how to go about re-adding them, but could someone take a look? --SaturnYoshi 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. But they're not from Pokémon Elite. What do we do when orphanBot discovers that we've got the source wrong? The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, we have at least 7 days... --SaturnYoshi 15:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, couldn't we just use the original pics that were used and add the copyright info to them? This is so that they could be the same quality as the other Pokémon articles. --SaturnYoshi 16:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Waterwerm & Psyworm & Wormking

Can someone who's more knowledgeable about the Pokemon Universe check these 3 articles? They smell like a hoax to me. exolon 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Even if they're not hoaxes, they have no content. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


It says Pokémon breeding should be merged into Baby Pokémon, am I the only one who thinks it might be better the other way around? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

this page was still around? changed it back to a redirect to Pokémon breeding

Pokémon ability

This article has been nominated for deletion, just though I would let you guys know. TJ Spyke 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD - Pokemon_Natures

A heads-up guys - Pokemon_Natures is up on AfD here. Appears to be an orphan article, however, with only one major editor. LinaMishima 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Help Me. thank you.

umm... hi im dont really understand exactly how to join the Pokémon Collaborative Project. can someone help? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ??????????????? (talkcontribs)

Simple. Just create an account and add your name to the list. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 15:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Means here. Add your name by typing three tildes, like this ~~~ --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ribbon addition

I inquired about three Barnstars (1 of which I created in concept). The Poke Barnstar ribbon's already done:

The ribbon.

I'm waiting on 2 more to come in, the TV Star and the Barnstar Star. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 18:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Alvin6226 talk 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad yall like it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub cleanup

I am currently reviewing Category:Pokémon stubs and listing articles that are extraneous for deletion.

After the first overview, I have found:

are fit for deletion. The following stubs are fit to be merged with the second article in the sentence (X into Y means X is being merged into Y):

The following articles need some work:

Get crackin'. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah!!! I've been doing the exact same thing as you. See my page for a list of pages I've nominated. Some of ours are the same, others aren't. Hybrid 09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many pointless articles?! Why are there so many unexpandable stubs?! This is my basic argument - This only played a role in one episode of Pokémon. It did not affect the plot and it is a stub that cannot be expanded. This article amounts to nothing but fancruft and does not belong on Wikipedia. - Almost all of the articles I nominate follow that description. This is why everyone is so pissed off at the Pokémon Collaborative Project. Of course, the other reason is that there is an article for every species, but that is necessary. My example, why does this exist, or this? Hybrid 09:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been playing Pokémon games for years and I have never heard the term Ooblegarf. I think somebody made this up just to be cute. -SaturnYoshi 10:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Same with me, so I nominated it for Speedelete, which worked. Hybrid 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tracker TV, with a mix of Bulbasaur and Venusaur, I think it'd only take a couple of days to get Ivysaur to GA standards. But now, I must sleep. XD Highway Return to Oz... 14:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

I reevaluated, and two more articles have merger concepts:

TrackerTV (talk|myWork|myInbox) 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to merge Mt. Chimney with Jagged Pass? And I don't agree with the Mt. Pyre merger. Hybrid 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Mt. Pyre merger cancelled. Jagged Pass will also get merged under the provisions of the revised Mt. Chimney plan. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hybrid 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Hybrid, Mt. Pyre needs to be merged into Lilycove City with a redirect, it is not near long enough to constitute it's own page. It plays only a minor role in an area, following this logic, the Radio Tower, and the Cerulean Cave should have their own pages (Cerulean Cave happens to be something you planned on merging). -Zappernapper 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
<s\>Well, I guess we think differently. I guess we should propose the mergers and let a concensus be reached. If you look at the discussion page you see that I do oppose the Cerulean Cave merger. Hybrid 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If anyone reads this, I don't care anymore, go for it. The Hybrid
oops, sorry, that was TrackerTV... btw, we're the only two voting so far.... course it's late... if you'd be so kind, would you mind putting your two cents in on the merger i've proposed here? quite a few people have been working on it, but none seem interested in stating why the page should remain. thnx for ur feedback -Zappernapper 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

PP discussion moved to Talk:Pokémon game mechanics.

SProtection of Pokémon

On an average, this article is vandalized anywhere between three and seven times a day, and over half the edits made to it are either bad-faith or reversions. Are these not grounds enough to seek sprotection? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here--these edits are harmful to the article, and may be preventing other editors such as The Raven's Apprentice from improving other articles because they have to keep hovering over the Pokémon article to revert vandalism. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm making a request for it. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I found at the talk page of WP:COMP the following template:


We have two rock-solid choices: Bulbasaur and Torchic, 2 featured articles. Choose one, please. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we should use Bulbasaur. He's the first Pokemon, so he should be our first example. -Sukecchi 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I choose Torchic, but please all go and choose Bulbasaur, they're both excellent. Highway Return to Oz... 20:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I recommend Bulbasaur, not because I made it featured, but because it's been through FARC and succeeded, it was the first to be featured, and is the first Pokémon in the Pokédex. —Celestianpower háblame 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Technically, we should decide on quality over order. Highway Return to Oz... 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, hence the FARC comment. It has also appeared on the Main Page. Torchic is a fantastic article, and kudos to you for getting it there, but there's no sense arguing about this - lets just pick one. I don't care which really, I just think Bulbasaur would be better suited. Kind regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also would recommend Bulbasaur. Bulbasaur's been around for a long time, so the article has a lot of material, especially in the "In other media" section. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bulbasaur. WP:CVG, our parent project, notes that Bulbasaur went to the Main Page. Torchic never did, though it is an FA. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also vote for Bulbasaur. -SaturnYoshi 04:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Bulbasaur has my vote. Hybrid 05:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And Bulbasaur's gotta be more well known than Torchic, so that wouldn't hurt. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Torchic better as a Pokémon, but Bulbasaur is the better article. Alvin6226 talk 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon TCG video game

i know it's obscure, but i was looking around and noticed that in our List of Pokémon video games the TCG video game is said to have been released on Mar. 31, '00. but on the main article's page it is listed as being released in the US on Apr. 10, '00. Which is it? -Zappernapper 19:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)'s Master List of GameBoy games has it listed as an April 2000 release. It didn't give a specific day, though. -SaturnYoshi 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Pokémon abilities

