Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Arceus and the Dragon Trio

They should get an article. They're pretty important. Alpha CuboneKing! Bone bone bone! 06:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about their importance, it's about their notability: that is to say, quality and in-depth analysis of each subject in reliable secondary sources. If you can find these then it will bring them closer to having an article. Fansites not included. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 07:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Movie 13

An article for Pokémon Movie 13 has been made. It needs help, so if someone could translate some of the site, maybe we could scrounge some info. Articles for references would be nice too. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is now being requested for deletion. Please add your input. Maybe try and find some reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted until more information is released. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No harm no foul then, once more info does come about we just have to remember to hit up an admin and ask for an article restoration, build it up from there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arceus Promotion

I dont no if this is helpful in anyway but, Arceus has been made available by a promotion at all Kmart Australia stores, see catelogue: [1] (page 18). Not sure if this could be used in someway or another. Just thought id point it out. Salavat (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well someone has already written it in to Arceus entry. I sourced it to the Nintendo page set up for the promotion, but have little fiath in them keeping that page for much longer after the promotion ends. I did try to "webcite" it but it failed. Salavat (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

and Arceus was distributed at Toys R Us USA the second week of Nov 2009. I picked up 2..one for Diamond and one for Plat (couldn't find my Pearl) Plus Oak's Letter key item for Platinum in-game capture of wild Shaymin came across WFC the week before. VulpineLady (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Line drawn images on the lists

User:Grandy02 added a line drawing of Chikorita to List of Pokémon (141–160). It is allowed to be there since it is free use, but is it undue weight? I feel like if we start adding about 3 or 5 of these images to every list, then people will start wanting the others to have images. We cant have 20 images on each list, right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is undue, and truth be told I don't really think these are free images either since they're still ultimately a depiction of a copyrighted item.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seen as its commons you could always put the commons box down the bottom in see also saying theres images related to this topic on commons. Salavat (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that image is free. Perhaps we should open a thread at WP:MCQ. Theleftorium 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a coversation on these patent images (assuming it really is one) on the video game project recently: Public domain patent images. Salavat (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This image is definitely free, since it appeared in a US Patent filling and did not had a specific disclaimer next to it declaring intent to copyright. The law is pretty clear on this one; Nintendo did not take the initiative to do so, thus it is PD. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, just to note, only Pikachu and Chikorita have these images. I thought all characters did, but after reading that discussion, I noticed I was wrong. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The image comes from this patent, which does not have any copyright disclaimer. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Jets

I have started an article for Pokémon Jets. I am currently working on sourcing photos for the missing aircraft, but what we do need in the lists, is the characters which are shown on each side of the aircraft, and sources for that information. Some information may be found on the Japanese version of the article, but there are no sources. Can anyone from this project help? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I think the best solution to this problem is to provide a link to the official online Pokédex at Pokemon.com so that readers can verify that the listed Pokémon names match the corresponding Pokémon images that appear along the sides of each Pokémon jet. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in the Pokémon anime series

I want to address a few things, that I have posted here and here.

• First, due to this edit, the list has been changed to bullets instead of sections. This makes all the redirects confused and it doesn't really look that clean due to paragraph breaks. I suggest someone manually change it back to sections. (It can't be undone because of conflicting edits)
• Second, I think Kotone should have a spot in this list. She traveled with the characters for 5 episodes and battled with them, similar to Barry, and could have a nice bit to write about.

Thoughts? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say definetly change it back, as the bullets make the thing very hard to follow, and, as you said, screw up a large number of redirects. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

An edit war may be brewing at List of Pokémon. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Figures. I completely overhaul it for the second time, and after all my work to revise it according to talk page consensus, a mostly-neglected talk page becomes a hotbed of vandalism and controversy. --WikidSmaht (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Movie 13 again

This time with a name. Pokémon: Ghost Winners Z _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

wiktionary:Appendix:Pokémon

Just thought some of the editors at WikiProject Pokémon might like to know about this... --Yair rand (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Meowth, Psyduck, and Snorlax

Meowth(article), Psyduck(article), and Snorlax(article) have enough reception to be articles. Should we split them? There is no reason not to other then they will probably be C-Class for a while. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that we have 1 , 3 , 3 , 5 , and 1 . _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Meowth and Psyduck have articles now. I guess I will work on Snorlax next. It will be a while though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I added some stuff to Snorlax's article. Does it look decent enough to put out? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there is. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's split now then. I think I will just expand the list articles now. Some Pokémon aren't notable enough for an article, but they still need some justice done to their coverage on Wikipedia._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Charizard Peer Review

I put Charizard up for peer review. I want to know what needs to be done for GA. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph of creation info.

^{The design and art direction for Lucario was provided by Ken Sugimori, a friend of the creator of the Pokémon games, Satoshi Tajiri. The species first appeared in the Nintendo DS games, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, released in Japan in 2006. The species in the Pokémon video games are portrayed by a two-dimensional sprite, although the Lucario appearance has been conveyed by 3D computer graphics. The species has been portrayed with no spoken dialogue. In the Pokémon anime, they use facial expressions, body language and makes noises that repeat syllables of their name, using different pitches and tones.}

This information is true for about every single Pokémon. Should it be added to the articles? It was originally in the Bulbasaur and Pikachu articles. It would be a nice bulky addition to many of the articles that lack content in that area such as Unown. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's...honestly a fluffy paragraph. To say they're sprites in one medium and animated in another would apply to almost *any* character in a similar capacity, like say DragonQuest slimes. The rest is usually covered in the article itself (who created it, where'd it come from) to a much smoother extent, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, maybe just the first two sentences? Who created it, and what game it first appeared in? I guess thats fine. The reason I am asking is because I was fixing up the Lucario article for B-class assessment._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Episode list formatting

I just performed an overhaul of the various episode lists, including fixes to replace the removed katakana middle dot and ideographic commas. I've also introduced a new formatting method which is as follows for the most recent list:

{{Japanese episode list/sublist|List of Pokémon episodes
|LineColor      = 999
|EnglishTitle   = [English Dub Title]
|RTitle         =  ([Translated Japanese title goes here])
|KanjiTitle     = [Kanji Title]
|RomajiTitle    = [Romaji Title]
|OriginalAirDate= 
|FirstEngAirDate= 
|Aux4           = 
|EpisodeNumber  = 
|EpisodeNumber2 = 
|ShortSummary   = 
}}

This is a change from

{{Japanese episode list/sublist|List of Pokémon episodes
|LineColor=999
|EnglishTitle   = [English Dub Title]
|RomajiTitle    = [Translated Japanese title goes here]
|KanjiTitle     = [Kanji Title] ''[Romaji Title]''
|OriginalAirDate= 
|FirstEngAirDate= 
|Aux4           = 
|EpisodeNumber  = 
|EpisodeNumber2 = 
|ShortSummary   = 
}}

The change utilizes the RTitle feature which was put in place for whatever reason for the One Piece episode lists to provide an actual place for the formatting to be in line with everything else on the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous MfD

I would like to remind you guys that there was an MfD a while back where there was some rumbling about the long-term hosting of non-notable articles in your wikiproject space. I urge you to make a decision regarding the remaining articles in your subpage space and clear that backlog so we don't have to go back to MfD a second time. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

sigh, this again? It isn't like Wikipedia is trying to conserve space... I guess some can be deleted, but I am busy right now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Blastoise • Charmander evolution line • Jynx evolutionary line • Mudkip • Shroomish evolutionary line • Squirtle evolution line
• Maybe Bulbasaur • Squirtle
• Redirects with little or no history Abra evolutionary line • Jynx • Kadabra • Lucario • Psyduck • Snorlax
• Redirects needing history merge Meowth(failed due to parallel historys. My fault...)

