Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 8

Archiving

Archived once again, keeping the FFA. Feel free to re-add any relevant topics. Alvin6226 ^talk 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace Serebiidex with Veekundex

I believe that veekun.com pokédex, accessible at http://www.veekun.com/dex/pokemon/number, is more funcional than Serebii.net's pokédex. I'd like to see it replacing serebiidex. If people have comments, please post here, I attempted to add it without consensus and user:A Man In Black reverted me. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 20:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's more functional because it contains more information presented in a better layout, by the way. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No fourth-gen info, no info that isn't at Serebii? We can do without Veekun. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous amount of images, lack of fourth gen info, images manipulated by people for certain websites shouldn't be stolen regardless, the dex is incomplete. Doesn't this fall under original research? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Images manipulated by certain people? Explain? ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The "shiny" Sugimori artwork, I know of only two places where the creator allowed its use, Pokebeach and Pokemonelite. I highly doubt you were extended this welcome. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We can use other peoples' research, published in other publications, as resources and references for Wikipedia articles. In fact, that's what we should do. It doesn't make Veekun a good resource (it's not really anything but Yet Another Fansite Pokédex). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are also other good features: calculator of stat %iles, awex0me search function, comparisons between pokémon, and Eevee will get the d/p dex up soon. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 20:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We're set for fansite Pokédexes, thanks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain? We can get rid of the worse pokédexen at the same time, I see absolutely no problem with that. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Veekun's isn't significantly better than Serebii's, and I already know Serebii's doesn't have any major errors, something I don't necessarily know about Veekun. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

-de-indent- I would also not oppose the keeping of serebii, and addition of veekun, serebiidex is already ok. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP:V requires a good source. While Veekun may very well be a good source, I've never heard of it. There must be a reason, with all the information that it has, and the reason which occurs to me is that some of said information is wrong. Besides, all the extra features only matter to people who are already Pokemon fans, meaning they're not needed. -Amarkov ^babble 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, good point. Conflict over. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 22:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but quirk an eyebrow at the direction this went, given that I was one of the handful of people ripping data that Serebii used. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a link whore and I don't think my Pokedex is perfect (although I have always found Serebii's to be an incredible pain to read); I'm flattered that a group of fans wanted to link me but thoroughly unsurprised that Wikipedia thinks otherwise. Please, though, do not suggest that something of mine is fundamentally inferior because it is not popular, unless you propose that Myspace is a good source of quality relevant information. Everything I ripped from Diamond I compared against what I already had, and I went through every single discrepancy comparing it to other sources to see if it was an actual change across generations or an error on my part. I would rather not have what small reputation I have be tarnished by people who have given me little more than a cursory glance. On the other hand, if I do have any errors, I would always appreciate being told about them so they can be fixed. Regarding the shiny Sugimori images: I don't remember where they came from, but I must have assumed that they were Nintendo edits rather than fan edits. I will look into it and take them down if necessary. Lol paragraph. ~ Eevee 71.197.146.61 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that being unpopular automatically means it is inferior. The issue is that since few people have heard of it, we have no evidence at all that your pokedex is reliable. And since there are no extra features in yours that anyone but a pokemon fan would care about, it's safer to use the one that we know to be factually accurate, whether or not you think it may be a pain to read. -Amarkov ^babble 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, we reference Serebii for more than just 'dex info. They also cover all manga and anime sections of the subject as well. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 20:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Pokémon species}} evolution field redesign

Okay, time for a straw poll.

Take a look at User:Amarkov/wurmple.

Do people want the evolutions arranged vertically or horizontally? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vertically

1. Vertically but maybe a little more detail on why they're aranged the way they are. Joiz ^A. Shmo 01:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Horizontally takes up less space, vertically is styled like the other fields in the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2. I like verticle, but maybe Eevee should have been used as an example. If you can make Eevee look good, then they should all look good. And the staggered branch evolutions are a good touch. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 03:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   There's no way to make Eevee work with a template. I'm just going to make a hackish override to point to an appropriate part of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Arranging them vertically is nice because I feel it's more obvious what Pokémon evolves from which because of the indentation. With horizontal, you have slashes, and it's not immediately obvious how the evolutionary path travels—some may think that Silcoon can evolve into either Beautifly or Dustox because of the slash. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   If we use horizontal arrangement, I plan on arranging it vaguely like this:

   Wurple - Silcoon - Beautifly

   - Cascoon - Dustox

   The current version is sort of a hack. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Vertical allows me to see easily see the relation of cascoon to dustox, the horizontal method doesn't really do this. Additionally, the vertical method seems better able to handle complex evolution chains like Eevee's or Oddish's without making it look messy. Eevee - Jolteon/Flareon/Vaporeon/Espeon/Umbreon/Glacia/Leafia That's already really long and would more than likely not fit on one line anyways. Plus what would it look like if Nintendo decided to do give each of them a legendary evolution? We should pick a method that looks cleanest no matter what the future may hold. -Zappernapper 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   Legendary evolutions? ;) AMIB said that Eevee wouldn't follow the pattern, and it would link to a section in the article, rather than appear in the box. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was being speculative. We have no idea what nintendo may do. If they were to ever create Stage 2 evos of any branched evolution, the horizontal method could get ugly. Oddish with a second Stage 1 evo? That's 6 articles to fit on one line. It just seems like we should pick a method that will work the easiest in the future no matter what happens. While the infoboxes may become longer, the text can wrap around them, not inerfering with the article, much like the wrapping TOC. I wish more people would vote in this, b/c it's a change i've been hoping for for a long time. It's annoying having to read through bulbasaur's article to find the venusaur link, or look at sunflora after i'm done with gloom - they aren't even listed next to each other in the numbering systems. plus doing it this way eliminates that FAQ-ish language found in even our FAC articles - x evolves into y at level 16, then evolves into z at level 28. first of all this isn't totally clear - you could interpret it that "x" can evolve straight into "z" at lvl 28, plus discussing levels is in no way helpful to people who aren't playing the game. it's just something people like to put in the sentence to flesh it out. -Zappernapper 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. If we listed Eevee's evolutions vertically in the infobox, I don't think it would be messy. It would be long, for sure, but I don't think it would look bad. Also, that way, we would keep consistent between articles, too. If it's a technical matter, I'm sure we can find some way around it (like using line breaks or something)—See here. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