Does anyone know what happened to the list of Pokémon abilities article? It seems to have vanished, but the talk page is still there... It looks like A Man In Black deleted it, even though the AfD from last month resulted in keep. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, A Man In Black moved it to Pokémon ability and deleted the list. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Grr... how brazen. Toastypk 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted List of Pokémon abilities abilities due to the AFD from April. Apparently someone recreated it under Pokémon abilities, and it survived AFD, then was moved to List of Pokémon abilities. I deleted it as a recreation of deleted content, not knowing about the second AFD, then undeleted it when BD brought the second AFD to my attention. It had an awful GameFAQs-esque list of what each ability does, so I deleted that, but someone restored it because the article was indeed named List of Pokémon abilities. I removed the list a second time (We still aren't GameFAQs) and moved it to the current name, so nobody would be tempted to recreate the list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like someone was busy. -SaturnYoshi 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Help with pictures

I'm new here. I just uploaded pictures for Satoshi Tajiri, Veronica Taylor and Matsumoto Rica, but as I understand it they will be deleted if I don't state lisence... Thing is, I have no idea, I had those pics lying around for years... Help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAbuzzzz (talkcontribs)

I'm getting Veronica Taylor. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Never mind, my computer's having problems. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
you'll probably be able to still use them. You don't need the liscense, just to be able to explain your fair use rationale. Most likely these photos fall under the Wikipedia:Publicity photos rationale. See if you can at least find out who the orginal photographer is and just give them due credit on the image page along with a date. On the image page (provided this is true) you'll also want to state your rationale - something like, "I, ElectAbuzzzz, believe this image is being used under fair-use on Satoshi Tajiri for the following reasons: It is a publicity photo taken by John Doe on Jan. 1, 2001. It is being used for a non-profit purpose. It depicts the subject being discussed." See? not too bad. -Zappernapper 02:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I searched, but I can't find photographer nor date... I know for sure the Veronica Taylor pic is from her official site, but that's it... Does that help me? -ElectAbuzzzz 18:02, 8 Septemper 2006
sorry for the late reply, actually forgot about this discussion... *smiles weakly* you should be able to find copyright info on the site in regards to pictures taken from it. chances are they're gonna say you can't use anything, but they might not, especially if it's for non-profit/educational purposes. -Zappernapper 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Daily Foci Pokémon" idea

Today, I stumbled upon the focus letter template. Every day, the template generates a different letter. Currently, it's H, but tomorrow, it'll be I, and then J after that. I thought this might be useful for the PCP—we could use it to have daily foci (or "focuses", if you prefer) Pokémon. We could edit species articles that begin with that letter of the day. So today, we could focus on Hariyama, Hitmontop, Horsea, or Huntail, to name a few. This would give us different articles to work on every day, which might perhaps stimulate more rapid development of Pokémon articles. And maybe it could force us to stumble upon articles that we otherwise might not think of looking at. Of course, this wouldn't replace the current species article focus (which is currently Quilava). Am I clear on this? What do you think? --Brandon Dilbeck 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did some calculations; with 386 Pokémon, divided by the 26 letters of the alphabet, there are, on average, about 15 Pokémon whose names begin with any given letter. Of course, this can be higher or lower (Xatu and Yanma are the only Pokémon that begin with X and Y, respectively). Granted that the new games will raise this number to 500 Pokémon (which to me sounds plausible, at the current growth rate), this would be about 19 Pokémon that begin with any given letter, on average. Would 19 Pokémon be too many to focus on per day? --Brandon Dilbeck 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not too many people seem to have much to say about this. I suppose we don't need to be spreading our focus out this much. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New article focus discussion

The old discussion is a mess, with comments left over from when this project was founded. Additionally, we need a new article focus, since this project's articles on things that exist in the real world are terrible.

As such, I propose changing the main article focus to a thing in the real world (a game, a manga, an event, etc.) and the "Misc." focus including both Pokemon and in-universe concepts (like the Pokedex or Shiny Pokemon or whatever). People are judging us more on the quality of the articles about the really important stuff, and not on the quality of articles about obscure Pokemon (Quilava? Really?).

Any ideas for a name for the main focus? Any objections? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the banners Prime Focus for real events and Topic Focus for key concepts, along with a Species Focus for individual Pokemon? And to get us started, we need to keep reviewing our stub and expansion categories. The three articles I nominated for deletion a week ago are still not deleted. I also have some discussion items below. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 03:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like "Prime Focus" 100%, as it implies those articles would be our primary focus, and I don't think they should be. May I suggest Extant Focus for real-life Pokémon elements (or Existent Focus, if you'd prefer)? I think it should be implied that these things in the focus actually exist, as opposed to a Pokémon species or other in-game elements. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Review number 2 of stub and expansion categories

To be deleted:

  • Neon Town (has no significance, only created for an ep of the anime)

To be merged:

Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 04:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think we should create something like List of locations in the Pokémon anime, or something similar, to merge all these stubs of locations? I think they have enough notability as a list, over individual articles. Thoughts? Highway Daytrippers 14:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with each of TrackerTV's proposals for merging except for Phoebe. Every Elite Four member has had his or her own page—see Karen's section in Wikipedia:Pokémon test. And I approve of HighwayCello's idea of a list of all the locations in the anime. Don't they make up a lot of places in the anime? And the characters are usually there for only one episode, so there can't be much to say about each of those locations. Merging them into one list would prevent an unsightly array of dozens of stubs that can't be expanded. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
OK then... Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Elite Four members only have their own articles because nobody has merged them yet. They do need to be merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a list of Pokemon anime locations would work great for both us and our readers. And I suppose you guys have something in mind with merging those Elite Four articles. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
A list of locations would definatly make me happier, save me a lot of time, and make some poeple I've pissed off outside of here a lot happier. Hybrid 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I say we should have a list of locations, but also have articles for major locations (such as Pallet town, New Bark Town, Indego Plateu, etc.) 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

incorrect use of protagonist and antagonist in pokemon articles.

I have found that in many pokemon articles, the word protagonist is used as a synynom of hero, and antagonist like villian. These are incorrect uses, however, as protagonist is someone who makes an action, and the antagonist reacts. just thouhgt I'd let everyone know.-- 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, protagonist is the formal term for the central character in the story, and the antagonist is the main character's enemy. So, if a story were written about WW2 from Hitler's point of view, then the Allied powers would be the antagonists and Hitler would be the protagonist. As far as the Pokémon stories go, the usage that you described is the correct usage due to the point of view Pokémon is told from. Thanks though. Hybrid 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do Gym Leaders and Elite Four Members Deserve Individual Articles?