I still think there are no rules that state that these articles can't exist and you are wasting your time and aggravating us. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Meowth can be merged if an admin deletes the revisions I made to the article on September 1st so there won't be parallel histories. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I did not participate in the previous MfD, I find that, looking over it now, the votes for deletion did not take into account what these spaces are for. The point is not to keep non-notable articles stored because we like them, but rather to have a place to improve them to the level where they DO demonstrate notability. Having them in the project space provides a place where greater collaboration can take place than on a user page. Since there is no clear consensus, policy, or precedent saying that such a system is not allowed, and since said system serves a purpose, I see absolutely no reason why anyone would find a pressing need to have them deleted. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Scalper. Blake: use {{db-author}} to nuke any old redirects or articles you made that you think should be retired. Article merge history isn't really that important to be honest either, half the time an incubated article I worked on I just nuke it's old history and forget about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There does seem to be a general consensus that deletion policy should not be circumvented through indefinite storage of deleted content in other on-wiki locations. We (at MfD) give inactive drafts 6 months in user space, generally. The article incubator is looking at a retention policy of 1 to 6 months or so... I suggested that they adopt 6 months to be harmonized with what's usually done in userspace. If you want to move these into the general incubator over at WP:INCUBATE that would be fine with me, and may even get them up to par quicker. Gigs (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the project has been handling them perfectly fine, though some removal of dead and dealt with articles should be done. However what I do find amusing is your approach: you waltz in here, say "no no this will not do", and that's that, when really you're on the same par as everyone else here. In other words, cut the attitude. You have a problem with them, dandy. Let this project deal with it's own work as it sees fit because it's been doing fine as it stands.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Very simple case of WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Likewise, Wikiprojects don't have any special sovereignty to go against the general policies of Wikipedia. I came here as a courtesy to remind the project about these abandoned drafts. Take care of them while you still have the chance. Gigs (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the "general policies" you are referring to? Your prior reasoning, that they are holding places for non-notable articles is simply not the case. I am unaware of any discussion, consensus, or policy regarding project specific incubators, and if there is, I apologize and request links to these things so that we can review them ourselves. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a certain leeway that is given to establish notability through userfication or incubation or what have you, but it has a limit. The most directly related guideline is WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOT#HOST. These are written primarily for userspace, but there's no reason the spirit of those guidelines and policies wouldn't apply to draft articles transplanted into Wikpedia namespace from userspace. Gigs (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply; these guidelines definitely call for the deletion of the articles which have already been moved into mainspace. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The old redirects from WP space into mainspace don't really matter, and can be speedy deleted. The drafts which aren't yet in mainspace is what I'm talking about. I've also located Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide, which states: "[A wikiproject] is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly". That probably needs to be updated in light of the incubator, but it shows why wikiproject incubation isn't directly mentioned in the written policies and guidelines explicitly, it's something that was never really expected or intended. Gigs (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very highly that ANYBODY but you would come and tell us to delete these articles. We do not have them written to go against the consensus of redirecting them. Nobody reads them. We are just building upon them to be articles in the future. If they fail, I guess you could say we are keeping them as an example of what NOT to try in the future. So if we put Historical tags on them, could we keep them? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind I wasn't the one who filed the Torchic MfD that brought these drafts to my attention in the first place. I would not put historical tags on article content; that's not what that tag is for, and it would probably be held against them in an MfD. I'm not planning on MfDing these in the short run, but I may check back again in a few months. Someone else may very well bring them back to MfD sooner though, so I wouldn't delay unnecessarily. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, right now, there are no articles with real potential in the project space. But Bulbasaur and Squirtle have some potential and are the only ones I would defend. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just gleaned what info I could from Squirtle, and I think Bulbasaur was already gleaned. So if it comes down to it, they can be deleted. WP:POKE/Bulbasaur needs to be moved back to Bulbasaur though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK all that should be left now in the project is redirects, and Bulbasaur has been history merged back into it's mainspace redirect to preserve attribution. Thanks for spending time on this Blake. Gigs (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur merge

While preparing {{Copied}} tags, I looked through the histories of Bulbasaur and List of Pokémon (1–20) to identify if and when a merger occurred. Could someone point me to a diff or relevant discussion? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Gigs's comments are around where I was going: per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, any copied content needs to be attributed. I wish to identify and attribute it precisely. When was text copied from the individual article to the list? I would prefer a diff, but I can find it based on a date. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Text was copied from all 20 of those articles. We are not going to have 20 "Text from this page was copied from x" banners. End of discussion. I did rewrote 90% of the words on that page, though. So, really the only ones with text from past articles are Bulbasaur and Blastoise.

Ok, I just looked in the history and nothing was merged from Bulbasaur. The list section was maintained regularly, so there was nothing to merge. The article just had a bunch of fluff. That is why it was redirected. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'm here because I saw the Bulbasaur history merge in my watchlist and an edit summary that (incorrectly) indicated that attribution would be needed. If you rewrote everything, there's nothing for me to do. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

JamieS93 did a history merge yesterday, at my request, that put the history under the mainspace redirect. Are you asking if there was actually significant text merged or not? For that I was going on Blake's word. It's not really hurting anything to have the history there, in any case. If anyone were to restore the article against consensus, they should be reverted and warned. 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur should not be merged into List of Pokémon (1–20). That would be a silly idea. Please elaborate on your concern. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is suggesting a further content change. I thought you wanted the history for Bulbasaur moved back into the mainspace under the redirect since text from it had been merged in the past. Isn't that what you wanted? To preserve attribution as per WP:MAD? Gigs (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:MAD required moving the history from project space to article space. The articles are identical, and all that has been done is that is now easier for people to override consensus by undoing the redirect. I won't raise a big fuss over this, but I think the whole history transition was unnecessary.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If text from the Bulbasaur article was used in List of Pokémon (1–20), then we should preserve the history. If not, then the history can be deleted. Gigs (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened was someone moved Bulbasaur to the project space so people could work on it, which moved all its history. The project space should not contain real articles, so I requested it be moved back. It would be just as simple to go to the project space article and c+p the content to Bulbasaur. It did not make it much easier for people to revert. Gigs, text from Bulbasaur is used in the list article, yes. The article shouldn't be deleted. It is almost notable to be an article. It just wasn't quite enough, so it got redirected a few months ago when articles like Charizard, Mr. Mime, etc. starting being created. Everything is fine and in its place now. What exactly are we discussing? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I think everything is how it should be. I think people were just confused because the article text was temporarily restored in the mainspace as part of the process of moving the history back. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "someone", it was Kung Fu Man originally, and ultimately Black Kite. It was done because of the massive history of edit warring over that article, with people (generally IPs) undoing the redirect despite the fact that the Bulbasaur article has never managed to pass WP:N. The idea was to give people a place to work on the article to make it actually pass guidelines, effectively using project space as a sandbox area, much like the article incubator. I don't see what the problem with that was. In that state, it required admin action to restore the article in article space, which finally put a stop to the back-and-forth. Now, any IP can use "undo", and it's back, which does make it easier to revert. Protecting the redirect would alleviate my objections.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think many of those people are gone now anyways. But in any case, if somebody restored the article now, I would let it stay. It probably has enough reception now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Still hasn't got third-party sources that address the topic directly and in detail. That's been the problem through the entire history of the article.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CNN reporter Dennis Michael described Bulbasaur as one of the "lead critters" of the games and "perhaps the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures." Joyce Millman's impression of a Bulbasaur was that it looked like "a dinosaur thingy with what looks like a large garlic bulb growing out of its back." She did not know how it defeated its opponents but speculated that "perhaps [it] overpowers them with a strong batch of pesto." Bulbasaur was selected as one of the top ten Pokémon by fans who voted at Pokemon.com. According to a panel of 5 - 8 year olds assembled by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 1999, Bulbasaur was one of the children's three favorite Pokémon. IGN editor "Pokémon of the Day Chick" stated that while Charizard "slightly surpassed" Venusaur in popularity, she called Bulbasuar a "VERY popular choice as far as the starting Pokemon of Red and Blue go". She also praised the anime incarnation, citing its attitude.

This isn't third party reception? (by the way, the reflist is showing a reference from an above section.)_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say it wasn't third party reception? I said it wasn't a direct and detailed examination of the topic. "A dinosaur thingy with what looks like a garlic bulb ...", pesto jokes, and Carmen Miranda jokes are not direct and detailed examination of Bulbasaur. Passing mentions at best.—Kww(talk) 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Future articles

In the future, we should expand the list sections instead of making a WIP page. Making a whole article WIP doesn't help much, and just makes things difficult. Articles and list sections are the same except for infobox, lead, section titles, and external links/templates/interwiki links. Do you agree?_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...In all honesty, does this wikiProject have *any* BLPs associated with it?! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 02:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This got spammed to all WikiProjects. It appeared on WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Alien, WikiProject Fan Fiction (which isn't even active any more), WikiProject Middle-earth etc etc etc. Most of these are likely to have very few BLPs and the ones they do will probably be sourced, but it's better safe than sorry, I suppose. And hey! Why not get a few hundred more people onto the longest page I've ever seen? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of living people in the project's scope! They take up most of our Start/Stubs class articles. They are all either voice actors, people who worked on the games, artists who contributed to the music, etc. Satoshi Tajiri and Ken Sugimori are the most important ones. All the rest don't really matter. I wouldn't care if most of those got deleted. I honestly don't see how they are notable but Pokemon species aren't. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think we could probably remove some of the BLP articles, narrow it down to the essentials (after sorting out who that is) and then expand the scope. What do you think?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should expand the scope so there aren't 100 voice actors in it. What do you think about making a Category:Pokémon voice actors? I wanted to do it ages ago. I didn't get any feedback, so I didn't do it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One unreferenced BLP down; I rewrote Ken Sugimori with references, as few as they were. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! If only we could find some more information on him so we can make a real article instead of a stub. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've greatly expanded and referenced Satoshi Tajiri as well. So, our two central BLPs are taken care of in this regard. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Porygon seizure video

A request for comment on the seizure video from Dennō Senshi Porygon has been opened here. Please chime in with your thoughts on the issue. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New games being made by GameFreak set for release in late 2010

They haven't said much on what they are making yet. It is speculated that it will be Generation 5. CoroCoro comics should be releasing information about it in the next few months. Be on the lookout for any pages being made in the future, as there will likely be loads of people wanting to create articles for it. I have no idea what to expect, since the last generation was 4 years ago. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Info on the fifth-generation Pokemon game. It's not a lot, but at least guarantees there will be something. Now might be the best time to figure out how to reorganize the hell out of some of those lists before the new ones hit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you plan on organizing it? Just merge them into generations at around 50 per page?