   It would make for one taaaaaaaaall infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Use this one for Eevee. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Horizontally

1. --Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I think that horizontally makes it clearer that Wurmple evolves into one or the other. THL 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
3. The second hack is better! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Nice, clear, good for all but Eevee. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this the most useless straw poll ever? We have an even split, EXACTLY. Four people for vertical, four for horizontal. -Amarkov ^babble 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, it shouldn't be chosen only by this poll, I hope. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but that doesn't make it less useless. -Amarkov ^babble 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, this was just an effort to get an idea what people thought. The answer seems to be "nobody really cares that strongly" and "nobody knows what the final design would or should look like, least of all those making it." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we have the evolutionary line in the infobox? Isn't it article worthy? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd lose a whole lot of this junk before I'd lose the evolution info. It's basic navigation info; heck, if I were going to merge the Pokémon articles, I'd do it by evo line. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm just saying, it is absolutely neccessary to have the whole line in the box? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not? It won't take up any more space that the current system, as long as we're careful not to cram the really ugly evo lines in there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I just think we should leave it in the articles instead. Does anyone else care? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mm. I'm gonna keep fiddling to see if I can come up with a clever hack; it's kind of important for navigation. I won't worry if it doesn't work, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't see putting the evolution info into an article unless we type a very basic sentence: "Squirtle evolves into Wartortle, and then Wartortle evolves into Blastoise." And that's lame, in my book. What I think about the infobox is that it's a nice place to stick basic info that would otherwise be very lame to write into the article.

As for devoting a line to the infobox for it, may I remind you that we currently have "Evolves from" and "Evolves to" in the infoboxes? We also have "Stage", but we're looking to remove that because of the Togepi problem. In fact, this whole thing is supposed to be a solution to the Togepi problem. And if anything, the new "Evolution" box should take up less space for most Pokémon than the "Evolves from", "Evolves to", and "Stage" boxes combined. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with AMIB on this one. The informaton is very useful in a navigational sense, and it's better vertical, in my opinion. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

so doesn't that bring the vertical vote up to 5? of course i made my vote b4 AMIB showed something closer to what he's going for. I just really didn't like how the "/" was being used. but combining horizontal and vertical methods looks promising. -Zappernapper 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pixel artwork

Right, I know that the Sugimori artwork is coming, it's at the Japanese Pokémon site which blocks non-JP IPs. Anyway, until then, some very nice people have uploaded all the sprite images, the only problem is-they haven't formatted them properly. My point is, should we tag the sprites, like this mock up I did? Or should we just let them get deleted (it's happening in three days), and wait for the Sugimori stuff to filter? I know some articles have that artwork, Enperuto (i think), and the three gods flying things. Thoughts? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for delete and wait. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sugimori artwork's about a bajillion times better than the sprites. Let's wait for those images. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's for certain, but do we wait until the art's released before deleting the sprites or do we delete the sprites now and have a bunch of empty infoboxes for a short period of time? Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aw, just do whatever. But when we have Sugimori's artwork, it's going to replace everything anyway. It won't really make a difference in the long run. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I have found 42 of the images, here, someone want to do it? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the sprite images were sourced, it seems. So they will be gone within a week, unless somebody can say where they came from. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We all know they came from Serebii, we're biding our time for the Sugimori art. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just uploaded sprite images of Manmoo and Regigigas, and put them to their respective articles. However, I sourced them to Serebii.Net, because I took them from there. So they wouldn't be removed now. I will comtinue to upload other sprites, until Sugimori art comes out. Master Spider 11:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time, the artwork is bleeding through as we speak, so there isn't any point. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 11:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

Dug this out the archives, maybe it'll get more view this time?

I have a new proposal for the Pokémon Collaborative Project, in regard to references, FAC and GAs. The aim of this proposal, if voted into use, is to increase the effort of the PCP community to help one another, as well as to increase the quality of the article we as a project we produce.

The proposal would introduce 2 new features to the PCP, an area where new Pokémon editors could ask for help about referencing, like the ins-and-outs, as well formatting and choosing reliable sources. Other editors who are unsure of this can also leave a note of articles that are textually solid, but require referencing. This could help the future set of Pokémon editors learn new techniques, not just for Pokémon articles, but all. Another outcome of this is that more articles can be nominated for FA and GA, since there are many articles that could pass GA now if they had the references, which aren't particularly hard to find. (Examples of these articles include Gengar, Clefairy and Sudowoodo).

My second part of the proposal is to set up a group of editors familiar with the FAC process who could brush up on potential articles for FAC, and also nominate the articles on behalf of the PCP, allowing candidacies to focus on the article, rather than the candidate. This group would also help answer questions in the FACs, explaining and expanding on the points and questions of other editors. They could also look at objections of failed FACs, and turn these articles into FAs. The benefits of this proposal are that FACs get the group attention they deserve, and reviewers are forced to review, rather than judge on who nominated the article.