I don't think that every elite four member or gym leader deserves their own article. When they appear in the anime they typically appear for one episode and never appear again, and in the games they are there for one important battle and, aside from Watson, don't play a big role again. This does not warrant an article and is really nothing but cruft. I think that we should make a list of gym leaders article as well as an elite four members article. People have been suggesting this for a while and its about time we just settle it once and for all rather than continue to tip-toe around it. Since its almost guaranteed that a list of locations is going to be created, we should decide whether or not to create a list of gym leaders and a list of elite four members as well. Hybrid 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article for every single gym leader, but we have an individual article for every member of the Elite Four. I think we should decide if we want single articles or lists, since Elite Four members aren't more important than gym leaders. De Nam 17:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Really, the only Gym Leaders that would deserve an article of their own would be Brock and Misty, due to becoming main characters in the anime. -SaturnYoshi 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It already seems like all of the gym leaders are merged together (at least by region; Brock, Misty, and Giovanni should continue to have their own articles), and I think it would be a good idea to merge Elite Four members. But it would probably be better to do something about the rather large and unsightly lists (such as in Lorelei's article) especially if there would be a handful of lists that size in each of the merged articles. Oh, and would we merge them by region (Kanto Elite Four, Johto Elite Four, etc.) or all into one list, unlike what we have with the Gym Leaders? --Brandon Dilbeck 17:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And while we're at it, can we stop calling them "lists"? To me, it looks like one large chunk of prose, broken up into sections, rather than a simple list of traits or whatever. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, technially they are lists. We should probably have Kanto and Johto be one article and have Red included in that one, and have everything else be its own article unless they have another K/J type relationship. I don't think we should list their Pokémon anymore, seeing as this isn't GameFAQs; rather, we should provide links to sites that do. I wouldn't ever say that Brock, Misty, and Giovanni don't deserve their own articles, but no one else really does. I think that we should do this with the Frontier Brains as well, seeing as they are basically glorified Gym Leaders. Hybrid 00:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe List of Johto Gym Leaders is a model of how to present the gym leaders of any Pokemon world region. What we should probably do is have articles like this on Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, Shinou, and those other side regions like Orre, and in each article is a description about both each gym leader and that region's Elite Four and Champion. And keep the articles on Misty, Brock, and Giovanni as well. I think that setup would be none too overspecific and none too stub-list-like and would be appealing to even non-Pokemon-fan readers. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember, if characters only appear in one work, they should probably be handled in the articles on that work. The manga-only gym leaders, the Colosseum/XD characters, and so on don't need to appear in lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to merge the Elite Four members into the gym leaders lists (such as merging Kanto's Elite Four into the Kanto Gym Leaders article)? Of course, this would require us to rename the articles, which could be a problem. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I see separate articles on Elite Four and List of Elite Four members, the latter of which contains links to individual pages on trainers like Sidney and Phoebe: Definitely a problem there. So I guess we either merge the Elite Four trainers into the appropriate Gym Leader pages (and hope we come up with good titles) or we have the Elite Four page itself serve as the repository for info about each elite trainer. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 02:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That was the entire purpose of this suggestion, having all of the Elite Four members for a particular region being in just one article and not having a page of their own. The reason for this is, aside from Steven, it is almost imposible to expand the stubs. Also, I feel that these character's importance will be clearer when they are put together as one group. The same goes for the Gym Leaders, yes they have a fair amount of individual importance, but it puts everything into perspective better when they are addressed as a group. I don't really care if the Elite Four members are put into the Gym Leader article; I think it would help to get across the purpose for having both groups as well as the differences between them better than having the articles separate. This is especially true with the video games, but not everyone will agree with me, and seeing as they are two different groups I can understand why we would have them separate. Also, no one is planning on merging Brock, Misty, and Giovanni with these articles, so no one needs to worry about that. Also, I don't know anything about the manga so I'm just going to stay out of that area. Hybrid 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to say this, I think that the list of Johto Gym Leaders would be a great template for the articles, good sugestion. Hybrid

Category:Fictional ruins

I am going to CFD for this category because the articles in it have merger proposals listed above. The category is only populated by Desert Ruins and Ruins of Alph, both of which are under our watch. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD - List of Pokémon references or spoofs

List of Pokémon references or spoofs is up for deletion, you can find it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs LinaMishima 02:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment left behind

The following comment was left by IP on the List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number talk page:

==The useless paragraph in ALL of the Pokémon species articles==

What exactly is the point of having this paragraph:

The purpose of INSERT NAME HERE in the games, anime and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon, untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and tamed Pokémon owned by Pokémon trainers. the beginning of EVERY LAST ARTICLE on a specific Pokémon? Something like that belongs in the main Pokémon article, not repeated endlessly on the hundreds of individual species pages.

Does this person have a point? I think we should discuss this introduction; although I don't think the paragraph is useless, I don't think it's aesthetically pleasing—you run into it at the beginning of (almost) every Pokémon species article, and it's kind of a run-on sentence, with a lot of commas. Wouldn't it be enough for the readers to click on the Pokémon wikilink if they wanted to know more about what Pokémon are for? Any ideas? --Brandon Dilbeck 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's part of the Start template because a fictional character FA should cover the basic points -
  • How does it talk?
  • What does it do?
  • What role does it fufill?
And so on and so forth. But even if most articles won't be FAs, they are all going to GAs (hopefully) so I think we should have it because it's still required at GA and it's something that hits the Pokémon nail on the head. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(from the original poster of that comment...) It still seems kinda silly to say the same thing over and over like that; it's like repeating the definition of the word "dinosaur" at the start of the page for every dinosaur species discovered. And shouldn't the different Pokémon be classified as "fictional species" rather than "fictional character"? Very few Pokémon can really be seen as individual characters (pretty much just the legendary ones--Mewtwo and so forth. "Pikachu" cannot be considered an individual "character," for example, because the games and the TV show each have more than one Pikachu, and they're not identical. "Ash's Pikachu" would be a character, since it just refers to THAT Pikachu--just like how Homer Simpson is an individual character, but "Human" is not.) Assuming there *is* a seperate category for fictional species, that is... 02:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well it is part of the criteria for a Pokémon FA. Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 07:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Two items from TrackerTV

Pokestart template additions

Today, I added two new Pokémon to the Pokestart template, these being Ivysaur and Politoed. Ivysaur needs work, as it is the evolutionary form of one featured article (Bulbasaur) and is so bad, we need to fix it up, maybe make it our next species focus?

