Talk:Bulbasaur/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Undo the redirect?

I'm obviously involved, and so is probably anyone reading this. Anyways, the few uninvolved comments at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Humor.2Fsatire_articles] shows that this article is of ambiguous notability. Lets restore it and put it up for AfD. I'll definitely mention my involvement along with my vote. Will you? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Give me a day to write the AFD nomination.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Don't go overboard. If you could do one of those "procedural nom"s, that would be cool. Pause... I guess I'm trying to win the AfD already, so actually do whatever you think is best. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• AFD does not seem appropriate because it does not seem that the issue is deletion. RFC would be more appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• • AfD isn't totally correct, but I think it has the best chance of getting the opinions of people who haven't been a part of this, and also of producing a lasting result. It seems like an RfC will just be more of the same, with the same people. Maybe I'm wrong - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • So you are trying to rig it to get the results you want? Just undo the redirect, and then wait for whoever wants the article destroyed to nominate it. There was never any consensus for the redirect to begin with. Black Kite just erased it entirely, and then after some complaining, weeks later I believe, restored the history to the article, it previously put somewhere else [1]. Dream Focus 08:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• [2] Here is where it was discussed previously. Dream Focus 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I already did my two reverts for the day. And I don't really like to edit war anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it after reading your discussion [3]. This was never done properly anyway. Over a hundred people still have the article on their watch list. Dream Focus 08:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of watchers. This is a special article for both the inclusionists as well as the deletionists. Should be interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Source?

Anyone have access to this?[4] Amazon preview, maybe/ - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD closed as "No consensus"

So, do we keep the article, or redirect it? I think most people we leaning towards keep. As the closer said, even if most of them are unacceptable, only a few need to be acceptable for it to be notable, and there are a small handful of good sources. Whether you like it or not, Kww. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's some to carry it at this point. Not a lot, but some, and I feel more confident with it having an article over say Rayquaza or Caterpie at the moment (no offense to their authors, just...eh...). I do feel that picture of the jet has no place in this article however, as it really does little to add any weight to the subject that text can't handle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree I think that proves the character's notability, Japan has lots of anime and pokemon has over 400 characters the fact that Bulbasaur is featured on a plane for international flights says something. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That nintendo can market stuff? Seriously that's all it is, it wasn't the airline that chose which pokemon to put on the side of the plane.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, things that are marketed are usually popular. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My main objection is, and always has been, that the information gained from those reliable sources fits quite nicely in the list. The rest of this article is trivia, unnecessary plot recounting, and game description. There's no need to split the 1-20 list into components because there isn't enough independently sourced information to create a standalone article, even if people think it passes WP:N. WP:N is only part of this issue, and I wish people had paid attention to the entire argument during the AFD.—Kww(talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It shouldn't be forced to be in the list if it doesn't have to. If you think some parts of the article are too gameguidey and trivia, then that is a different issue. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got it backwards: articles shouldn't be created until there is too much information to fit in the parent article, not before. Until there is too much independently sourced information to fit comfortably in the list, the article should just redirect to the list entry.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the criteria. Independent sources are the standard for notability. Once the topic passes notability, the standard is reliable sources, and reliable sources do not necessarily have to be independent. Although secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are permitted if reliable. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although admittedly, this article seems to overuse non-independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the image of the plane, it's unnecessary. What does it demonstrate? The reader understands everything about this fact in text. An image only demonstrates what the reader has already learned. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The picture shows just how popular the character is, how many places it is seen at. I say keep it. Dream Focus 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The text shows this. People really need to lose the perception that free use means that it can be used with even the slightest relevancy. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The owner of the image said it could be used. [5] As for it relevance to the article section it is in, called Promotion and merchandising, I believe that it fits quite nicely. They chose their most notable Pokemon to decorate an aircraft with. Dream Focus 21:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is wholly irrelevant. The point of "the owner said it could be used" is invalid because that could be true for the owner of Bulbasaur fan art letting us use it. What does the image demonstrate? Are you implying that readers will be confused if they cannot see the air plane? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for including a free image in an article is not whether readers will be confused if the image is excluded. It is whether the image illustrates the topic, which the airplane does. On the other hand, I am not convinced that this is a genuinely free image, even of the person who took the photo released it, since the images of the Pokemons themselves are not free (unless the painter also released them). Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it does constitute a free image; if it didn't, no one would be able to have free use pictures of the Macy's Day Parade. Regardless, a free image isn't included on the basis that it illustrates an aspect of the topic. If that were true, we could include dozens of free use images featuring Mario in his article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• As for the original question, you keep the article, since there was no consensus to delete/redirect it. Delete = total destroy, redirect = delete article but keep history. There was no consensus to do either, so default to keep. Dream Focus 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, redirect is normally considered a "keep" result.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. Never has been, and never will be. Keep means keep. Redirect is just a lame way to get around that. Dream Focus 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• More like "always was, always will be, even though the specific place it used to be stated been muddled". Redirects are a form of keep, and certainly possible after a "no consensus" result.—Kww(talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. Fact of the matter is that the AfD was never an appropriate place for this discussion. It should have been held here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It was only held at AfD to get more people involved, which is sort of abusing the system. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was at AFD because I sincerely believe that this entire article, its contents, and its history, should be deleted. There's no information on Bulbasaur that both should be included in Wikipedia and doesn't fit in the list.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I too did not understand why it was at AfD, since even if this article's content was removed, a redirect to the list is still clearly necessary. Although I am on the fence as to whether the topic is notable enough to retain the article rather than a redirect (though leaning towards keeping the article), one of the possible outcomes of the AfD was a consensus to redirect. And that clearly did not happen. So while my view on the notability is marginal, I do not think it would be appropriate to redirect the article so soon after an AfD with heavy participation closed without a consensus to do so. Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's several forms of keep, including no consensus and redirect, which are different things. I think I may take this article through GA and then FA. I guess I'd like to know now if people are going to cause stability issues, since that's one of the requirements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You want advance notice of edit-warring? I don't plan on it. I won't take it to AFD again for 12 months. If I don't see a major trivia cleanout soon, I'll go through and do that. I have no idea how you plan to get this to be even GA, much less FA, given that you still haven't identified an independent source that actually said anything.—Kww(talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the article is fit for GA or FA at this time. Not even a nomination for one. You could try a peer review. I have made a few edits to the article. Tell me what you think of them. Alot of the stuff in the article hasn't changed since days when every Pokemon had an article. That means a lot of stuff needs to be removed/added for it to be up to date, and consistent with current articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned out the worst material. Individual edits so that people shouldn't be tempted to revert en-masse.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the removal, but I think clearing out the "plot recounting" was wrong. Maybe it could have been summarized a bit more, but completely removing it wasn't necessary. Are you saying I should cut down Charizard's "plot info", even thought it passed for GA? It shows what the character did, and gives the reader more understanding of the character. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The only time a plot point should be included is when it is necessary for a reader to understand a comment made by an independent reliable source, so "yes".—Kww(talk) 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Which guideline are you referring to? The closest I could find was WP:PLOTONLY, which states "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance. This means that an article about a work of fiction or elements from such works should not solely be a summary of the primary and tertiary sources, they should also include real world context from reliable secondary sources. Coverage of fictional topics should provide balanced coverage that includes both plot summary and real-world context." But this is not as restrictive as stating that a plot point should only be included is when it is necessary for a reader to understand a comment made by an independent reliable source. WP:PLOT and WP:MOSFICT also deal with including plot summaries, but again neither are as restrictive as the above comment. Rlendog (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work K-dub. I haven't looked at the revisions in detail, but it looks good at a glance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One child's opinion