If there isn't any major hissing and booing to either of these proposals, I'll start up a poll, or would it just be better with discussed consensus? The ideas mainly came to me today when I saw the Clefairy article, which I am in the process of referencing, and I thought, "Someone's put a tonne of work into this, if they had known what to do, everyone would have known about it." The second proposal is something I've theorizing for a while, partly because whenever an FAC is nominated, it doesn't feel like any member of the PCP is there for support, partly to help culminate more FAs, and partly to have a more unified project front on FACs. Thank you for reading and regards, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of building a better sense of community. I think that working together might even help us be taken more seriously. Even our "parent" group the CVG looks down on us. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the first proposal, please feel free to run with it.

I'm not sure about the second proposal; it seems a bit underhand to me, and shouldn't be necessary. Plus, nobody here would be able to fill the role.

Please don't poll: it's rarely necessary, and doesn't tell you anything.

Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably should have read the whole thing before I reposted. xD Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We should work together to make articles more Blastoise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hella Blastoise, even. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shadowy maintenance

Ugh...had to add Pokestart to Murkrow and Houndour. I have kept the other language names in a separate paragraph, as they were in the old intro before Pokestart. Please work on this! Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Trademarked Romanizations

There's been a lot of speculation over the "official" or "trademarked" romanizations for certain Pokémon names recently, so to lessen the strain of unncessary editing and conflict, I've taken it upon myself to look them up on the Japanese Registry for Trademark Application website. The romanizations they have there are the official ones issued by Nintendo themselves, so no need to be changing them until the English names are released. And if the trademarked romanization isn't out yet, just leave the romanization as it is via the Hepburn method, no need to "guess". The site is down for now, so I'll finish up all the other names tomorrow. Shaojian 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As of today, no further official romanizations exist aside from the ones posted: Usohachi, Gonbe, Manene, Lucario, Palkia, Dialga, Pachirisu, Manaphy, Cherrim, Dorapion,Hayashigame, Dodaitose, Moukazaru, Goukazaru, Pottaishi, Emperte, Mimirol, Mimilop, Pinpuku, Nyarmar, Riolu, Yuxie, Emurit, Agnome, Rotom, Giratina, Crecelia, Phione Yoshitsune Shaojian 07:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

All users have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, Highway ^Daytrippers 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, the agreed resolutions above will be made policy and detailed here. Objectors will be given a 48 hour window to make their case before the mediation is finalised. Highway ^Daytrippers 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects with 48 hours, I will close the mediation. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PCP stuff on BJAODN

Would it be good to create a special collection of all the Pokevandalism, some of which is super-funny? Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've been reverting edits on Mimiroppu for the past couple of days (all of them referring to its...feminine appearance) and none of them have been very funny or appropriate. Most vandalism edits are stuff like "THIS POKEMON STINKS DONT USE IT!!!!!" Joiz ^A. Shmo 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, BJAODN isn't very Blastoise.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any that kick too much Arseus. Except maybe the Misty atheism thing, and the wigglytuff swap babbling thing. -Amarkov ^babble 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I found in BJAODN today a part that was "from Millard Fillmore". Guess what? For some wacky reason, it was the intro to Brock's article! (:S) Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

People keep adding to Skitty's and/or Wailord's page that they can breed together. Also they claim that it's a "hot topic" in the forums. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 14:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, I have a sub-page dedicated to just that purpose, it can be found here. This is my "Keepers" page, and it aims to memorialize the vandalism on Pokemon that isn't just misspelled rambling and page blanking. Feel free to submit anything you find there. :) Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, HSOWA is pretty big on GameFAQs forums, and absolutely nowhere else. -Amarkov ^babble 00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but it doesn't have to be mentioned in an article. If we allowed that one, then all weird Poké-matchups would start being added. Like: Pikachu and Arbok. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The current intro is misleading and poorly worded

This is the second time I'm gonna be posting this (the first being at the talk page of the Pokestart Template), but I'm gonna say it again here, because this is the most active relavant talk page (the talk page at Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style is kinda low traffic too).

I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE the standard intro to all pokemon articles. The first part is okay, but towards the end, it just gets bad. I have problems with "The purpose of" and "untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments" specifically.

Pokemon do have a purpose, but their presence in the games and anime are more than just serving a purpose, the pokemon and their battles are the central focus of the entire franchise (excluding cute posters and toys), and wording this as "The purpose of" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

In addition, all pokemon, tamed, and untamed, are creatures (if you count non-biological pokemon as creatures). Therefore, defining wild pokemon as creatures, but tamed pokemon as not (and that IS how the wording suggests it to be), is just stupid, and/or bad English. And "The player" defines pokemon only in game terms, not in terms of the entire franchise.