Name change

I was thinking to stay in conventions for most Projects' names, I was thinking of a rename to WikiProject Pokémon. The shortcut would likely be existing PCP redirect WP:POKE, we could also get WP:PKMN from the Pokémon test WPspace article and add a disambiguation note at the top. WP:PAC2 would most likely become WikiProject Pokémon Characters under this plan, using WP:POKC or WP:PKMC. Do you like this idea? Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 01:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

On shortcuts, I would go to RfD for WP:PCP, WP:PAC2, and WP:PAC. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. "Pokémon Collaborative Project" is long and may be hard for some to remember. "WikiProject Pokémon" is good because not only is it short and matches in form with other WikiProjects, but more importantly, it points out that this is not any ordinary project. It's a WikiProject. Do you think we could steal the WP:POKEMON shortcut too? The darn Pokémon test page took all the good shortcuts. I don't want to cause any confusion if someone intends to link to the Pokémon test page and ends up here instead.
How awful would it be if we merged the PAC2 project into this one? I don't think it would be a lot of trouble or cause any confusion, and PAC2's mostly the same and functions similarly except it focuses only on characters, which we already do a little in the PCP (like our discussion on whether to merge the Elite Four members). I think the character articles would get more attention if they were merged into the PCP. This renaming, if we go through with it, would be a good time to merge the Pokémon WikiProjects. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Pokémon is incredibly pumpy, there's too many odd strong consonants. Pokémon Collaborative Project rolls much better. Highway Daytrippers 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So, the new WikiProject Pokémon would be a merger of what is currently the PCP and PAC2. It would create a single WikiProject dedicated to Pokémon, not two with one getting the bigger half of the pizza. Got it? Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the name change, it makes sense to me to bring this in line with the other wikiprojects, even if I'm not a member. WP:POKEMON should remain, though, especially since it's been used a fair ol' ammount to refer to the test, and it has some historical value to wikipedia. LinaMishima 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I greatly dislike the name change, and would rather keep the PCP, but merge the PAC2 into it. Alvin6226 talk 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I also storngly disagree with a namechange. This non-standardised name was carried down from the PAC by Sonic_Mew and I've become quite attatched to it. WikiProject Pokémon just sounds ugly, ordinary and boring. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And we risk being mistaken for WikiPorject Digimon. It's 4 letters off. Highway Daytrippers 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... How about making it the "Pokémon Collaborative WikiProject"? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 07:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a little odd, since we do have Wikipedia: on our name. Sounds a bit unnecessary. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 08:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative WikiProject? Maybe not, good thinking though. Highway Daytrippers 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just thought it was better than "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon". Anyway, if you think it's not broken, don't fix it!! Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
PCP is cool enough by me. Toastypk 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Ack! Someone is creating navboxes to sort Pokémon by type. These are totally unnecessary, duplicate both the categories and the many lists, and clutter up already-cluttered articles. Is there anyone interested in speaking in the defense of these navboxes, or should I just send the lot of them to TFD? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Just TFD them as redundant clutter. —Celestianpower háblame 23:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, these navboxes are much better than the lists, and in my experience in working with WP:TVS, which has such navboxes that duplicate categories, I find that these boxes can do better than a category. Templates and lists can provide information that categories cannot. For example, a recent AfD for List of myNetworkTV affiliates (contrast with Category:MyNetworkTV affiliates) noted that the list can provide ownership information, digital subchannels information, etc. and stated that this was an example where a list could be better than a category. A local market television template can provide channel numbers and affiliations in addition to call letters (compare Category:Television stations in Phoenix with Template:PHX TV). The latter, a navbox template, can provide affiliations, channel numbers, and any repeater stations, while the category only holds the article and can't display such other information. For us, that would mean regions (as the Legendary template shows) and dual-type information (for type boxes). I would dump the 18 categories via CfD and keep the navboxes instead. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:TVS has a poor record of cluttering pages with ugly, useless navboxes. I strongly urge that we not repeat their mistakes. We should not be adding the kind of commentary that is useful for lists to every single Pokémon article, nor should we be cluttering pages when categories were designed to serve this exact purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've sent the lot to TFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a bunch more; they're all at the TFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit of a pity, as I filled in the Steel one, but yeah, they're not designed perfectly, and they are a bit redundant... this is what categories are for. When the new game's released, these boxes will probably get very large and cumbersome. Maybe it would be best to avoid that. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think they're pretty nifty... I'm getting sick of pokemon deletionists.Toastypk 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Like me and Celstianpower? ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly you. Sorry but I'm the complete opposite of a deletionist. Toastypk 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It's just amusing to hear me described as a "Pokémon deletionist". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Gotta delete 'em all! Sonic3KMaster(talk) 06:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletionist? That's not very nice, but we want to create good articles with a high standard. Navigational templates don't seem to be recommended anywhere in the confines of consistency between all articles. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I actually like them enough that I'm going to add their code to my user page, just because I have a thing for quick navigation like that. Plus they're probably going to be removed anyway... maybe then they'll exist on my own page and not have a category attributed to them. Ugh, I hate removing things from wikipedia so so so much.
EDIT 2: On second thought, the "Starters" one and maybe the "Legendary" one might be a little redunant since they encompass others already on the other lists. But the others are fine.
And for the record, Pokémon with two types are called "Duel Types", not "Half Types". -SaturnYoshi 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Dual types. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Duel is a battle between two people. Dual means having two components. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad. My keyboard is possesed... :D -SaturnYoshi 01:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You think that's bad? In my post right before yours, I almost submitted the comment with both words spelled "Duel". --Brandon Dilbeck 02:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Creature focus

Quilava has finished being focussed, and is at GAN, great work everyone. New suggestions should be noted at the top of the page. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Quilava is a GA. Well done all. Highway Daytrippers 15:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Controversial Pokémon designs

Category:Controversial Pokémon designs seems like it could be a POV hotspot very soon. I am worried about weasel words compromising this category. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And the eventualization that people will come up with their own "controversies". Also, given the backlash these few Pocket Monster's have already faced, I doubt that the list would get any bigger than what it is now. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I could see some use, Kadabra, Jynx, Houndoom, Mukrow. Their controversies all have some worth, so I can use of the category, as long as there is valid reference. And I know I mis-spelled Mukrow. Highway Daytrippers 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's like you were trying to say "Muukow"...  ;D -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur family

Ivysaur is now a GA, so only Venusaur needs GA, and then our first evolutionary family is up to standards! Happy editing, Highway Daytrippers 16:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Took long enough ¬_¬ Alvin6226 talk 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe you should try a GA then? Since it's sooo easy. Highway Daytrippers 07:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of Pokemon mini?