• List of Pokémon (1–51)(51),List of Pokémon (52–101)(50),List of Pokémon (102–151)(50)
• List of Pokémon (152–201)(50), List of Pokémon (202–251)(50)
• List of Pokémon (252–319)(68), List of Pokémon (320–386)(67)
• List of Pokémon (387–440)(54), List of Pokémon (441–493)(53)

How is this? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, I have started a userspace article for Zoroark and it's Pre-evo. If you have anything to add, please do. Maybe once there is enough information on them, there will be enough sources for a list sooner then we think. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon: Phantom Ruler Z

Keep an eye on it over the next week or so guys, and especially over the weekend. It's possible that Pokémon Sunday will reveal either "Z" or the full title of the film (possibly both). Be prepared for any move and edit wars that may occur until we can ascertain the correct title/content either way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Sunday should be revealing the first Generation V Pokémon 12 hours from now. Get ready for users trying to insert *gasp* confirmed information. --Sonic Mew (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Pokémon (video game series) too; people will be bound to start adding their own OR names for the games (I've already reverted on it twice). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tackling the lists head-on

Okay, we'll all pretty much concede the lists are terrible, and something should be done about them. I'm not exactly while about leaving the 800 lb gorilla alone at this point though given as much progress as we've made, so I started off splitting the lists per generation. This makes adding reception easier, as we'll be able to tackle it per-generation (i.e. how people reacted to the new ones in a game as a whole).

From there going to start trying to condense them together. The *best* option would be to do a separate list per generation (or even just two), but with the info available that might be wishful thinking. Either way making these smaller will save our sanity and watch lists, and make a true Pokemon Species GT a plausibility.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ew. The bot made some sort of mistake and sent a portion of species redirects to the wrong place. Treecko, Totodile, etc. I am not sure exactly which ones. This needs to be fixed though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In some cases there were/are triple redirects. The bot can't handle that; they'll have to be fixed manually. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you know, even if it would be big, it would be best, I think, if there were only one list per generation. This would allow for reception on a whole generation of Pokémon. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The reception on the generations should go in the individual game articles, right? I just think that 100 or more per page would be too much. I don't see how making a single page makes anything easier. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be ok with 2-3 lists per generation though. As in around 50 per list, like shown above. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken paragraphs

I just realized something very frustrating. There are a few spots on the lists, which I think are where KfM split gens, that break content at a certain length. This is fine for the content, as these breaks act like extra spaces, they just merge back. BUT all links and references that get broken up, break. They no longer work. This is a very tedious job to unbreak the content. Any ideas?_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There's one fix I can think of to that, though my arms are tied up atm with work to get it done: instead of going in there manually, open up the older page they came from and re-copy them from history. I think Wikipedia was suffering a glitch at the time, resulting in this clustermuck when I started this up. Sorry folks :\.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that thats fixed... Lists of around 50's as mentioned above? I think we should get it over with. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Charizard for GA

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Charizard for GA

Do you think I should nominate Charizard for GA, or wait for more comments on the peer review? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Close the peer review and nominate. I don't think you'll be getting more comments any time soon. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am going to wait for people to comment on it today, since I asked for more comments at WP:VG, and will close and nominate tomorrow if nobody adds to the review. Unless a good handful of people say it is definitely ready. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I finally got a review. See Talk:Charizard/GA2 for the review and comment on anything you think is iffy. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He passed it! We now have 1 more GA. Feel free to tweak. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Article views

Using this tool, I found out some interesting things. Currently Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver is getting arround 3-4k views a day, while other games like Pokémon Diamond and Pearl are getting 1-2k views a day. I think this is a good way to see which articles are more important to edit and improve. While Pikachu gets 1-1.5k views, Snorlax gets 150-250 views a day. (By the way, just throwing this in there, Mario gets 5k-6k views a day) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Pokémon was the 651st top viewed article of December 2009, with 213,339 views, and List of Pokémon was the 686th with 208,539 views. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory AfD notices for gym leader articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Johto Gym Leaders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kanto Gym Leaders just went on AfD. Nifboy (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be suggested to merge them into one big list of gym leaders? If it can work for the Pokemon themselves... -WarthogDemon 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it will work. I am sad to say, but this has been looming around the corner for a long time. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Then how about a barebones merge to Pokémon regions? Basically listing each gym leader in their respective region with some short info? A "notable residents" sort of deal. -WarthogDemon 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize, but the Gym Leaders are listed at List of Pokémon characters#Gym Leaders. This is where they will be merged. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That works better. I'm for it. -WarthogDemon 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have brought up ages ago, I think a Pokémon League article would work good. We just need some good sources to make it notable, and then actually clean up the content. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pikachu Peer Review

Pikachu has been submitted for a peer review, which can be found here. Any and all input would be welcome. Regards, IndigoSeptimus (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Caterpie

I may have the start to an article in my userspace at User:Scapler/Caterpie. Just thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WOAH! WOAH! WOAH! Thats amazing! I will add to it right away. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you rock! I actually find writing the appearances section the most tedious part. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's ready to come out. You can do the honors. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, let's do this thing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Zorua and Zoroark

I want to remind everybody about Zorua and Zoroark. New Age Retro Hippie has formulated some articles into reception. If it could gain just a little bit more, it could be made into a full article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles on Pokémon from future generations? I like it. I'll look later on this week. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I did what I could, but there is not much out there at the moment. This month should bring more info from CoroCoro and Nintendo, it seems. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Although that bit about it sometimes having blue eyes, sometimes having green, is trivial. Also the CoroCoro scans may have different coloration because its a scan, so the color seems different, but it's really the same. Get what I am saying? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it here, I'm not quite sure why I added it. In any case, feel free to remove it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

New Pokemon number for lists

New Pokemon will be announced all year long. We can't change the lists every single time. I think we need to come up with a solution. Like saying something to the effect of there are 493 as of Diamond and Pearl, plus new Pokemon, and link to a list of Gen V Pokemon.

^{Pokémon has 493(as of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl) distinctive fictional species classified as the titular Pokémon.} (For now)

^{Pokémon has 493(not including 5th Generation Pokémon) distinctive fictional species classified as the titular Pokémon.} (For after a list is created)

I don't think we should change the number each time a new Pokemon is revealed, because saying ^{"Pokémon has 495 distinctive fictional species"} is a lie. Feel free to tweek the wording on List of Pokémon (1–20). I will soon update all the lists, because they are all using different leads. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I jumped the gun and updated the lists now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Pokémon Adventures characters

I think List of Pokémon Adventures characters should be changed to List of Pokémon heroes or something similar. This wouldn't change many of the characters, as there isn't much game information to tell, and most of them don't appear in the anime, but it would make more sense putting the all the characters' appearances in one place instead of 3 different lists.(Games, Anime, Manga) Any thoughts? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this as it will be archived tomorrow if I don't. What do you think? This list isn't even sourced, so adding their other appearances and trimming the manga plot info would be a bonus the way I see it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Pokémon heroes? Seems kind of subjective to me, to be honest. Though they are undoubtedly protagonists, I don't think that they all necessarily should be considered "heroes". Silver, for example, was undoubtedly a villain before he reformed towards the end of the GSC chapter; and what would become of the antagonists? I wouldn't oppose a merger into List of Pokémon characters, but game, anime, and manga all bunched up together... it would probably become far too long, and we'd reach a point where it needed to split out again. I think that the present page is fine. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what we would call it. I just think this list is unnecessary. It has no sources and is mostly plot info. It is no better then List of Kanto gym leaders. Merging all the characters's game, anime, and manga info together makes more sense and would be easier. It would still be unsourced, but it would be a better article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, I think Red (Pokémon) and Blue (Pokémon) shouldn't be disimbags. They need to just redirect to the manga page. Most links would be referring to their manga info anyways. They shouldn't be treated any different then all of the other characters. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well several of the interviews do indicate that to Tajiri, Video Game Red and Anime Ash are the same guy, so redirecting to the manga list might be confusing since there's technically another Pokemon manga Red which is someone else. As far as I understand it it's the same case for Gary/Blue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

