Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18

Archives

August 2005 – April 2006 1 May 2006 – 15 May 2006 15 May 2006 – 28 June 2006 28 June 2006 – 12 July 2006 13 July 2006 – 18 August 2006 18 August 2006 – 26 September 2006 26 September 2006 – 14 October 2006 15 October 2006 – 13 November 2006 13 November 2006 – 18 November 2006 18 November 2006 – 3 December 2006 3 December 2006 – 31 December 2006 1 January 2007 – 14 February 2007 15 February 2007 – 9 March 2007 10 March 2007 – 5 April 2007 5 April 2007 – 14 May 2007 Other archives FFA archive 1

Future Focus Articles

Next Pokémon Creature Article

Did an update of all the noted articles, so people can fix what's wrong without having to ask what's wrong. If you complete something, just strike it out. Highway ^Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Houndour - wrecked!Vikrant Phadkay 10:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Blaziken - Rewrite characteristics, cover May's Torchic-->Combusken-->Blaziken (all the info can be found in the prior articles). Copy video games prose from Combusken. Referencing all round, Highway ^Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This would actually complete an evolutionary family, our second that we could complete (the third is the Mudkip family with Swampert; the first is Bulbasaur's with the upgrade of Venusaur.) myTrackerTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 23:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Venonat - implement {{Pokestart}}, expand on Koga's (or his assisstant's) Venonant, and expand greatly on Tracey's. Again, check the manga for Venonat, and rewrite the TCG section. Remove original research from Biology, and add better descriptions of Venonat locations. Highway ^Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Treecko - Write content on Ash's Treecko-->Grovyle-->Sceptile, and Wally's Treecko-->Grovyle. Highway ^Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rapidash - Rewrite name def, cleanup citing there D: Cleanup whole of intro, per Ivysaur. Rewrite and properly cite Pokédex section, per Torchic. Cleanup video games per Cloyster, mention Pokémon Snap, and borrow the book cite from Bulbasaur. If you feel like digging, you can note that Rapidash is the only other Fire family in the Shin'ou dex, there's a Bulbanews article detailing this for "fan clarification". Implement, {{Pokeanime}}, and format the wash of text, per Ivysaur. Check Serebii for the manga, someone must have a Rapidash, look at Eevee, it's got the cite about the Electric Pikachu Boogaloo manga volume with the novelised version of the race. Format the TCG like Ivysaur, and prose it. *dies* Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anorith Yuk! —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Banette - The "Characteristics" section is well done; the rest is a wreck, especially the jargon-loaded "In the Video Games" section. ~e.o.t.d~ 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Lucario — Expand on "In the video games", maybe add some more about Lucario's strengths (like its Aura Sphere). Some additional sources wouldn't hurt, either.

Next Miscellaneous Article

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

• Pokémon Red and Blue. It's one of the best-selling games ever, and WP:CVG has excellent style guidelines (And plenty of willing help) to help us get a featured article about something that exists in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. This, along with Ruby and Sapphire, should go straight to our next MA, but our current focus, our flagship, should be made an honorary focus so that this could cycle again. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think this project can turn Pokémon into a proper FA or even a GA unless someone commits to doing the hard work of proper research. With Pokémon Red and Blue, that research still needs to be done; it's just less onerous. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pokémon (video games) More detailed comments are at the bottom of this page, but to sum it up, for an page that's supposed to be the main article for the video games, it needs a lot of work. 蜻蛉の目_e.o.t.d 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pokémon evolution We should add levels of Evolution to ever pokemon under the picture for convenience and so that the information isn't scattered throughout the article. Also, in many cases it doesn't even say what level it evolves at! Surskit being the first to come to mind.
  • I believe the reason why the level at which Pokémon isn't written into articles is that it feels too much like a game guide, and this is not allowed (#4)—it's too technical. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Do we need this?

I want to assess whether people actually use this section of discussion or if we should just archive it next time. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bidoof

There's some debate over Bidoof's Ness-ness at Talk:Bidoof, and I want second opinions from everyone I can because this anon claims he's achieved cult hit status on ytmnd, GameFAQs, 4chan, etc.. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: He's copping no-cite for lack of a Diamond/Pearl cite. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by referring to EarthBound (I've never played it, so I don't know if I'm missing something), but the kid's gotta have reliable sources, and YouTube, YTMND, etc., don't qualify as being reliable. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't they be primary sources? (What is Wikipeida policy on primary sources?)