There's been an on-and-off edit war going on over at {{Nintendo hardware}} and {{dedicated video game handheld consoles}} on whether mini deserves to be on there. I would argue that Mini lacks one critical thing that all the other listed handhelds have - third-party support. However, I'd like to see what the PCP thinks of this. Hbdragon88 06:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the quality of a Pokémon Mini was similar to that of a Tamagotchi, so I think it would be the second one. It was never really a front running console, the graphics were awful, even for then. And you're right, there was no third party support. Mainly because Nintendo didn't give out dev kits to anyone. Highway Daytrippers 06:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel that the Pokémon mini ever reached Extreme Notability, as I have rarely ever heard of it. I don't think it'd be a huge loss if it weren't included in these templates. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It was this tiny console that floated about after Gold and Silver. The games were low quality reworks of classic games with Pokémon slapped on. It came in three colours. Highway Daytrippers 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I know what it is, it's just that I read about it once in a magazine article some while back and haven't heard anything about it since. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's half 9 over here. I would usually be out but I've got a day off to chatter about tiny consoles instead. XD Highway Daytrippers 08:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I am amazed. It's almost midnight here and I didn't expect any answers until I got up tomorrow. It had scarsely been five minutes with Raven Apprentice fixed the link in my original message and just an hour after that I get two responses. I like this project. Hbdragon88 07:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Charizard FAC

Charizard is at FAC, here. Comments welcome, Highway Daytrippers 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Integration with {{cvgproj}}

A request has been made at WikiProject Computer and video games talk to integrate the {{PCP}} template into the CVG header itself. The newly integrated template can be seen here: User:Hbdragon88/Temp. Thoughts? Objections? --PresN 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. But considering all the different projects it would be nice if the to-do list could be tailor-made to fit each one. I know the idea of adding a To-Do list like the CVG one to our own PCP template has been brought up on this talk page before. -Zappernapper 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better for all the projects. WP:PAC2 may be merging into the PCP, so... myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhapsody in drew deletion was not good....

Alright, I know it looks like a copyvio of bulbapedia, but if an admin checks the dates, they'lle see that bulbapedia's was added after it was cvreated in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It got deleted? Hurray!!! At least someone could remove that abomination, even if I couldn't. A link to the AfD would be helpful, I want to relish the fact. :D --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 06:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea what this person was talking about, at first. It seems that there was no AfD; according to the deletion log, "A Man In Black deleted "Rhapsody in Drew" (more Bulbapedia copyvio - see" It seems that's convinced that this isn't a copyright violation and is lodging a complaint, wanting it back. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lodging a complaint? Where? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 08:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
you know, this is why we don't just go around deleting random pages - especially when they've survived two AfD noms.... no one else can check out the page once it's brought to their attention, isn't that part of why we have AfDs? i read both discussions and feel like i can't make any determination, one side says it has good info and needs a little expansion, and the other says it reads like OR and is stubby. I'm not sure where i stand on episode guides. I suppose only notable ones are worth mentioning - some shows are so good that almost each episode desrves critical commentary, but Pokemon is not one of them - even less so as the series has progressed. But i should point out that the chemistry between Drew and May is the only thing right now the show has going for it IMO, so if ANYTHING deserves an article it's most likely going to be this. Rather than giving over an article devoted solely to the single episode perhaps we could have an article of the episodes that detail this "blossoming romance." I dunno, i don't really feel too strongly either way like i said i'm mixed, but it would have been nice to see the article myself so i could've judged the quality of writing. -Zappernapper 11:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The last thing we need is a series of articles on shipping. Unless they can be sourced, which they can't. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If anywhere, the info could go into May's article, if it's not there already. But Zappernapper has a point; the article's survived two AfDs, A Man In Black has removed it, saying it's a copyright violation, and insists that it's not a copyvio, and that Bulbapedia copied from Wikipedia. Too bad I myself can't check the Rhapsody in Drew article for edit dates or references, as it's been deleted... --Brandon Dilbeck 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"Shipping" ??? i think ur using some slang i'm unfamiliar with... but like i said, i don't really have a pref, it just would have been nice to have been able to read the article b/c it's been the subject of so much debate. btw, what are your reasons for excluding episode guides? while i think prolly only the ones with "Major Events" (e.g. Ash catches Pidgeotto, but not Ash has Metapod fight with samuarai) should be included, i have personally used wiki to look up episodes of series i didn't particularly get around to watching much of to see if they were of any interest (i.e. I liked Buffy but never saw more than two episodes of Angel so I've read quite a few wiki pages pertaining to it). wikipedia can offer a lot better and more indepth info than some fansite that is more susceptible to false ads and propaganda or personal bias. someone who wants to know about the cartoon, and is very green to pokemon in general, would have a very hard time deciphering the kind of garbage littered on fansites, and likely does not have the patience to read several (often long and insanely detailed) synopses of episodes. but if this page was junk anyways (using language like, "May's Butterfree used Silver Wind. Then Drew used Petal Dance in retailation. The crowd looked on in...") i agree. I wish there was a way to condense all the short meaningless episodes into a brief list, but i think like with the "Pokemon Solution" problem, there are so many it seems ludicrous to try and give them all even the most basic info on one page due to size restrictions. Maybe we could break them up by series? Kanto, Johto, Whirl Islands. And give only pivotal episodes (like when the group splits up to go home) the special treatment of a (sparse) synopsis and its own page. -Zappernapper 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC) P.P. (post posting, got an "edit conflict") no, the info is not covered in May's article. In fact Drew gets little more than a sentence, ironically, Harley has more info on her page.