... this is exactly why I want a List of Pokémon heroes. Then it would go to where everybody is represented instead of being split everywhere. (Although Red would just link to Ash, since most of his info is there.) Speaking of which, since most of Red's info is in Ash Ketchum's article, shouldn't Red (Pokémon) link there? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ninetales

I have managed to gather some reception for Ninetales as well at User:Scapler/Ninetales; however, the majority of it comes from IGN. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Although not as extensive as Caterpie, it does have a decent amount. I will fix it up and add to it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, you rock as a collaborator! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. I would suggest not really using the "Pokémon Ultimate Handbook" as a reference in the future, since it is published by Pokemon(right?), and just says a random Pokedex entry. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem in using it as a source. As you said, it has a Pokédex entry, and thus is the equivalent of using the entry from that game, but it is more accessible to editors and readers who do not have the games; since it is online, the information is more easily verifiable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Its just that the book gets it from the Pokedex, so why not just reference the Pokedex? :P If you think its more accessible, then I guess thats alright. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So anyways, do you think it is enough reception? It's a little funny, but I think it could work. At this rate, we will have every Pokemon have an article. lol _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it works; thank goodness for Pokémonofthedaychick! Anyone we should contact about history merges of this and Caterpie? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you get an article made for Qwilfish, I... I have no idea what I would do.

Anyway, seeing Ninetales' article got me thinking. What next? I've done a little work on three articles - Eevee, Clefairy, and Pichu. I think they could be made into articles with some research. But ideally, maybe we should kinda just go through the list from Bulbasaur to Arceus and kind of... grade them on how likely they are to be made into articles based on face value? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I have fixed up Eevee, and its three Gen1 evos if you want to integrate it into your article. Also, I think Magikarp and Gyarados would be an epic article. Arbok or both Ekans and Arbok would be good too, since we already have Koffing and Weezing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Magikarp and Gyarados would work. And while Ekans and Arbok may work, Koffing and Weezing are far more disgusting and memorable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but I would imagine Magikarp would get a lot of, and almost certainly more than, the type of reception I found for Caterpie. Sort of along the lines of "ARGH! Why does this Pokémon exist!". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think our goal should be to hit 100 Pokémon split out. Not as 100 articles, but 100 species that are or are a part of an article. We're already exactly 1/5 there with what we have split out! Ninetales and if we turn Caterpie into an article about the line, Metapod and Butterfree, will bring it to 23! :B - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about Zorua and Zoroark ;) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Scapler, before you go wasting your time, Magikarp and Gyarados already have a bit of reception you can use. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man's got some reception for Haunter, though I think that it should be expanded to cover Gastly, Haunter, and Gengar. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd still rather leave Haunter stand-alone if possible, and I think the sources *should* exist somewhere for Gengar to work by itself. Unlike the Abra evolutions, Gastly hasn't received the same attention as Abra, so effectively the latter two would be dragging him along for the ride. Haunter's pushing enough reception for his own article and there's more I can do with it, just I burned out and have been working on Castlevania: Circle of the Moon to try and get my mojo back.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, how would a Scyther and Scizor article(or any other crossgen evo) work if they are from different generations? More importantly, where would they go on Template:Pokemon directory? Would they just be listed separate, but go to the same place? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You could just list them seperate directing to the same article much like they do on the Template:My Coach series for My French Coach and My Spanish Coach. Salavat (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thats actually what would probably happen. While all of the ones out right now all are direct evolutions, I haven't thought of how a crossgen article would work. I guess it would be not as difficult as I thought. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the verdict on Ninetales - move to main space? Also, once again, how do we go about getting history merges for them? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really wary on Ninetales as it were...it feels like it should have more material before going out there, especially since a lot of the statements for it seem to be kinda light...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Same. It's not that strong in reception. If that amount was allowed for an article then we could create 100+ species articles. Anyways, if you really need a history merge, just go and put in a request at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gyarados

I just wanted to throw this out there. I put together a Magikarp and Gyarados article. If you have anything to add, please do. I am going to fix up Gyarados's characteristics. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This one I'm kinda going to argue it'll work a lot better with them apart, since there's such a heavy contrast between the two...just a matter of getting the *reception* for such...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, I just re-read the reception, forgot how much of Magikarp tied into Gyarados in that regard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really feeling comfortable on either one yet. Caterpie is a bit of a stretch as is, and really we should be looking at that as the absolute minimal standard. I don't think Ninetales is anywhere near ready yet; there's very little regarding it's conception, and very little reception either. Magikarp and Gyarados looks a bit stronger on the conception front (even weaker in Reception from the quick glance at the subpage linked above), but I'm not happy with how much of it is in-universe. It isn't just a simple matter of finding as much reception as possible; we need to start focusing searches on why they were created, why they were given the designs that they were, who and what they were trying to market it too, etc. I'm sure that there must be info on at least a good majority of the first 150, and maybe some of the Johto species as well; most of it is probably Japanese-language sources though.

Here's a random question: has anybody asked anyone who reads Japanese to look through what the articles and sources in the Japanese Wikipedia have to say? I know that I haven't taken a look (mainly because I don't speak or read any Japanese), but it would be a good (and potentially very rewarding) step to take if nobody has looked at that yet. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I have found with the Japanese Wikipedia is that it rarely, if ever, has sources. I may have happened upon one or two that did at some point in time, but nearly the entire Japanese Wikipedia consists of pretty poor articles. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still worth a check; I just checked their article for Pikachu, since our article on it is probably the closest we'll ever come to a new species FA. And from their page I was able to find links to and references for Pikachu being the eighth highest-earner (fictional characters) of 2003, and being ranked as the 2nd best person of the year for 1999 by Time; that kind of stuff (along with the later demonstrations of it's lasting impact, such as the Top Gear mention) is the absolutely most critical aspect of any reception/legacy section (and don't just say it; explain it, and add quotes - that's how the section gets built and becomes interesting to more than just fans). Maybe we will find something and maybe we won't, but it is still worth a good and thorough look just in case. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, as far as Pokemon go there's squat for design details, and I've never quite understood why. Mew, Mewtwo, Pikachu, Sudowoodo and a few others all lucked out a lot in that regard, but the vast majority have literally nothing said. And like Scapler said, Japanese wikipedia is a clustermuck though some gems do poke through.

However with that said I do agree things are going way too fast in a push to try and get articles out there. Caterpie...yeah I'm really not comfortable with the quality control there. This should not have been used as a source since IGN's "Pokemon of the Day" guy by that point was off his bloomin' rocker. A lot of the references are more passing mentions too than real meat, and don't add a lot...it just shouldn't have been put out there, and I'd really recommend stripping apart the reception to something proper and possibly bringing it back into the character list once the dust settles.

We've really got to back off a little here and start improving what we have, and maybe realize too that what's left probably isn't going to meet the real-world importance standards we need to. I just dug through a ton of pages for material for Lugia, a pokemon Nintendo promoted the hell out of, and even then I still think it needs at least one or two more references before we plan on pulling it out of the reception archive. All in all a lot of what's going to work as an article is already out there...Pokemon just doesn't carry the same weight anymore.

Let's focus on getting what we can to GAs. Hell as of now, Rayquaza could really use some CPR as an article overall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the quality is perfectly controlled; it was quickly reverted, after all. ;p And yeah, I know that cleaning up articles is of higher priority than making them, but there's not much I can do; I'm bad with finding references on Pokémon. And I kind of agree with you on Caterpie, I just kinda get clouded by wanting to get them back out. Caterpie's reception DOES kind of seem like it mostly discusses how useless and nondescript it is, but at the same time, some of it does work well for its reception, such as the article discussing how it was a popular character in the anime.

Make no mistake, I appreciate your input on articles. I wouldn't have merged Paine and Princess Daphne otherwise! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but you know what I always would like to see? A site for discussing characters. Kinda like IGN Stars, but a little more focused. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You and me both...as it stands IGN's Stars section went to hell when it decided it had to flood the internet with swimsuit-wearing ladies and worse dialog this side of Maxim. It's annoying as hell too because there are a *lot* of characters that are iconic that have something good to say about them, there's just nothing really *said* that we can cite! As for Caterpie...well, he isn't *that* bad, I think his biggest problem is Metapod and Butterfree fell sort of tacked on, especially Metapod. I think Caterpie by itself might work, as it's a shining example of a "cute useless Pokemon around solely to get a stronger one later", which is something the reception expresses and is not expressed very well in the other articles. I think there's a few things I can add to it too tonight when I get off work. As for making it solely about the little guy though I leave that solely in your hands doc.

Lugia's really close to being good to go. I'd say put it out there but I'd rather have a bit more reception for it if possible, maybe if Scalper can dig something up. He brings something to the table in a way too because effectively he's a good example of the promotions more or less failing, since hell there's one article in the reception that states outright people felt he was being forced upon them.