oh, and that just reminded me. Should we really say "biological characteristics" in articles describing pokemon such as magnemite, porygon, and gengar? Blueaster 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the last bullet point, I do think that Anatomy would be better. THL 17:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Le sigh, it has been noted that the purpose of Pokémon should be noted in the introductions since it generally defines it notability. If you start any game it says, Pokémon are trained to battle, and that is what they are used for in any medium. Also, the Pokémon universe is different from our own, so Magnemite, Gengar and Porygon could be considered biological in that universe, while not in our own. Furthermore, Biological characteristics also describes behavior, mating, and other things that aren't anatomic. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you read everything I said? I have specific problems with the wording, because it's confusing, ambiguous, bloated, and simply horrible. And okay, we need to assert each Pokemon's notablitity. Fine then. But talking about the "purpose" of a pokemon is a poor choice of words. I suggest "function", or maybe "role", or just simply noting how Pokemon are the central focus of the entire franchise, and this is one of them. Blueaster 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And how can you assert that those pokemon can be considered biological just because the Pokemon universe is different than ours? Whether or not certain pokemon are living things has never been brought up because the question has never been brought up. To use the term "biological" implies that everything about all pokemon makes biological, scientific sense. Then we might as well say that the Pokemon universe is an extraordinarilly advanced world with teleportation and weight reducing pokeballs and nothing but trees, pokemon, and microorganisms and people, and that most industries are pokemon-related, and that there's no normal education, and most people don't have normal jobs. What i'm trying to say is that the pokemon universe is not totally defined, and begs plenty of questions, and so the best way to deal with it is just to talk about it only on the terms that it uses, not on real-world, scientific terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueaster (talk • contribs) .

Well, can you come up with a better version of the introduction? I'd be interested in finding out your take on it. By what I meant in the biological sense, what I was trying to say was that in the Pokémon universe, things like Gengar and Porygon are considered biological, while they wouldn't be so here. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I suppose if they are born from eggs then they must have some biological characteristics. THL 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• good point, but who knows if they meant anything by saying that they come from eggs? After all, what if the eggs were actually metallic capsules that protected the pokemon or something? The fact that they come from eggs is just a small detail in the game, and it's very possible that it means nothing at all, that biology doesn't matter. AFter all, most pokemon blur the lines between bugs, reptiles, mammals, plants, birds, etc. It would be impossible to think of what the pokemon would be like in real life (try to imagine a scaly squirtle, or a Jynx without her dress).

What I'm trying to say here is that many details in pokemon are simply irrelevant, inconsequential, or undefined. The term "biology" is innapropriate to apply to a somewhat superficial world where biology can never be defined. Blueaster 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And does no one else have a problem with wording of the second part of the intro? I'll reproduce it here.

The purpose of Example in the games, anime and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon, untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and tamed Pokémon owned by Pokémon trainers. Blueaster 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Metallic capsules? That's a bit of a stretch, even for Pokémon. Also, in order for something to develop inside of an egg/capsule, it must be able to assimilate matter; one of the qualifications for biological life. Anyway, the purpose of introductions is for people who are not familiar with the subject who discover the article to get a basic idea of the subject and what it is used for. In other words, introductions are to provide a basic idea of what the subject does, where it does it, and why. The purpose of the PCP is to eventually get all Pokémon articles up to FA status, and an intro that meets the above description is necessary along that road. The current intro may sound annoying to us, but that is because we already knew what it was saying before we read it. This intro provides context for those who don't watch or play Pokémon, and that is what the intro is for. THL 03:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's annoying to see it at the front of every single Pokemon article, I'm saying that if a student wrote a sentence like that in his paper, he'd get marked down by his English teacher for multiple points of uber-suckiness. But since I've been complaining about it for so long, I guess I'll take a shot at rewording it for once instead of just complaining about it.

• "As a Pokemon, Pikachu can fight other Pokemon in a contest called a Pokemon battle. The most common battles seen are either between a trainer's tamed Pokemon and a wild Pokemon, or between two teams of Pokemon and their trainers. These battles are the main premise of the card game and provide the action for the video games, anime, and manga. Some trainers also seek to collect as many of these Pokemon as they can."
• I understand that that's alot of writing, and some of it seems redundant and obvious, but I'm simply giving the info provided by the original portion of the intro that I have a problem with, and writing it in a way that doesn't suck. Blueaster 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Pokémon biology, check this out. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 23:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I really liked the Torkoal one. THL 01:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

this "biological characteristics" thing has been brought up before... but there wasn't much dialogue about it... would people prefer "Characteristics" ? i've also been thinking if there was a way to create an easy to use template for all species articles. That way the intro would be easy to fix, all articles would be uniform n presentation and if we ever decided to make a massive change, we wouldn't have to go through each article, one by one. -Zappernapper 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Pokemon: Blue

As a seperate game that is very different from red and green, i think there needs to be a seperate article with all the info about it centralized there. There's various links across WP that seem to link to an article about Japanese Blue version, but links instead to an article about Japanese Green/Global Blue version, or the article about both red and blue. Only problem is, it only exists in Japanese, so we might be lacking in sources... unless there's some editors out there who can understand Japanese and use sources in Japanese. Blueaster 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Blue was the template used to make Red/Blue in the states. Isn't Pokémon Green the different one? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

japanese red + updates from japanese blue => global red version japanese green + updates from japanese blue => global blue version japanese blue = never released outside of Japan, somewhat more equivalent to yellow, emerald, and crystal versions Blueaster 01:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible article name change

Someone brought up on Ho-oh's talk page that the spelling of the name should actually be "Ho-Oh". My player's guides also support this. What are everyone else's thoughts? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, pokemon.com's pokédex spells it with all caps and serebii.net uses a lowercase "o". I say keep it the way it is, but my vote will change if a canonical example is shown. Joiz ^A. Shmo 03:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... If you don't consider the official pokemon website canonical, what do you want? -Amarkov ^babble 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If the official website isn't canonical, then what is? The video game? Unfortunately, the main games capitalize every letter, but in Mystery Dungeon, which doesn't capitalize everything, it's spelled "Ho-Oh". I saw this in a screenshot in the player's guide. Maybe we ought to go with that? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any Pokémon screenshots online where the name isn't in all caps. Plus the card game has used both spellings. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 05:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the card game is not canon - look at this whole Togepi mess... since the official site uses all caps the next best thing is one of the video games. If Brandon says mystery dungeon is spelling it that way, i think it would be appropriate to move the page and change the current spellings in all the pages, provided we leave a desc. saying "as per Mystery Dungeon" or something like that. -Zappernapper 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Augh. Getting into arguments over what's canon and what isn't canon is only a path to madness. Let's just pick one we like and stick to it; this is a purely aesthetic issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Concluded image discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Image discussion has concluded, and the decision not to include images in the list articles has been made policy of this project. Thank you to all who contributed! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Grading