Out of sheer... i dunno, boredom? I've created a fun (for me) little sample of what i'm talking about at my sandbox. -Zappernapper

Episode lists, like the one in your sandbox, would be OK, but an article for each individual episode? Please. Wikipedia's servers are already overloaded. Personally, I'd have something along the lines of List of Kim Possible episodes. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 06:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i like one too, except no red-linking, that just encourages people, making them think there should be an article for really worthless episodes (likeLights! Camerupt! Action!). We already have a good start for the lists at List of Pokémon Episodes, i just think we need seperate pages for each "saga." Keeping all of Kanto together, keeping all of Johto together, making a seperate page for Whirl Islands (so there'd be a continuity gap on the Johto page which would be explained). This way, if we add a screenshot box and add one- two-sentence synopses the load times won't be insane for 56k users (yes they do exist). I'd like to add this to WP:PCP/S so when new users or new pokemon contributors create episode guides that have already been deemed "trivial" we can point them to it. But i'd like to hear some more opinions before i say we've agreed to it this way. We should also prolly figure out exactly what can go in an episode guide. as per WP guidlines, we shouldn't be providing complete second-by-second plot details. did you check out my fakey epi-guide linked in my sandbox? -Zappernapper 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
another thought, maybe we need to decide how much importance an article needs b4 it's deserving of it's own article. season premieres are an obvious choice, but what about Gym leader battles? Indigo Plateau battles? One of the main characters catching a new Pokemon? Raven's apprentice, you seem very adamant about not having Rhapsody in Drew included, however it's May's defeat at the Grand Festival, the evolution of Ash's Snorunt into Glalie, and the first appearance of Drew's Flygon. We can definitly summarize this in the table - but what defining charateristics are needed for an episode to deserve its own page? I'm opening the floor to input from anybody. -Zappernapper 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Going through List of Pokémon episodes, it doesn't even seem like there are that many episodes with articles! I like the Kim Possible solution; the list on that page actually looks very nice. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yah, I'm the IP... But anyways, it wasn't techincally a copyvio, since it was at here first. Check the date.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
@ Zappernapper: If we could be allowed to delete articles indiscriminately, I'd mass-delete the whole episodes lot and go for the "Kim Possible" solution, but without the links, and with a seperate page for each season. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 13:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
so ur of the opinion that we should have no episode articles? What about Pokémon, I Choose You? But I suppose there's validity in what you say. There's no reason to write out a plot summary if we can present the important changes in a bullet list on a well formed table. You know, I bet that if we mass AfD the episode articles, after reaching a consensus here that all the information will be moved to a table, there will be few people in the rest of the Wikipedia community who'll object. You know, the failed AfDs are often a result of the fact the info is considered valuable enough to keep - just needs to be expanded or merged. If offering a merge of the episode articles into the episode lists, you may get enough votes to actually do it. So it seems that you (Raven's Apprentice), me, and Brandon are all on the bandwagon... is there anyone else out there interested in this discussion? -Zappernapper 15:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Kim Possible list is a good idea, and would really give excellent summary of the entire series, but I'm also of the opinion that some episodes are important enough to warrant their own articles. For instance, look at the list of Kanto Gym Leaders and you'll see that Brock and Misty have their own articles, but old man Blaine and that crazy gal Sabrina don't have theirs. Some episodes are just more important (notable) than others. I don't think it's a bad idea to give a few episodes an article, but they should be important episodes with a lot of material about them—that episode where Ash and the samurai kid run from a pack of wild Beedrill probably doesn't deserve its own article. But going through the already existing articles on episodes, most of them are currently stubby, containing mostly a list of which Pokémon were featured in the article (which hardly sounds encyclopedic to me). Unless someone's planning to expand these, sorting the episodes into lists would probably be best. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
ok.... so what are some defining criteria of "notable" in ur POV? lots of projects try to define what is/is not notable within their respective fields and incorporate that into their styleguides. you (Brandon) say that some episodes deserve there own articles, it seems that Raven doesn't. I'm really undecided on it. We need more input! I'll let the more active editors of List of Pokemon episodes be aware of this discussion. -Zappernapper 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: we make a list of episodes, and only break them out into individual articles when there are sufficient reliable sources for external commentary on the episodes. Individual articles are magnets for useless cruft, like trivia and plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking of "and" in game titles

This isn't really a pressing issue, but it's worth thinking about. Smurrayinchester brought up the issue of linking the word "and" when linking to Pokémon games in Charizard's FAC discussion:

Having links in the style Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen seems a little misleading, as it appears that these are separate articles. I'd prefer simply Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen.

I think that Smurrayinchester has a point, and there really isn't any reason to link to each of them separately. What sets a title apart is italicizing the title. I think it would be totally appropriate to actually display the links like Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen; the "and" isn't italicized.

Of course, in order to have it displayed like this, we have to put the italics in a piped link ([[Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen|''Pokémon FireRed'' and ''LeafGreen'']]) because otherwise, the italic marks ('') prevent it from creating a link. Any more ideas or comments? --Brandon Dilbeck 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks more professional the present way. Highway Daytrippers 06:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
But it makes more sence the other way.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
But the games aren't called "and". Highway Daytrippers 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why "and" is not italicized. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
But it shouldn't be linked. Highway Daytrippers 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"and" is part of the title in the article, so it would appear logical to link it, especially because they refer to the same article. -Zappernapper 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But we're not referring to the article in the context, we're referring to the games, which don't have the and. That's why we don't take it out when we discuss the article, but we do when we are discussing the games. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's tricking people (Smurrayinchester) into thinking that they're two different articles. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But we're discussing the games. Highway Daytrippers 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But if and isn't italizized(i suck at spelling), then it's clear we are discussing the games.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New PCP Focus

The new PCP focus is Crawdaunt, tasks have been outlined at the project page. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the task list. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Highway Daytrippers 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

User:DarknessLord/Userboxes#Pokémon List

Well, what do we do about this unauthorised use of fair-use images? I tried removing the thing and dropping the guy a message, but this is what I get. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 07:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I went through a time of removing this from user pages. First you advise them that's it's against policy. Then you remove them yourself, and leave a message stating so. If they are re-added, start giving them warnings, check WP:TT for the appropriate one. I'll have a looky. Highway Daytrippers 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that okay? I just need to go talk to PinkDeoxys. SuperCello, away! ;) Highway Daytrippers 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Good arbitration. Just hopes he listens to you. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I've talked to PinkDeoxys also. Hopefully the problem will end here. Highway Daytrippers 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The situation has been calmly resolved. Thanks Raven for bringing this problem to the prject. Highway Daytrippers 19:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Shinou dex