I do wish we could revive a lot more of these, since I know someday those lists will get nixed by some sweeping resolution that'll sideswipe us and reduce the lists to footnotes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so does that mean that the article should stay Caterpie? If so, I need to do a few reversions. I do think that some of this reception is kind of light and in-universe, and we should improve what we have. Making 1 GA is a lot more rewarding then making 5 C's and Start's _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have to admit, even though these articles may not be created, they can still help support the lists. It just makes them 1 step closer to being complete. (They are about 25% complete) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a good point; even though most Pokémon don't have enough reception for an article, each should ideally have at least a small paragraph in the lists. Then we could take off all those unsightly tags. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I really do have to insist Caterpie went the wrong direction...there's not enough to justify Metapod and Butterfree coming along for the ride...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but NARH was adding things that was making it not a Caterpie article, so I moved it. I will change it back. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that it couldn't work; it just isn't. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I really think that the lists should be formed in one of these ways: Either four lists, one for each generation, or listing Pokémon by their primary type. The former would make for large lists while the latter would seem crufty, but I feel that the former COULD be done, and the reception would be focused, and the latter would also have more focused reception, though it would be harder to find. Either way, both options are better than what we have now. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still like this idea:

• List of Pokémon (1–51)(51),List of Pokémon (52–101)(50),List of Pokémon (102–151)(50)
• List of Pokémon (152–201)(50), List of Pokémon (202–251)(50)
• List of Pokémon (252–319)(68), List of Pokémon (320–386)(67)
• List of Pokémon (387–440)(54), List of Pokémon (441–493)(53)

I think it would work better. Having two lists per generation(except for Gen1, because it has 150) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove Bulbapedia?

I think that we should remove the links to Bulbapedia from the articles. Though it's a great source, and the one that I check most frequently, I don't think we should be linking to it. I was looking through WP:ELNO, and it seems that the linkage violates at least two of the criterion: 11 ("Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites") and 12 ("Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors"). It may just squeak through number 12 via the number of editors, but I think that to others (especially new editors who want to link to websites such as Serebii, Psypokes, or Smogon) it's inclusion makes no sense when considering that other websites run by fans are not allowed (either through WP:SPS, WP:RS, or WP:ELNO). What do you think? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is is a very stable wiki and has a very substantial number of editors. I think it is fine. Don't try to make problems where there aren't _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make problems, I'm trying to start a discussion so we can come up with reasons for its inclusion if it is ever challenged at FA. Simple as that. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I do think it counts as an expectable external link according to what that guideline says. They are very strict about fancruft being added. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Porygon episode again

There seems to be an edit war brewing again over the inclusion of the video clip. Since there was an RFC only last month which concluded that the caption (and indeed the article itself) is enough of a disclaimer, could you all keep an eye on the article and make sure the video stays in place? The removal is well-intentioned, but it was decided to keep it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

One person edit warring doesn't mean the consensus changes. Consensus on the talkpage a month ago was to leave it alone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Granbull musings

Dont know if this is useable but gamesrader as a musing page describing Granbull along with Gardevoir as beauty and the beast and says his underbite is compareable to Bruce Springsteen's. Salavat (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the GamesRadar pokemusing has been used before. Are you willing to add it to their list sections? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And added. Are we adding to the reception archive anymore? Salavat (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, KfM has been adding to it recently. I really don't see the point and would rather the reception be in the actual articles. It is too much work to put it in both places. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I still like putting it there if only because it makes it much easier for me to make out what can and can't work as a character article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pokemonofthedaychick

People from the "Anime and Manga" project want to know why Pokemonofthedaychick is reliable. I left a message on KfM's talkpage asking him to clear it up. If anybody else knows why, please say so on Talk:Mr. Mime. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe the fact that she has an IGN email adress could suppose she is staff, or do they just hand out emails at IGN? Salavat (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted on Mr. Mime's page, they state specifically the staff did those pages. Do they really think we'd just randomly shove up FAQs?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple boxarts on pages

Alexshunn has added all the boxarts in the infobox for what the articles cover. Someone want to revert and maybe talk to him about why there is only one per article? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pokémon Diamond and Pearl
• Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen
• Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire
• Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness

Those are the article effected. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another user, SilverYoshi95 has just done the exact same for HG/SS, FR/LG, and R/S. Something to keep an eye on, and keep removing it if necessary. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Also AmericaIsNumberOne on D/P/Pt (albeit a day or so ago; it got lost in some vandalism). MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm checking some of the files (was going to place a deletion tag on them), and it seems we have bigger issues. At least File:HeartGoldSoulSilver.png has been uploaded to Commons instead of Wikipedia (this one by SilverYoshi). The source is given as Bulbapedia, but the licensing is listed as "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" (the copyright holder is listed as the Pokémon Company). I'm pretty damn sure that license is blatantly incorrect. Anyone know of a way to alert Commons admins? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ill nom it for deletion at commons. Salavat (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; we've also got the same issue with Image:RubySapphireEmerald.png and Image:FireRedLeafGreen.png. I've tagged all the others (uploaded on here) for deletion with {{db-f5}}. Phew, so much for going to bed early! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Now tagged on commons, hopefully someone will pickup them up early and delete them. Salavat (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

With luck; their Commons account will probably receive a notification, but depending on how frequently they visit it might go missed. A note on the account here might be worthwhile too. Thanks for tagging those file on Commons. I don't have a clue how their system works. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They were nominated for deletion before, which on commons can take the rest of your lifetime to play out. I have tagged them all for speedy deletion as blatant copyright infringements now, so hopefully an admin will get to removing those particular electrons from the servers in the next few days. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Commons images have been nuked. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks to you both! Now only to wait for the images on here to be removed. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you did, can you make sure File:Unown180.PNG gets deleted? It was also uploaded at Commons. People keep adding it to the Unown page. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already been given a speedy tag, so we can only wait for one of the admins at Commons to delete it. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yah, I "nominated" it for deletion yesterday, but I didn't think it was getting anywhere. Today I looked a bit more, and figured out how to "Speedy" it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Refs

Some good stuff here that we can add to various articles; specifically development info for Mew and the original GS. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Already implemented information on Mew into its article. Whoo - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are fast! Though there's loads of info (about HGSS too as I read on further) which can be added too. (I really just left the link as a placeholder for tomorrow so that I wouldn't forget to bring it up! :P) MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I actually found the URL on NeoGAF and decided to edit Mew so I could say I contributed. :p I'd like to see Pokémon Pikachu brought to GA class though. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mew article needs to be organized in a better way. It's a big mess right now. Theleftorium 12:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I tidied the prose a little bit for the development section, I'll do a better sweet later today.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there may be two separate mentions of the CoroCoro contest. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur...

...has been restored. Just thought I'd let everyone know. I honestly think it's more notable than Rayquaza, so perhaps this was a good move. Theleftorium 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is about time Bulbasaur came back. His Cultural impact might be odd, but it does work. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and its redirected again. Salavat (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, full page protection is beyond inappropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article still is a shambles in terms of independent sourcing. The independent sources it has are things like pesto jokes, Carmen Miranda jokes, and gym-nerd jokes. None of those can be considered direct and detailed examinations of the topic.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It does have some though: while a mess there are a few that could be salvaged, at least to start a small paragraph. And Yeah I'm going to agree with Leftorium, I feel it works better than Rayquaza does as a stand-alone article. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With Rayquaza, I think we may need to merge; I'm not sure that there's too much left to write for reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up but Bulbasaur is being (continually) restored again. I'm on the cusp of 3RR and can't revert again; the user is seeming to ignore my details that there is no consensus to restore. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver

Ok, so the best games in the series, Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, have now been released, which means that the article is being viewed ALOT.(Peak of 14k on the day it came out, and an average of 9k views a day since then) The article now needs fluffing up in the gameplay and plot sections. Then it can be closer to GA. So who's in? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Zorua and Zoroark

Could they be notable now? Going by what Wikipedia:Notability says, Zorua and Zoroark have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large. They have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I think it would be awesome to have them out now, but its okay if they aren't. More sources and reception will come. They will be notable sometime this year. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not feeling it. It has a chance to end up like Marril/"Pikablu": Everyone reported on it at the beginning, but when the games hit the Pokemon got really disregarded very fast, especially after how much later species have been disregarded as time's gone on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kung Fu Man, though I feel that it still could end up like Lucario instead. It really depends on if it changes for the better later on or not. As it stands, there's really no need to split. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, really, it wouldn't be "splitting" since their information isn't displayed anywhere, except for a few sentences on the movie page. I think they could have more reception later on, and agree it may not be enough right now, but is a good start. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that they're not yet notable based on WP:SBST, but I disappeared for six months and came back to a lot more articles for individual species, so I may not be a good judge. —Ost (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulbasaur?