Does anyone think we should have our own grading system for articles, or should we just go through all the articles and grade them under the CVG template? The only problem with their's is that it doesn't give a lot of wiggle room under GA level, especially since we're aiming for GA to the top rung of our articles. What do others think? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if others don't give a Hoothoot one way or another and you think it'd be good, then Knock Out yourself! (That's a Poke-pun there. ^_^) Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we could really level up our articles with this. (That was another! XD) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be an example of the project evolving. Catch you later, then. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we determine what to rate an article? Is it based on the importance of the subject of an article or how well the article's written? --Brandon Dilbeck 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after much coding, *groans*, I've adapted the PCP template, so you can see the new version at Talk:Torchic. Thoughts? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Foo, whoa, that's a lot of content. Will this be typical of every article? Also, with some exceptions (like Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Meowth, Mewtwo), I think most Pokémon ought to be rated low importance, just because there's so darn many of them. The tricky thing would be determining which Pokémon are more important than others. Torchic may be an exception because of its role as a starter Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but hopefully the assessment side will help with improving articles! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No one start implementing it just yet, I'm still twidling the field names. Sorry, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm nearly done, I'll post full instructions on how to use it in a minute. First of all, we hae the following fields -

• Class
• Importance
• PCP (our classing)
• Rate (our grouping)
• completed (that says it all)
• current focus
• former focus
• former selectected article at Portal:Pokémon

I was thinking of merging the former picture and DYK notes of Portal:Pokémon there too, but are there any other suggestions? I also need a hand with the help box, at {{PCP box contents}}, its all the stuff needing done! Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Shin'ou towns

All but 2 of them are online, I'm removing prods and adding proper templates. I also asked SerebiiForums users to edit the pages and add points of interest. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential Project

So I'm looking at the GAs and FAs about Pokemon and I notice the following sections inserted in each of them:

The Pokémon anime series and films are a meta-series of adventures separate from the canon that most of the Pokémon video games follow (with the exception of Pokémon Yellow, a game based on the anime storyline). The anime follows the quest of the main character, Ash Ketchum—an in-training Pokémon Master—as he, May, Hikari, and several other companions) travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon along with their Pokémon partners, Pikachu, Blaziken, and Pochama.

The Pokémon Trading Card Game is a collectible card game similar in goal to a Pokémon battle in the video game series; players must use cards (with individual strengths and weaknesses) in an attempt to defeat their opponent by "knocking out" all of his cards. The game was first published in North America by Wizards of the Coast in 1999, until Nintendo USA started publishing the series in 2003.

It seems that having these in each article can only be a good thing for that article, and that these have to be there in the articles anyway in order for them to become Good Articles. So I'm wondering: Would it be a big help if I or someone else pasted the above into the anime and card sections of every one of the rest of the 493 Pokemon pages that don't have these yet? An example of what I have in mind can be seen in the Lombre article which I just pasted these paragraphs into. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Go mad, I use them whenever I write a GA, and they should be in all articles. The first can be used via a template at {{pokeanime}}. The second one has a second bit to it, which needs to be altered depending on what stage it is. However I see no reason why the portion pasted shouldn't be also made into a template. Thanks for bringing this up! Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Say hi to {{Poketcg}}I assume I'm allowed to do that. -Amarkov ^babble 04:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to oppose {{pokeanime}} on a minor point. Ash Ketchum, all right, but why May and Hikari, in particular? HighwayCello justifies their inclusion by claiming that they're as important to the anime as Ash himself, which, to me, sounds like exaggeration. But as for them being the protagonist's sidekicks, the same can be said of Misty, Brock, Tracey, Max, and even Todd/Snap. As for them being important to the anime, Team Rocket is, in fact, more important, having starred in a few episodes. So, is the inclusion of May and Hikari the expression of an anti-PokéShippy POV, or the result of a personal wish to provide Pokémon coordinators greater representation in Pokémon-related articles, or something even more bizarre? Yours inquisitively, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

They are the trainers who have been followed from the very beginning, have notably important Starter Pokémon, and collect gym badges, something Todd, Tracey, Misty, Brock or TR don't do. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May and Hikari, gym badges?! --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, when I think of the anime, I think of Ash, Misty and Brock and sometimes May and Max. But maybe that's because I haven't seen much past the first season. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Highway Cello is trying to make is that the sentence "follows the quest" really only applies to those three. Everyone else is encountered well into their own personal pokemon adventure. Brock, Mistry, and TR were all well involved with pokemon before Ash ever met them. we only learn about their past through flashbacks. by this same token Gary might be included, but the anime doesn't follow near as close as the others to be able to put them on par with each other. -Zappernapper 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ZP! That is what I meant. </stupid> :) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll have to agree with this one. But in any case, it needs a bit of rewording— the current wording makes it sound like all of them are travelling together, at the same time. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the top version, is that any better? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just as a notice, I think it'd be better if I apply these templates and sections to articles that already have a lot of content in them, such as Silcoon and Cascoon; that way, pages that need work will be more obvious. Otherwise, it might seem that I'm using these templates as a subtle way to make underdeveloped articles merely look better. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just don't add it to random, empty sections. Could you update the {{Pokeanime}} with the version at the top of the discussion too? Thanks, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cats