A stream of dex numbers for Shinou has been revealed, whether they are true is not the matter, since Nintendo hasn't revealed anything. The point is, the Template:Pokeinfobox (or whatever it's called now) can't handle Shinou dex numbers, can someone, likely AMIB, make it so? Probably not until the game comes out, but then it'd be a good idea. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 17:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, then. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's already been updated prior by the time I looked now, but it's disabled. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's ready to go as soon as D/P is released. Just use "shinounumber" and "shinouproceeding" and "shinoufollowing". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. Highway Daytrippers 07:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned episodes

I was looking through the list of banned Pokémon episodes and noticed the Tentacool and Tentacruel episode. It seem that Boomerang is showing the episode regularly now because it was on yesterday (Thursday, September 21, 2006 9PM CST.) I guess it could say that it was previously banned, but has since been brought back into circulation. Or something like that. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It had original circulation, but was pulled after September 11, along with Tower of Terror. I don't know if the ghost episode is back in circulation though. Highway Daytrippers 07:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll know by tonight. Last night was the Bye Bye Butterfree and the Abra and the Psychic Showdown episodes. The Tower of Terror should be on Boomerang at 9PM CST. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 11:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Update:The Tower of Terror episode will air on Boomerang on Sunday, September 24, 2006 at 9PM CST. So, does that mean it's safe to say that these episodes are no longer banned? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Is Boomerange/Cartoon Network the only channels that Pokémon air on? If so, then I'd say yes. Toonami, a Cartoon Network channel plays episodes in the UK, and the Holiday Hi-Jynx episode was played recently. Highway Daytrippers 14:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The series was previously on Kids' WB (which is also a Turner station). As of recently, Boomerang has been advertising the new Battle Frontier series claiming exclusivity to that channel (their promos say that Boomerang is the only place to "catch 'em all" without moving to Japan). So it looks like Boomerang is the only place in the US now to see Pokémon. As well as their parent, Cartoon Network, in other parts. Still, I don't think that the series was ever on a station not owned by Turner. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PCP merging

Discussion to merge WP:PCP and other sub-projects with WP:CVG!

If you feel strongly, or pro, for this move please leave comments in the section linked above. I personally think merging this project would be very destructive to our goals, we are one of the strongest sub projects, just behind Final Fantasy, with over a dozen GAs and 2 FAs, souly by ourselves. Please leave comments both here and at the main discussion. Highway Daytrippers 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

People are bound to get annoyed if we start posting "Pokémon this" and "Pikachu that". This would destroy the whole project. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to people who have been stating our case to stand as a self standing project, I think we've argued our case quite eloquently. Cheers everyone, Highway Daytrippers 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Boatload of Pokémon

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl comes out in Japan on Thursday, and I have a concern about what will quite possibly be the sudden addition of more than 100 new Pokémon articles, many of which will probably remain stubs for a while. We might have to be wary of many of these stubs being nominated for deletion. But at least we'll get to start using the Shinou fields in the Pokémon species template! Things may be chaotic at first, but they'll settle down. Let's all take a deep breath. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there'll be too many issues. There may be chance we'll need to cleanup, fix Bulbapedia copyvios, make sure the article style guide is followed, and ensure that references are there and accurate, but otherwise with the necessary stuff they should grow into okay articles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tetsuya-san (talkcontribs) .
Bulbapedia, they have no content. I cannot believe people think we do the same thing here as they do there. Anyway, in the past, we've always created an article, and the newbies have ran with it. If we can create them, with just the name, the introduction, and a partially filled infobox, the IPs will benefit tremendously. However, I don't see it starting til Friday and Saturday, there's only so much Serebii can upload in a day. Highway Daytrippers 07:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's a concern of ours to keep the hundred or so articles from being nominated for deletion, I suggest we insert a comment into the top of each article we create that says not to delete it. Something along the lines of this:

<!-- ATTENTION ALL EDITORS: Do not nominate this page for deletion. This page is being worked on and kept by decision of the Wikipedia: Pokémon Collaborative Project (WP:POKE). -->

It would also help if it's one of the more prominent members of the Poke-project like Highway and CelestianPower that inserts that quote into each new article. That way, Poke-haters will be less inclined to destroy what we create. Just a suggestion. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous - you can't just tell people not to nominate for deletion. What we can (and perhaps should) do, is create a template for thr top saying "This article is about a Pokémon that has just been released, and is being actively worked on by the Pokémon Collaborative Project." (though worded better, obviously). Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Like that Future Pokémon template Tetsuya-san designed as a sample? Highway Daytrippers 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not limit the template to just Pokémon—"The topic of this article is related to a video game that has recently been released, and the article is actively being worked on by the PCP." --Brandon Dilbeck 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sure, let's do it that way. Thanks for considering my idea (and yes, I'll keep in mind that I can't just tell people not to nominate for deletion.). :) If someone can design a template and provide a link here, we'll be all set to deal with the new articles. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

An easy solution? Merge any sucky stubs to a list, then merge them out when someone gets around to expanding them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And for those of us without admin powers? Highway Daytrippers 07:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I know this might sound painful to A Man In Black, but making them into one big list just sounds like trouble in the future, especially since we know that these stubs will sooner or later be expanded into their own articles. With hundreds of Pokémon, many of which link to other species articles, it feels like there could be tons of trouble when we decide to merge articles out of a big list because we'll have to update all the links. Besides, it would be impossible to categorize the Pokémon by type this way. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a start: Template:Newpoke. Please make changes to it; I'm sure it can be improved. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need an admin bit to merge articles, and I'm suggesting this as a temporary measure. Don't make a gigantic list of all 100-odd new Pokémon; just merge and redirect until you can take the time to raise it above a stub. Let's say Hypothetion is made as a two-paragraph stub. Merge that stub to List of Pokémon in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl until you can take the time to flesh it out, at which case you'll move the content back to the Hypothetion article title. No fiddling with links is necessary, because redirects will take readers whereever they need to be. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and once everything has been merged out of List of Pokémon in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, just redirect it to the Shinou Pokédex list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that the blessed event has begun over at If we have a template ready, let's post it over here for everyone to see, then post it on the new articles, like CelestianPower was saying. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do be aware that I will be speedily deleting stubs that are nothing but that Pokestart template and an infobox (as CSD A1). Please do take the time to make an actual stub, including some info sourced to at least some source. It'd be trivially easy to sneak a hoax in at this point, and given a bunch of look-alike contentless stubs, that will be very easy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we compare our list to the one on Serebii, sneaky Fakémon shouldn't be too much of an issue. Any new Pokémon added without a source should be taken lightly. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that if Wikipedia goes a week without an article on an obscure Pokémon from D/P, the world will be no poorer. Don't rush to make a stub, any stub; take your time and spare us the usual movelists, speculation, and other nonsense it's taken years to clean out of the other Pokémon articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thing is, it might actually be a waste of effort to speedy-delete Poke-stubs if information about all of them will seem to pour in like a waterfall over the next days and weeks anyway. Deleting Poke-stubs might not be all that good because it means we'd have to recreate the articles again when the time comes to make them into something better. I think before WP:PCP was formed, all 386 Pokemon were contentless stubs that we eventually grew into what they are today, and because they weren't deleted some of them are in better shape now than they might have been otherwise. Of course, all this Im saying is probably moot, as I won't be editing new Pokemon articles; you all can do whatever you want with them, I'll just be suggesting. ^_^