Yknow, after fiddling with Bulbasaur a little bit, it doesn't seem like it should be THAT hard to make an article work. I mean, it's not that much worse reference-wise than other articles; once you get rid of the content that seems all too guidey, the irrelevant CNN comment, etc., the goofiness of its reception diminishes and the good sources are allowed to be better noticed. In my test version, every piece of reception, as far as I can tell, deal exclusively with him now, and there's still some decent reception, such as sources talking about how it's preferred by young players and outcasts. What would definitely help is if we found more sources discussing that so we have a common string of reception as opposed to a random list of things people have said about Bulbasaur. One avenue that might not have been taken is to see if anyone has discussed his evolution's appearance on the cover of LeafGreen. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, if you think it will work, then try it. Hopefully, Ivysaur doesn't feel tacked on to some people. Most of the reception mentions Bulbasaur evolving into Venusaur, but only one mentions Ivysaur. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the upcoming 5th generation games

I just noticed this recent article that talks about two things that the 5th generation Pokemon games should address. Specifically, the article calls for a feature that would help players keep track of a particular Pokemon's IVs and EVs, as well as better sound effects and music. Just thought I'd let everyone know. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that article does not have any facts on what will actually be in the next generation, just what the author wishes would be in them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He didn't mean for it to be information on the next generation. He meant for it to be reception on the series so far, and what it is missing, or what they think should be changed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. That being said, I don't see that much evidence from the staff page that this is a particularly reliable source. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

They have names

...and an article: Pokémon White and Black. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that redirected quickly to the proper scheme of which comes first. I think that we should push for protection on the page, as surely once the news filters out, ten-year-old Pokégeeks everywhere will start trying to add speculation... TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is, are we going to keep the page, and make everybody happy, or redirect to Pokémon (video game series)#Fifth? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's at least wait until April 15th, when we get those promised "new details" from Nintendo. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's enough notable information there to keep it on it's own page for the moment. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Black and White source removal

Editer Ryulong has removed a number of reliable sources from the article; I would appreciate some other opinions at Talk:Pokémon Black and White. Thanks and かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Book:Pokémon

We now have a WikiBook compilation. I don't know how these work, but should it be linked at Pokémon, and a few other main articles?_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Merging Book:Pokémon: The one for Pokémon news with Book:Pokémon

Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Merging Book:Pokémon: The one for Pokémon news with Book:Pokémon

A user recently created the long titled version (originally Wikipedia:Books/Pokemon). I notice there is a lot of duplication (100%?) with Book:Pokémon so I wonder what is the best option here. Does this books have a different-enough scope to stay, or should it be merged/redirect with Book:Pokémon? Right now I'm leaning towards merging and redirecting to Book:Pokémon. WP Pokémon and the creator contacted. Headbomb Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The "one for Pokemon news" doesn't make any sense. It doesn't even have the newest games, HeartGold and SoulSilver, and Black and White. I say just outright delete it. It serves no purpose, and is not even a good search term. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is an MfD about it now, so you might want to participate there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: plot summary

I need a little help trimming the plot summary for Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team. I tried, and went from 20 paragraphs to 5. Big jump, but still needs more trimming. Also, finding sources to reference the plot would be great. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Generation V Pokémon

A List of Pokémon (494-495), and I moved it to List of Generation V Pokémon. Is this where we want to go? Should the name be any different? Should we get 20 species on the list, and make a new one, or just create one list for them all? How will they be organized when we might not have any numbers for most of them? These are some questions we need to know, so we can deal with it when the flood of IP users comes in adding things, and changing things. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of the article until we actually have the game out. But that's just me. -WarthogDemon 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is defiantly not going to happen. Loads of information will be released by then, and fans will be tearing us apart. My say, was that the list should be made once more Pokemon then just Zorua and Zoroark were revealed, because two species does not a list make. So, should I redirect this to Pokémon Black and White until then? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say redirect it until there are actually enough of them to make a valid list. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That and a hidden message on the latest Pokemon list page telling editors not to add any announced Pokemon until they actually have numbers. (Though I'm guessing few if any of the younger editors will even read it...) -WarthogDemon 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime and manga assessment

They have reassessed Jigglypuff and Mr. Mime, and have left feedback. I don't really agree with most of what Jinnai is saying, but I don't feel like arguing it. Here is the feedback they have left on their assessment page. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mr. Mime - I assessed this as C-Class about a month ago because of sourcing and I still don't feel comfortable with the sources used. Has been significantly improved since it was first assessed in September, but not much has changed in the last two months and I'm not sure it meets B1. VG project confirmed their B-Class rating. Requesting 2nd/3rd opinion with perhaps some talkpage comments. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • C-class.
  • 3 particular issues. First would be with #24. First off, is she a staff member at IGN? Ifso, fine, but the article doesn't support the statement of "multiple articles" as that is 1 item and it is a walkthrough, not an article.
  • The other issue Coventry Evening Telegraph which generally aren't considered reliable sources except on themselves or very rare cases. I do not know think that it is really the best source for the article and am not sure if it qualifies as a RS...maybe for its review of Pokemon games it does.
  • I would say this very likely qualifies for a {{onesource}} tag as it relies mostly on IGN for its analysis and primary sources for content. At the very least I'd put a {{refimprove}} tag on it.
  • A few items with structure and coverage need to be addressed as the character guidelines were updated to better reflect a path that is likely to create higher quality articles capable of getting WP:FA and based on other wipiproject standards for their character articles.陣内_Jinnai 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jigglypuff - Uses a lot of the same sources as Mr. Mime and is structured similarly. Currently B-Class. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • C-class, although overall in better shape, save the apperances section, than Mr. Mime.
  • Specifically #15 is unrelable,
  • 27 needs to be fixed from a bare-url
  • Per Mr. Mime, the sections could be merged. The anime section seems to have a lot of original research as well using at best, primary sources, to base opinions on.陣内_Jinnai 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Mime relies mostly on IGN for analysis? Am I missing something there or doesn't it only use *one* source from IGN? There are several from 1UP.com, but that's hardly out of the ordinary either. The bit about the Telegraph is odd too given that is reception...we're not exactly asking for a factoid on it, just an opinion with editorial process applied.

With that said there is one problem with it and why I stopped working on the articles: there's not a lot of real-world info to *say* about the actual pokemon in the case of Mime and sadly enough. It's like the issue with Princess Daphne: she's popular, there's a TON of reception...but there's nothing to say for the article itself?

If there was some more development info it could go a long way...and I know I'm coming across as "It has to be GA or go" and I'm not intending that, but we need more real-world material. At the time I thought reception should be enough to carry each subject home but it isn't working out that way. We need more and nintendo hasn't thrown us anything. Still, I don't think Mr. Mime should be ditched either: working with what we have and building upon it might still work out. Trimming the fat in other areas may strengthen the focus of things too...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding the Pokemon of the Day Chick...while staff I think we might have to discount her as a source, which makes little damn sense to me...but I know it'll get fought by people that take one look, see "FAQ", then start snowballing the objections because they don't bother to check facts. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure they said PotDC can still be used as a source, but in Mr. Mime, it says she ^{"has expressed her dislike of the character in multiple articles"}, but only cites one. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should have to abandon a reliable source just because some people are too lazy to verify things before spouting off. She's staff, and everyone time someone objects, we have to tell them that she is. It's tiresome, but preferable to giving in to those how want to have a say without doing any research. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still too much of an uphill battle. Outside of here we only have one person saying "yes, it's reliable", so first we'd need to establish it further as one. We need to at the very least find out *who* she was, as the anonymity is killing us a lot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I find arguments like where her reviews are published on the site unconvincing. Consensus has found that IGN has appropriate editorial review of their staff, and from her IGN staff-space articles and IGN e-mail address, she is staff. I think it is absurd to demand that we provide evidence that her stuff in particular is reliable; this is impossible for ANY individual article on the site; none of them say "reviewed by this editor and appropriately fact-checked", we assume that ALL articles are because somewhere on the site it SAYS they are. In my opinion, it is the person who asserts that she is not reliable that must prove why IGN means that all authors are fact-checked and under editorial review, except, oh yeah, THAT girl. Anonymity should not be a problem either; sources like the Associated Press often publish articles without the real name of the writer attached, but we accept them all as notable because of the parent; the same should apply here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, people are just refusing to listen to the notion that articles in an FAQ format can be notable, regardless of the author.