This user Badbilltucker (talk · contribs) from the WikiProject Cats has been adding the banner from his WikiProject to all cat-like Pokémon articles. I have been noticing that this has been reverted on some, and he has added it since to others. My question is, where exactly do we stand on this? -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the WikiProject Cats page states that they're interested in "articles related to cats, including both real and fictional cats." I guess that several Pokémon could be considered cat-like—a few Pokémon are listed in the fictional cats category. I don't think it's really hurting anything, but these characters are first and foremost Pokémon. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't really be a problem, an article might come under the purview of several WikiProjects. Point here is— What Pokémon do we define as fictional cats? Meowth, Persian, Skitty, Delcatty, Mew and Mewtwo sound OK (at least to me), but Espeon, Raikou and Electabuzz? Everything except the first four seems POV to me. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the point, but Espeon is much more cat-like in 3D. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Would they try and take some jurisdiction over those articles, or would we still be the ones overseeing them the most? THL 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't be too sure, depend on how active their Project is. They might leave us alone after tagging the articles, or they might try to exercise jurisdiction— in which case we might have to negotiate about whatever they want to change. But that, of course, is Highway's job. May the Mist prevail! --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope they stay out of it. I doubt any of them have had to much experience with fire-breathing cats that could strangle them with their psychic powers. THL 05:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they just went through Category:Fictional cats and added everything there. Which explains Electabuzz. -Amarkov ^babble 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But is Electabuzz a cat? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be, but there is no reason to think it is, as such has never been said by an official source. I'm considering whether or not to just remove the tag from Raikou, since nobody knows if it is a cat or dog. -Amarkov ^babble 14:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for removing it from Espeon, Electabuzz and Raikou. But we might as well wait and see what others have to say. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Espeon I'm neutral on, since it does look rather like a cat. But for Raikou and Electabuzz, I agree. No urgency, though, unless someone tries to rewrite the articles to better emphasize their cattiness. -Amarkov ^babble 14:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And of course, Sneasel, Weavile, Nyaruma, and Bunyatto (I think those're the names) are cat-like, with the last two especially so. I would convince the Wikiproject to include only the Pokemon that are actual cats instead of being merely catly. The problem with including Espeon or Sneasel is that they've the qualities of cats and other animals (foxes and weasels respectively). Which means, would Mankey be part of WikiProject Monkeys or WikiProject Pigs (assuming such projects exist)? Overall, just give the cat-lovers the verifiable cats: Meowth, Persian, Skitty, Delcatty, Nyaruma, and Bunyatto. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that Raikou and Espeon were dogs, because they're apart of sets of related Pokemon which seem very dog-like. Eevie is kinda like a fox, and was treated like a puppy in that one Anime episode, and Entei and Suicune seem somewhat dog-like also. But yea, we should only allow the Wikiproject cat tag on Pokemon which are undeniably cats Blueaster 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Espeon and the like are pretty much foxes. Entei and the like have been the butt of much debate outside of Wikipedia (and possibly in WP?). I don't forsee this cat thing being a problem at all, as long as they stay away from trying to make the articles as much about the Pokémon being a cat as it is about it being a Pokémon. Electabuzz?! Dang. THL 22:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that most projects would welcome assistance from outsiders. Also, there are a lot (and I mean a lot) of fictional cats, none of which had been previously marked as being under the scope of any project. In response to the whoever it was above, no project can take "jurisdiction" over an article. And, yes, I did tag every article included in any of the cats categories. The only purpose for indicating an article falls within the scope of any project is to assist in improving the article. Personally, it's all the same to me whether the tags are removed or not. However, considering our project does engage in assessment, which yours does not as of yet, I would have thought that you might have welcomed the potential help in determining the quality of the articles. But, of course, you all are free to do as you see fit. As the robotic alternate personality of the person who placed the tags, I can state unequivocally that there will be no attempt to restore any tags removed. B2T2 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with help from others, but the articles are about the Pokémon first, and everything else second. I'm not concerned about another project getting involved, but the focus of the article must stay on the fact that the subject is a Pokémon, and not on the subject's feline characteristics. As long as that is kept, I doubt there will be any problems. Of course, none of this is my decision anyway. If I'm sounding impersonal I'm sorry; that is my biggest problem when it comes to communicating over the internet. THL 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There's also the issue that with some of the things tagged, it's OR to call them cats, not to mention a POV violation. I removed it from Raikou because of that. -Amarkov ^babble 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed from Entei the category calling it a fictional lion and the fictional dog category from Suicune. I went ahead and re-added the cat banner to the cat pages it was previously removed from, plus I added it to Mew and Mewtwo (I assume that there is enough evidence to call them cats). I also went ahead and removed Electabuzz and Espeon from the fictional cats category altogether, and deleted the banner from their pages as well. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The point raised above about OR is a good one, although I don't know if it's ever been taken to this degree before. You all know the Pokémon characters much better than I do. If you as the experts in the field aren't certain whether these creatures are supposed to be felidae or felidae-type creatures or not, then there is serious question whether they fall within the jurisdiction of the cat project, which is specifically limited to felidae. If you think that they don't, then I would have no problems with the removal of the banner. However, I would also request that you remove the pages from the cat categories, to prevent any further confusion. B2T2 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed from the category all suspect Pokémon. The only ones that should be classified as cats are Meowth, Persian, Mewtwo, Mew, Skitty, Delcatty, Nyaruma and Bunyatto. Forgive me if I forgot any others. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Pokémon has no similarity to a cat in any form? Sorry, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just you.... -Zappernapper 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that their project will have anything to do with these pages. They probably just want more articles within their scope. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone care to help with a Pokemon voice actor stub?