Per WP:WAF, I believe the citation about one child relating with Bulbasaur's attributes of being "strong and also cute" is appropriate for inclusion in the article, as it is part of Bulbasaur's reception. It is only one child's opinion, but that opinion is published in a WP:RS, and therefore is appropriate. --Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If the authors of the study had drawn any conclusions from it, those conclusions would be reasonable to include, and this would be supporting material for a discussion of those conclusions. As it stands, it's just an isolated fact, also known as "trivia".—Kww(talk) 22:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded on the authors' conclusions in regards to this child's opinions. --Malkinann (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that one child's opinion isn't appropriate. While it's published, the reliable source didn't derive anything from that, besides maybe "Oh?" and "I see!". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Revert

More care is required. While it may or may not belong in the lead, some of that may be useful as background in the article if we're going to get it back to FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...it's better dumped and rewritten honestly. Stuff like "the multi billion franchise" does absolutely nothing to tell people anything about the character, nor does rushing right into a description of its evolutions, which aren't covered in the article itself. It's felt out of place for years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Former Featured Article?

IIRC, at one point the Bulbasaur article was a FA. Is that version still around? Eoseth (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you click "View history" at the top of the article and go far enough back, yes. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fushigidane" etymology

The etymology provided for "Fushigidane" conflicts with what its source, Patrick Drazen's Anime Explosion, provides: that it's a portmanteau of fushigi (mysterious) with da-ne, a Japanese way of seeking agreement with the interlocutor. While I think the other etymology seems more likely, at present the article conflicts with the source. Brutannica (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulbasaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822070906/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various36_list.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various36_list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)