But yeah, I'm pretty much done with character articles. I might improve/remove some of the articles I have made, but not make anymore. ~.~ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should quit looking for reception. It helps the list articles alot, and makes some entries almost complete. Also, you never know when a jewel will be found, and maybe an article can be created. It isn't a complete waste of time. Just look at Poliwhirl, Ninetales, Togepii, Entei, Latios, and Latios. They may not have articles, but they have quality list entries. I could easily improve any list entry(in-universe-wise), but I don't even know where to start. Because of finding reception(or even conception info), I have had some direction on where to improve next. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find reception, man, you can do it all by your lonesome. Protip: Check Rotten Tomatoes reviews for the Pokémon films; search on Google for "site:www.url.com keyword" [example: "site:gameboy.ign.com Caterpie"]; Google Books and to a lesser extent Google News are good places to look obviously; other than that, you might notice that I really don't provide much reception for Pokémon articles! So rather than participate, I think that I will stick to improving the articles I've made and passing on my tricks of the trade down to others. Just make sure that you don't run with an article without making sure that there are some really, really good sources! Sometimes I let it slide, like with Neku and Fawful who, in spite of having no book sources discussing them, have a lot of reception and some creation information for each of them, but for the most part I try to use that as my litmus test. I thought Tom Nook was going to fail this test, but then I realized it actually had a couple decent book references, and while the being in a popular series thing isn't really anything one could use as an argument, he is a popular aspect of it, especially since there isn't a main character [therein making him the main character]. Of my articles, I think Ashley Robbins might have to go. Depends on how much more information can be found on her. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I use a custom search engine at http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=004453055800956638747:6ed0u5bnolu&hl=en (I can't hyperlink to it because custom google searches are on the blacklist of external links) custom search engine I made on Google to search for reception. The engine only searches those websites approved on WP:VG/RS. Unfortunately, right now, I have not made it so that it doesn't search the forums and such as well, so I just have to skip over all of the forums and user blogs displayed. Ahh, discernment. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I use that search engine too. You just have to put "-forums -boards" and whatnot for it not to include that stuff. I usually don't find many good things there, though. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP

Would anyone object if I listed the project at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates? This would have any unreferenced BLPs that fall under this project posted to one page. I think it would make it easier to clean them all up. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We have tons of voice actors, developers, and musicians that could use fixing up, or even deletion, if they see they aren't notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am confused by your last sentence; you surely don't mean that we can set them up for deletion if they themselves decide they are not notable. -WarthogDemon 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of them probably aren't notable. What exactly makes Rikako Aikawa notable? Why do they deserve a page on Wikipedia? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that Warthog was referring to "if they see they aren't notable" (emphasis added). You probably meant either we or BLP project members. —Ost (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I missed the whole point of this. Nevermind. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The main point of it is that the project has easy access to this particular set of pages that need dire attention. Some of them should be deleted, if sources are not found. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like objection is that likely; if there ever is objection, I suppose someone could simply remove it from the page. I will request it be put on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Unreferenced BLPs. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coro-Coro leaked

Coro-Coro leaked again. Worth us all keeping a close eye out on Pokémon and Pokémon Black and White until it's legitimately released. Also on List of Pokémon and Pokémon regions. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pokemon Black and White starters

Just thought I should let everyone know that an official source is now available that contains the names and images of the starters in the upcoming Pokemon Black and White games, as well as some new details about those games. The location is http://www.pokemon-sp.jp/series/bw/?SP-A-001=main. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mewtwo

I note that the article passed an A-class assessment not all that long ago, and it seems to be in pretty good shape. Might be worth a nomination at WP:FAC; it would be good to get a second article to join MissingNo., and whatever little niggles there are could be worked out during the FAC process as they are brought up. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought it probably needs a good copyedit first, but the article is certainly not far off. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to give it a good copyedit, perhaps this weekend. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My old prose in a lot of bits still bugs me...I seriously ended up writing that article while tackling The Final Fantasy Legend at the same time. I'll go through it with a fine tooth comb tomorrow morning, and make sure to tidy up what we can given that FAC's tend to snowball issues with articles when found.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? With my previous FACs for U2 articles I've often found that people are generally pretty eager to help with a copyedit, at least pointing out a lot of specifics that can be fixed if not going through themselves. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Tsutarja...

...used to redirect to Pokémon Black and White, but an anonymous user converted the redirect into a regular article, albeit a rather short one. The page will need to be converted back into a redirect since this new Pokémon species does not currently have sufficient notability to justify the creation of its own stand-alone article. Problem is, the article contains some sourced reception that may be worth saving and there's currently no 5th generation Pokémon list that can be used as a suitable destination for a possible merger. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The reception is really not usable, since Kotaku is often considered not reliable, and I cannot see anything about the author that would give her independent notability. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

At what point are we able to make a list? At 10 species? We now have 5 announced total. On the subject of "Smugleaf", I think it should be ignored, because this meme will go away. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd probably work best to make a list once we know just how many are in the game for sure, though that will take a while. Since we don't have any real information about these other than bits and pieces, might just make a temporary subpage for it. As for Smugleaf, yeah the Kotaku poster is repeatedly called by the veteran staff an intern and this isn't worth adding to even WP:POKE/R.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I made a subpage for GenV Pokemon. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would there be enough sources to create an article? What are the guidelines for how much stuff needs to be on it? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Big ass GA push, stage one.

Alright, so at the moment we have roughly 259 actual articles, and of those only 14 are GA or higher. A vast majority of that number, 116 to be exact, are stubs, mostly being voice actors who had a brief role in the anime as it was and really don't bring anything significant to the table as far as the series goes. We can and really should jettison a lot of those as they don't add anything to the series or the project: case in point, the Transformers wikiproject does not include Orson Welles despite his role as Unicron in the movie.

If we did this as a start and keep only the actors actually essential to the project, we'd be able to trim a lot of fat, and be a lot closer to effectively getting all our articles to at least start-class quality and then begin a push for at least half of our content to reach GA-class by the mid point of the year. Any thoughts?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

haha.. Half of our articles GA class in 2 months? That is funny. I do agree we need to cut out a lot of the voice actors and other people. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah half might be pushing it, though I do think we could at least pull off 50 (and with trimming, that would be about 1/3 of our total articles). Some of the non-bio articles can probably be dealt with too... Pikachurin for example has really nothing beyond its initial report and could be summarized in a sentence or two in Pikachu's article just fine, and likewise Pikachu virus could have something done with it.

Really with proper cleaning we could get much of our content to GA without going nuts in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we should focus on getting Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver to GA. It is at least B-Class quality, and is listed as a C-class. Also, I fixed up Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team by a great deal, but the plot section needs to be redone. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 26 articles to be referenced, a 35.0% reduction from last week. Outstanding work! The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Villain" reception

IGN is out with their list of top 100 video game characters, and two Pokémon characters are on the list: Gary Oak and Team Rocket. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

3rd Party Reception

My big question is this: why are we so bent on adding stupid controversial 3rd party sources to the lists and pages? Who really gives a dang if some half-drunk 19-year-old starts a column on 1UP about how funny a Pokemon looks? Alright, maybe they're not that way, but do people really get paid to make jokes about the appearance of a Pokemon? Seriously? This is information? Critical reception, eh? For most things, that would be a magazine's multi-angled analysis of the film/book/etc, or perhaps a review on TV. But we receive information from people who never touched a Pokemon game in their life? I seriously think people peruse the Pokedex online, look at a character, and make some remark about it. Besides the fact that 3rd party resources are preferred, why does this dross get sourced? 2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 04:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Forgive the rant. I have a way with getting carried away with words. Just give me a detailed, friendly answer.

Not someone who's ever really searched for 3rd party sources outside of Pikachu, but the probable answer is that it's because there is just so little out there to help regarding notability and reception. Since there isn't much available we end up taking what we can get, especially from sources allowed via WP:VG, so that it doesn't look as fancrufty. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand, somewhat. It just seems that if Pokemon were in any other encyclopedia, its sources might be limited to newspapers and the games themselves. But you mean, if I worked at GameFAQS or anywhere else, and began a column on, say, how suggestive a Pokemon looked, and updated it every week, that I would be able to be cited by Wikipedia? I would never do that; tis blasphemy. But in theory. 2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 13:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I will approach this problem from a different angle. Reception for a Pokémon is not limited to its role in the games, or how it interacts with the plot. In reception for a movie, it would be perfectly acceptable to include commentary on the costumes, and reception for a children's storybook would have press remarks on the illustrations. That being established, that is what is happening here. Credentialed, paid reporters (though with less formal writing than other types of reporters, mostly due to the nature of their field of commentary), and NOT any user-generated content, are providing reception on a very specific aspect of Pokémon: the artwork of Ken Sugimori. And yes, this does not necessarily require them to play the games, since the reception is purely about the artwork, and not its relationship within the series. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Like they said, reception helps Pokemon be notable. So we try and gather as much as possible. Sometimes the line is stretched a bit. Like for example, "Moltres would be tasty with some BBQ sauce" is just a joke, and the reception from that article should probably be removed. But actual criticism of the Pokemon is good, and should be kept. Because even Koffing and Weezing started off with GameDaily calling them "basically a floating fart ball covered in pimples". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

pokemon emerald

should a new page be created for pokemon emerald? It has tons of differnces between it and pokemon ruby and saphire. PS does anyone know where to find the artist needed in lilycove's art museum?RIVER^{Babble at my brooks} 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Pokémon Emerald, like Yellow, Crystal, and Platinum, does not get it's own page. There may be a great handful of changes, but those can be said in it's section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, the consensus at the talk page and at this page was to not have individual articles for Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum. You might find the answer to your second question at http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Lilycove_Museum. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just 2 Clarify