I came across this, when I was doing some categorizing and found that it had the uncat tag on it: Billy Bleach. I added cats, then I noticed the edit history.. apparantly people think he is also Jimmy Zoppi? Not sure if that's true or not. I wanted to give a heads up to anyone that wants to help. The article currently needs alot of work: it's one sentence long right now. RobJ1981 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokémon stages

User Magikarp11 (t c) has been adding some Pokémon to the Stage 2 Pokémon category (and maybe others), despite the Togepi Solution of avoiding these terms. What's our stance? What do we do?? --Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep reverting them and hope they'll get the point and scoot. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We also need to have the associated categories deleted, because that will also add to the confusion. There is one for all four stages: baby, basic, stage 1 and stage 2. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, hi, did we agreee for consensus to delete these cats people? I remember there was a CfD on Baby Pokémon, which was kept because it was deemed useful that Pokémon should be accessible in that form. I agree that the person is going about it the wrong way, would someone ask AMIB if it would be possible (I'm sure it would) to add these cats through the {{Pokémon species}} template? I'll go talk to Magikarp11 and ask him to join discussion. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Side Note: Was it all the cats? I thought it was just speculated cats. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 08:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was all cats. Oh well, I've asked Magikarp to join, so the Poké Ball's in the court. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivially easy to add the categories. (And this is CATegory, not felines.) I thought we were going to dump the stage categories, though; I could list them all on CFD and note that WP:PCP doesn't want them, which is usually pretty compelling. This is, assuming, that people want to ditch the stage cats. What's the verdict? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep them, I'd much prefer this to "List of Pokémon by Stage". What do others think? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with any list/category of stages is the Togepi evo line. Are we going to have one group of Pokémon not added because of disputes? -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 09:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Manaphy/Fione, as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can Togetic and Togekiss breed? Can Togepi breed? If Togepi can't breed, but its evolved forms can, then it's a Baby Pokémon.

• Can Manaphy breed? Can Fione breed? They're both Basic Pokémon.

Anyone disagree? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Togepi cannot breed. I'm pretty certain that Togetic can (it would be the one time that I need my Pokémon guides that I don't have them with me). As far as Manaphy, it seems that it can only breed with a Ditto and the result is a completely unrelated Pokémon. I'm not sure if Fione breeds. Also, the only Basic Pokémon that cannot breed besides the Legendaries are the Unown, and you can't produce an egg from a Ditto pair. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 10:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll check Serebii, but I think the assumptions above hold up, Manaphy and Fione would both be Basic Pokémon, because they can both breed with Ditto. Togepi can't breed, but its evolved forms can, so its a Baby Pokémon. Agreed? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 10:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In relation to Unown, I think it's the whole alphabet thing that stops them breeding. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as everyone can agree that Togepi is a baby, I'm fine with that. I think this whole controversy started because of a certain user's questionable edits, anyway. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The key factor of a Baby Pokémon is if a Pokémon can't breed, but its evolved forms can. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 11:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am increasingly unhappy with the amount of OR being applied in general (among other things, but those are discussions for another time). We have multiple sources conflicting on Togepi's stage; to not reflect these conflicts (if we reflect anything at all) would be a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple sources? The only source I saw was the card game. That can't be all that reliable since certain Stage 2 Pokémon can be played as basic and it has marked Pichu as both a Baby and Basic. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 11:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The card game is conflicting with game guides and such. As for reliability, the card game is equally as reliable as the video games; they're both primary sources. I still think it'd be best to ditch the stage notation entirely and deal with it only in the card game sections, as the video games and anime rarely if ever use the terms "Basic", "Stage 1," or "Stage 2." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we then get rid of it in all infoboxes, or just change the name of it to "TCG Stage"? -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

thank-you... i've been waiting to see if someone else had that opinion, Stage X is so omnipresent i figured that a lot of people wanted it that way and there was some good reason. But AMIB is right, and I say yes to SaturnYoshi, unless we change the infobox to say "TCG Stage". -Zappernapper 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should ditch the stage from both categories and templates. The Baby Pokémon cat is useful in the same way the Legendary one is; while it's not always consistent how the term is used in each context (games/cards/anime/manga), each context is more or less internally consistent and at least largely consistent with the other contexts. Ditching the stage will go nicely with the proposed redesign attempt for {{Pokeinfobox}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

then is it also agreed that we should remover references to stages in the video games and anime sections? -Zappernapper 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Other focus: Pokémon

Do you know how long that's been our other focus!? April! I think that's enough waffling done, we should jump at the chance of lowered vandalism to get some helpful work done. Right, for starters what need's done -

• Cite the whole Monsters in My Pocket thing
• Cite the translations issues from [1]
• Expand the TCG section
• Write about Pokémon Adventures and Dengeki Pikachu mangas in the media section

That's plenty for now, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a fairly good Pokémon retrospective article in a copy of Nintendo Power I have laying around. Some of it is self-serving and useless, but there's lots of interesting where-did-this-idea-come-from stuff, like Shigeru Miyamoto pitching the idea of seven versions of the game, the president of 4Kids pitching "Catch 'em if you can" but then suggesting "Gotta catch 'em all" when the first one couldn't be trademarked, and FINALLY a source for the Satoshi and Shigeru thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunyatto

Does anyone have any information about this Pokémon? The page was deleted several times for lack of content, and it currently has no article. Surely this can't be the only Pokémon that no one knows nothing about... -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 09:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

UU?