D/P is hardly a relevant source for an online phenomena anyway. --Sonic Mew 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've played EarthBound, and I certainly haven't seen any thing about Bidoof to look like something from that game. It should only be mentioned in the article if Game Freak said something like "Bidoof's design was modeled in homage to EarthBound thematic properties." Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really confused about what this has to do with EarthBound. As for being a phenomenon on YTMND, a search for Bidoof brings up only 4 things, which hardly seems like anything. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

EarthBound has a cult following, which is what this anon was saying Bidoof has - hence the EarthBound link. However, I managed an armistice. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirlia

We're having a bit of a situation going on at Kirlia. User:Luigifan insists on adding a trivia section stating that Cosmo and Kirlia look similar in appearance. It's been removed per WP:TRIVIA but yet he continues to add it. I don't think protection is necessary, but still...help please? -Sukecchi 11:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw how it looks like, and trivia sections shouldn't have conicidences anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He's not stopping...would someone please help? -Sukecchi 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page. Bhamv 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the species megamerger?

Ah, it's been a long, long time. Anyways, what about the aforementioned experiment? Is anyone working on it, or was it scrapped? If the latter, where's the discussion to that effect? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profil|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's around, and there are a few of us working on it currently, but it's been going really slow due tp the fact that a lot of us are busy with both our own duties in real life and playing the Pokemon games themselves. Anyway, Zappernapper has been attempting to centralize all discussions about the "mega-merger" here at WPP/Layout, and thus far the merged evo-line pages I have made are Pidgey evolutionary line and Spearow evolutionary line. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't damage Wikipedia. I have blanked the Pidgey line article because it is violating WP:POINT. Vikrant Phadkay 15:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profil|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take the above back: check the contribs of You Can't See Me! (talk · contribs) and you'll see he's actually been very active in creating the merged pages (Beldum evolutionary line). I gotta catch up! T'would be ironic if his work is seen more than mine. You can't see him! You can only see me! :D Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 07:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the things I don't understand about this whole thing is the whole point of "Wikipedia is not paper", and thus it shouldn't be considered overcrowded or wasteful to have a really large number of pages, and I don't see how "cutting back on the number of pokemon pages" helps in that. Toastypk 10:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As is, Toasty, the current Poke articles are poorly sourced, and the merger idea will make it so that we don;t have to rely so much on fansites for verifiable info (supposedly). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, 493 pages are hell to maintain, and that doesn't even count anything aside from the creature pages. If anything happened to an article of a less-prominent creature (let's say, Kakuna), it'd be rather hard to notice. Though ~200 articles is still difficult, it should be significantly easier than 493.

As for the pages that are up: Pidgey evolutionary line, Spearow evolutionary line, Porygon evolutionary line, Gastly evolutionary line, Beldum evolutionary line, Lunatone and Solrock. I'll get Magnemite evolutionary line up today, and Abra evolutionary line is my next target. Aside from Pikachu, Mewtwo, and the various lists-by-20, that's all there is/will be soon for now. You Can't See Me! 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have valid concerns, Toasty, but it's entirely possible that if Wikipedia were a paper encyclopdia, there'd probably be not very many pages about Pokemon species in it; it's because this is online that some of us think it's okay to have over two hundred separate articles about the Pokemon species. But it's not okay to have 493, apparently, for I'm aware that there are a lot of users outside the Poke project who have decried the sheer amount of pages we've dedicated to the Pokemon franchise and have thought that we were a joke. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that turning 493 articles into ~200 articles will appease that faction. --Sonic Mew 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to have doubts, but just remember that all this came out of quite literally an entire half-year of debate on WP:POKE about notability of each individual species and how each specie article's good, reliably sourceable info isn't enough to make a lot of these species properly past stub status, and there was a consensus among a good number of us that this and a host of other problems with these pages could be either fixed or made far less troublesome with some condensing of article space. The reason we didn't say "Well just make the individual pages themselves better by Wikipedia standards" is because that's what we've been trying to do over the couple years the Poke-project's been in existence, but we found that it is simply impossible to properly expand some of the species into uncontroversially Good Article status because Wikipedia is not supposed to rely strictly on direct observation of the games and fansites. And, heh, I think everyone should only be very happy about the entire merge effort because no actual Wiki-proper information would be lost. And hey: until the 200-ish articles are created, I think the other 493 would and should be left alone by mergist users.

As for 200 pages not being enough to appease the faction of Poke-hater users, well, consider what could have happened: only 25 pages covering 20 Pokemon each descriptively, with about 20 pages dedicated strictly to individual species. I was the one who proposed this merge concept with appeasing the faction in mind, but consensus calls for merging by evo-line which is far less controversial to us, and I prefer doing it this way anyway. And I think the Pokemon franchise is extremely notable, notable enough that it deserves that many (200) articles. (I think it's because I'm personally biased towards Pokemon as a die-hard fanboy that I want there to be so many articles about Pokemon species themselves.) Condensing the number of articles on individual species from 500 to 200 is like providing articles with 2.5 times the amount of good encyclopedic content, and I'm sure even the faction would appreciate that. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't worry too much about pokémon haters. Because we aren't supposed to pay attention to them anyway. This is not the place to say what sucks anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 20:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's awfully nice, however, that this would appease them to a degree anyway. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is that absconding ZapperNapper? He is finally ruining Wikipedia! He can't escape. Vikrant Phadkay 15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Okay... rather than working on the species merger, I made a few userboxes.