OK, I understand. It's just that I never peruse gaming forums or comments of "reporters"; I know nobody else's opinion on Pokemon's appearance. It may be irritating to read an article that says "this Pokemon looks like my couch, on fire, with ten people doing it on it while smoking crack", but I suppose that's reception. However, is it 100% OK to add receive info from the 'Dex? That's the easiest way to get info for me. 2D Maestro ^{Immune Diplomat} 21:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be a stupid joke written by an editor on crack. I am not sure what you mean by the last part, but it is ok to cite Pokedex entries for the characteristics. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Zorua and Zoroark

An IP took the content from User:Bws2cool/Zoroark, and revived Zoroark. They have been reverted, and I told them to discuss here instead of edit warring. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several independent, reliable sources in the article, which clearly establish notability. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking about Gary Glitter's hair is barely notable. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

OK, this has bothered me for a bit of time now, and I wanted to see what other people thought. Currently, Wikipedia:POKEMON redirects to Wikipedia:Pokémon test instead of here. Shouldn't this redirect to the more useful place for it to lead to (here), and not an essay on an obsolete community phenomenon? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's our place to say. That relic probably had community support at the time and I still see occasional references to the test in current discussions. I think changing the redirect would confuse people that use the test as an example and are used to the redirect. It would also screw up redirects in old archives. —Ost (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pikachurin

I went ahead and de-merged pikachurin because there was never any consensus for the merge. Most importantly, the only relation between pikachurin and Pikachu is the name; WP:COMMONNAME is the reason it isn't at EGF-like, fibronectin type III and laminin G domains. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the reason for the merge is simple: it's already summarized there in Pikachu's article, and hasn't been mentioned since. Your argument of "there's enough for an article" there is false since the infobox takes up most of the article's size.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason it's summarized in Pikachu's article is because you added it when you merged against consensus. I repeat, how is a retinal protein used for kinetic vision in any way related to a fictional electric mouse? The name alone isn't enough reason; this is like merging Sonic Hedgehog into Sonic the Hedgehog. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has had less than 50 edits made to it since it's creation in August 2008; closer to 40 if not counting the brief edit-warring today. Kung Fu Man's decision to merge in May was the first edit made since January. I'd say it is clearly more to do with being bold than it is a "merge against consensus". Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How is pikachurin related to Pikachu? The former is a retinal protein used for kinetic vision in humans, and the latter is a fictional electric mouse. --BradfordAssay (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want new voices to the debate; I am strongly against any merge. The pikachurin protein is not even that important to the Pikachu character, and likewise, the protein's name is not its claim to importance: its function is. Rather, the protein is important because of how it relates to Biology: its "essential role in the precise interactions between the photoreceptor ribbon synapse and the bipolar dendrites". I guess my point is, it is more important than Pikachu, so having Pikachu as a parent article is inappropriate. Being named after something does not make the name the most important part of a substance. If that were true, Einsteinium should only be mentioned in the Einstein article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradford, the protein is related only by it's name. The brief mention in the Legacy section in the Pikachu article should remain untouched since it shows how Pikachu has influenced culture/society. However, if a merge is considered for this admittedly short article, I think a relevant protein or protein family would be a better selection than Pikachu. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the amount of revisions/edit-warring in the last 40 minutes is absolutely ridiculous, so I've requested temporary full protection until this is sorted. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Ideally in a case like this an article that small would end up on some list discussing a related group of subjects. In this case everything's covered in Pikachu's legacy section already. If enough information comes out later on to create an article then that's another story, but for the time being there's not enough to justify a stand-alone article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be covered there, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be moved back to where it belongs. Pikachurin is no more related to Pikachu than Einsteinium is related to Einstein. --BradfordAssay (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Einsteinium has enough to actually say for an article however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added more to pikachurin. And even if it has to be merged, a relevant protein family would make more sense. --BradfordAssay (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. If it is merged, it should go somewhere else. Not into Pikachu, when it has nothing to do with it but the name. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With this in mind though, should we really have it under our project then?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merge into Pikachu. A brief mention in Pikachu article is sufficient. Id also say that being named after a character isnt enough to be included under the scope of this project. Salavat (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It also takes the name for its speediness. I think it's directly relevant, as such an article would be of interest to editors who are looking to expand the information on the series' influence. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

One last notice

New Pokemon are being revealed by the droves, and we need to keep up. June 2010 issue of Coro Coro: a few new Pokemon have been unveiled. Is anybody else aware of this? 2D Maestro ^{Serbia Suburbia} 14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware. But it just happened while most of us were asleep, and we don't all patrol fansites regularly. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it's too bad that we can't actually add those 7 new species to the Pokemon list yet, since the issue in question hasn't officially been released yet. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IGN already covered it here. It really doesn't matter if we add them to the temporary species list at the moment, since it's still a hidden page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulbapedia article deletion review

I thought this may interest some of you guys: WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 18#Bulbapedia Bulba has been put up for deletion review, as I felt that it was a highly notable website now, with certainly more than enough references and acknowledgements to warrant an article here. I figured that some of you may use Bulbapedia, so you may have an opinion about it that could be useful in the discussion. Thanks for your time.Neo^(T) 03:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Generation V Pokémon

Now that there are 14 Generation V Pokémon revealed (with some information about each of them), is it time to start a list article about them? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheren

Someone has created an article for Cheren, a character similar to a Gym Leader, who was shown in a video, and I have reverted it, but they keep reverted back. Could somebody help revert it so I don't get a 3RR warning? Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, for now. Salavat (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The talk page too. It has a WP:POKE banner. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also done, for now. Salavat (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as an update to anyone here who cares; Blake has nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheren. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Best Wishes!

A preview at the end of the most recent episode in Japan revealed that the new season, based off of Black and White, will be called Best Wishes! (with the exclamation mark) and that Ash's female companion will not be based off of the BW female player character; rather, she's an original character named Iris. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That is very odd, but we can't do anything about it until more information is revealed. We are not a news site, we are an encyclopedia. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We can put it on the list of seasons. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If all this can be cited properly, then I don't see any reason why it can't receive some mention at a page like Pokémon (anime). かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we at least wait until we know what date the new series will begin airing. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We should wait until then to create new articles, but since this info has officially aired both on TV and with the movie, I see no reason not to add blurbs to the main article and season list. --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures?

Would it be a good idea to put a picture of each Pokemon on each section on the pages that list some of the pokemon? I can't do it but.. well I could but I don't know how.. anyway I think it would improve the quality of those articles!! --99.163.246.132 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not possible since the images are non-free and have to be used with fair use, which limits how they can be used; 20 fair use images per page would be considered excessive. —Ost (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The page doesn't specify an exact maximum per article, so 20 images wouldn't necessarily be excessive in an article which covers 20 topics; that's only one image per topic, which certainly isn't excessive. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible. All 20 can't have images, for many reasons. It just wouldn't work, and isn't allowed. Plus, before you suggest it, only 1-5 can't have images because it would be undue weight, and people would change which Pokemon get images. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does the policy set a definitive cut-off on how many images can be used? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To cite WP:FAIRUSE: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section". So policy clearly prohibits the use of fairuse images for every character in a list. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It says that you can use a few images to illustrate the topic, though; this can be accomplished without violating WP:UNDUE by combining all 20 images into one image. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It would still be 20 images. List of Mario characters has an image from Mario Party that showed many of the important characters, in one image. Something like that works. But manually editing them together is the same as having 20 different images. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, a user named Hell on Wheels just added an "external image" box to all the Pokemon from 1-60. I told him to stop, and discuss it. What do you think? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his edits per WP:LINKVIO. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help. You probably realize how silly it seems that the article tries to describe the look of the creatures as something relevant, but has neither pictures nor an indication of where to find pictures. Apparently, Theleftorium is correct that linking directly to picture files is a violation of WP:LINKVIO; is it permitted to link to file pages on Wikia like this? Again, I derive no enjoyment from mindless linking, I am just trying to help.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First, that is not a wikia. That is a third party wiki-media wiki. Second, we have been without images for years. If somebody wants an image, they can google it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have made an appeal to tradition, but I nevertheless withdraw.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I just mean that its been that way for years for a reason. The rules don't allow it. The rules haven't changed since then, so it still isn't allowed now. But I think you get what I mean. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)