Out of curiosity, AMIB, have you deleted any of said stubs yet? Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 19:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to create them again, that's for sure. I still can't believe this person is an administrator. People who revert, or worse, delete, other people's arguably legitimate edits/creations without any notification should be banned. --Lividore 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Almost a dozen. We do have WP:CSD for a reason, and, when there's something to say, feel free to make a stub with some content. In the meantime, there's no need to rush to make unverifiable duplicates of Serebii's directory with no prose whatsoever to go with them. Remember, the 386 stubs we expanded into articles today were topics with content out there to aggregate and summarize; the non-stubs I deleted were completely contentless non-topics, with literally nothing verifiable to say about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Almost every new Pokemon article was first comprised of two paragraphs and an infobox. On the contrary, now that we are about to be showered with Pokemon the best way is to create minimal stubs for all of them, instead of focusing on making a few good articles. You'll be surprised how much a couple of anons can countribute. Is there any way you can bring them back? Really, it's the best way... --Lividore 20:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Those three paragraphs were {{Pokestart}} and at least two of them didn't even have that. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, especially given that there's nothing whatsoever verifiable to say right now. They'll be trivially easy to recreate with verifiable content when there's verifiable content, but no, I'm not going to restore a bunch of non-stubs that have no content other than an infobox full of completely unverifiable trivia. Right now, anons, registered users, and Jimbo Wales can only duplicate Serebii's initial reports or speculate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. In the interest of preventing a dispute, I have an idea as to how we can create the new articles in a more organized, thorough fashion. Let's create a section on the project page where we assign ourselves three new articles to work on per day, such as we work on the three stage-1 starter evolutions today, then the stage-2 evolutions the next day, then another three Pokemon the day after, and so on until all the rest of the new Pokemon turn out to be pretty thorough stubs at the end of a month. I think this is the orderly fashion we should undertake to promote a none-too-rushed quality on each of our articles. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be as organized as that, and I don't plan on being very insistent on this after Friday. Right now, there's a big temptation to rush out and grabgrabgrab whatever's out there, WP:V be damned. Let's take three days and wait for people to get Diamond and Pearl in their hands before rushing to duplicate any mistakes made by the first-reporters. It wouldn't be a disaster if some of the Pokémon lived on a list or as redlinks until we had enough content to make proper stubs or articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sure. The games will be released on Thursday I think, so it would work better for all of us to wait until then before editing away with actual sources. Thanks for assuring me of at least that. (^_^) And besides, two days from now Serebii's coverage would be much more comprehensive and final, so for now let's just study all the new Pokemon and features as they appear and then work on them all at once at thursday/friday onward. (At this point I feel like a complete toad for having proposed that "Do Not Delete" comment at the start of this discussion.) Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. I can understand being worried that a stub along the lines of Dorapion might get sent to AFD, but Pokémon are pretty much AFD-proof at this point unless someone comes along with a hell of a compelling nomination, at which point they should probably be at AFD anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are pics of all the new Pokémon sprites courtesy of Too bad not all are named, nor are there sprites of previous gen monsters. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:Judging by this list it shows that Lucario and Manaphy both have pre-evolutions. Showing that they are not Legendary. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Moved to bottom -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we hold off until Saturday before worrying about any of this. If the articles are wrong now, they've been wrong for months, and no more harm will be done. No sense leaping with both feet at every single forum posting and prerelease report. (Why do I think of the Jump To Conclusions mat?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pokémon trainers

Just for clarification, would Category:Pokémon trainers cover people like,

Because it isn't that clear cut, May trains Pokémon for battle, it's just another type of battling. And, in at least one medium, Professor Oak battles. And Misty isn't there at all, which is quite suprising. Generally, what are you thoughts? Highway Daytrippers 07:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

May, Drew, and Harley would go under Category:Pokémon coordinators(I hope I spelled that right) category. I don't know about Proffesser oak, but the rest could probably go under the pokemon trainers cat.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oak was a trainer in the manga. Highway Daytrippers 21:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Team Aqua and Team Magma

The article isn't particularly well named, since it's not exactly like the video games. Should we change it to something like Hoenn crime syndicates? Highway Daytrippers 09:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the article, if anyone objects afterwards, an admin will gladly reverse the action. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

More Shin'ou numbers?

[1] myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 00:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it for granted that those are accurate. Bulbapedia's really bare-bones, and nothing's cited. Did you notice that the external links at the bottom are totally irrelevant to the numbers given in the article? --Brandon Dilbeck 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Red Gyarados into Gyarados

I've suggested merging the information in Red Gyarados into the article on Gyarados. Feel free to discuss it. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Turtle Pokemon

Did anyone else see this article? It's such a riot! --Brandon Dilbeck 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but now deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Good riddance to bad rubbish. We didn't need an article explaining which Pokémon slightly resembled turtles. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Entei (Pokémon)

Has anyone checked this article recently? I think someone is trying to speedy delete it. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic. It's just for a history merge.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 22:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't really sure and I couldn't find any reasoning for it to be deleted. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird article.

Does anyone know anything about what this page is? Aim to Be a Pokémon Master. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an article about one of the songs played in the opening credits of the Pokémon anime in Japan. It's not a terribly useful article. Most of it is a list of Pokémon which appear in the credits... --Brandon Dilbeck 06:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if an article like this is needed. And do you suppose these articles could be merged into another (like the anime, perhaps?): Pokémon 2BA Master and Pokémon World. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)