...you can stop glaring angrily at any time now...

#493This user is a Pokémon Creationist and believes that Arceus is the creator.	{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokecreation}}
#151This user is a Pokémon Evolutionist and believes that Mew is the origin.	{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeevolution}}
User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeuber:yes	{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeuber:yes}}
UberThis user does not use Ubers in WiFi Pokémon battles, but does not mind seeing them there.	{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeuber}}
User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeuber:no	{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeuber:no}}

Enjoy! You Can't See Me! 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the numbers in the sideboxes are too big. It's usually about 12. Also, is the number "670" (base stat totals of the most powerful Pokémon) too obscure? I would think the word "Uber" would better convey the message. While we're on the topic of userboxes, I want to point out one I made a while ago: {{User Pokedex}}. You plug in how many Pokémon you've caught. However, the Pokédex in Diamond and Pearl instead display how many you've seen instead. If I liked they way they redid the Pokédex, I'd probably add another parameter, but I don't want to. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I altered them. I still think that 12 looked a bit too small for Mew's and Arceus' numbers, so I lowered them to 16 rather than to 12.

As much as I hate to kill off the last FA we have...

Bulbasaur has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How would that make any difference? Wouldn't it automaticlly lose its featured status after the merging anyway? TheBlazikenMaster 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The way this should work is that whether or not any article's Featured Status can be proven to be worthy of keeping its status under the most intense scrutiny determines whether or not that article should be merged somewhere else. Bulbasaur, as I recall, got Featured status, but through some controversy and perhaps some bias as well, and such articles are rather shaky and likely to lose that status over time. If there exists some way to legitimately prove that Bulbasaur can be kept as a Featured Article that can stand up to heavy Wikipedia scrutiny uncontroversially, and we undertake that way of making it so, then Bulbasaur would remain in its own article. Otherwise, a lot of us can agree that a merged page covering Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur all together has a far better chance of getting the coveted Featured status; that's one of the core reasons why we think the mega-merger-by-evo-line effort can only be immensely beneficial to both the coverage of the Pokemon franchise and the integrity of the Pokeproject itself. With the mega-merger we can potentially have 200 Featured Articles, rather than 493 pages where most of them can't really be expanded beyond stub status and only a fraction of those 493 can uncontroversially make it to Good Article status. (And no good information would be lost through the merging process either.)

Notice how we're finding that Bulbasaur, of all Pokemon, may be on the verge of losing its Featured Status; yet I'm pretty sure Bulbasaur is among Pokemon's most notable species, and Bulbasaur has even been noted in some reliable sources like news outlets and TIME magazine. Yet even with some of the Bulbasaur page's sources counting as good, legitimate sources to cite by Wikipedia standards, Bulbasaur still seems to be in a dangerous position by Featured Article standards. If that's the case, then what chance do the hundreds of other far-less-notable Pokemon like Bronzor and Combee have of getting Featured Status? But we can give perhaps all of the species the chance to be part of Featured Status articles by merging them by evo-line. The end result of this effort will be as important and effective to Wikipedia's coverage of Pokemon species as the spine and rib cage are to supporting the human body. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, most FAs are usually not merged...this would be new. But just as FAs are considered to be notable (and any AFD atempts are speedy keeps), I believe that its FA status needs to be revoked before merging/deleting. Similar situation occured over at WP:FPC when it was realized that a picture that was about to be featured on the front page prohibited noncommercial use. hbdragon88 22:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral change because nobody would discuss it

I've changed some stuff in the style guide, trying to remove our current absurdly rigid "you will use this format" approach. I would have liked discussion, but the thread I started on it got archived after nobody commented. -Amarkov moo! 03:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruffresia

make him go awaaaaay
And someone mention Porygon to him, will they? I remembered that little ENGRISH NAME IN ENGLISH only right after I reverted him again D:—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me (s)he's confused Vileplume for the actual Rafflesia plant. There's no way I could do this without coming off as trying to show sharp teeth. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 07:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am breaking out the warning templates now! I just used {{uw-error1}}. He keeps this up and it escalates to {{uw-error2}}, {{uw-error3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}} and finally report to WP:AIV. Funpika 11:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We need someone with AWB.

Now that the discussion on template for deletion is finished we need someone that hsa AWB, because it will take too much time to replace all the text. Subst'ing is too late now. But we can replace the dead templates by something though. Let's all replace it by something like "In Pokémon Anime", or something like that. Yeah, so who is with me? TheBlazikenMaster 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No No forget all of this. Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)