What the fuck is UU? A lot of articles mention it int the video games section. Is it some kind of competitive organization or strategy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.111.221 (talk)

this should prolly be removed or an explanation given. could you give some examples of which articles u saw this in? -Zappernapper 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's best to not write such acronyms in the text because people don't know what they mean! I think this is especially true of strategy-based terms like STAB. I don't even know what UU is, and I've been playing Pokémon for eight years! --Brandon Dilbeck 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A quick search shows that the Misdreavus article contains the term UU, which means under-used (as in tournament play). The article for Pupitar also has a lot of this junk in the video games section. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

sigh... sometimes i feel like we need a task force to remove all that jargon. i'll spend an hour cleaning up various pages. A couple days later i'll be looking at another page and TA-DA, there's more of it. -Zappernapper 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ick. The Misdreavus article also uses the term Perishtrapping to describe a moveset (using Mean Look to prevent the foe from escaping then Perish Song to fell it in three turns). This kind of stuff should probably go too. First of all, these types of terms are nothing official (and just plain cheesy sounding) and rather unprofessional in an encyclopedia. Second, they are too "game-guidey" (describing game strategy) and we can't have that. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that so many articles are like this. Even the Shinou monsters couldn't escape. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Species uniformity

Last night i spent some time creating a possible solution for the problem that between our 450+ articles on pokemon species they all look one of several ways. Either they still have seperate Biology and Appearance sections, there's disparity whether to call it "Biological characteristics" (variances occur in capitalization) or "Characteristics", the Smash Bros info can be put almost anywhere, some are written "In the Pokémon foo" as opposed to "In the foo", and occasionally people even wikilink parts of the headers ("In the manga"). In an encyclopedia articles of the same nature are all dealt with in roughly the same way - this is an issue i also have with the animal articles of the wiki, but this project is much more feasible. In short, I've created a bunch of templates with a master template to be used for articles requiring more of an overhaul than others. The idea is that all pages will be laid out the same, and if we ever decide that one header isn't appropriate we can make a change across all of them rather than one by one - which obviously hasn't worked. You can view the whole project at my sandbox which besides a demonstration, has links to all the templates. -Zappernapper 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the templates have now been uploaded to the template namespace and can all be found through {{PokePage}}

I totally agree with how the articles of similar nature should be handled similarly. While this is a solution to a not-too-important problem, it would be nice for each of the articles to be the same in formatting, especially because the information in each of the sections is handled similarly across articles. My one big concern would be with template vandalism. We've had it happen several times (remember the penises), most importantly notable when poor little Bulba was vandalised when he got to be the Featured Article. But yeah, this would be nice for eliminating those annoyingly different section headings in some of the species articles. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• cough*Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style*cough* -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

this is to enforce WP:PCP/S, becuase several people write articles and name headers without refering to it. as for vandalism, due to the wide use of the templates, sprocting would be a feasible option. alternatively, monitoring a couple templates is easier than trying to monitor the 493 articles. any other feedback? encouragement? discouragement? if this is accepted by the community, i'd like to start implementing it soon. -Zappernapper 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would save us any headaches in the future if anything would need to be changed across the 493 monster articles we have. And as for "biological", surely there is a similar word that can be used that encompasses the "man-made" Pocket Monsters as well. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

well, why use a controversial adjective when it works fine without? "Characteristics" is, personally, the most appropriate. After all, using the pokedex info we usually also describe how they behave, whether they are kept as pets, and the environments they are found in. These things don't necessarily have to do with biology. -Zappernapper 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Drop it people, can I just ask is Eevee part of this "system"? It's a train wreck. The headers aren't even phrases, and referring things as "card game" are in-universe. Also "In other media" refers to merchandise by itself, unless there are very few points of interest with anime and manga, and no merchandise. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorrry about that guys, just a really bad day. Some of the points I made could still help though. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thank-you for joining the discussion. yes, eevee was the first article test run, following the directions laid out at {{PokePage}}. The headers chosen are more than likely temporary and can be easily changed to follow the current style guide. I only picked those because of this comment, which seemed a good enough reason. Nothing is set in stone so don't worry. As for content - not my fault. I was merely moving around what was already there, and what the template does insert ({{PokeVideoGamesIntro}}, {{PokeAnimeIntro}}, and {{PokeTCGIntro}}) is lifted from a few other articles. The paragraphs have remained essentially unchaged for a while, and are well referenced. If you have only an in-universe persepctive problem with how one is written, I invite you - and anyone else - to fix up the paragraph (that's why it was subst'd) and potentially the template itself, to prevent recreation of less-than-perfect wording. "In other media" actually had anime and manga sections as subheaders, go look at the page a little closer. A potential fix for how it looks is to create a "Merchandising" header. The PokePage template is not meant to solve all formatting issues, just help disseminate the most commonly used headers that should be consistent and add short intro paragraphs to sections needing them (which are easily removable becuase they are not subst'd in on the original save). what the headers currently actually say is not a flaw in the idea. -Zappernapper 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i've repeated the same test (it was before this most recent discussion) on all eevee evolutions, except the last 2. the PAGENAME problem has been fixed and the headers have been changed to reflect current style guides. i'd like someone else to try out {{PokePage}} and make any suggestions. -Zappernapper 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. It wastes server resources (450 purges every time you change it) and creates a vandalism hotspot. The problems with {{pokenum}} are bad enough: we don't want to introduce more. They look ugly in the edit window. Has any other article got this idea? No. There's a reason (well, those above probably). It's a solution searching for a problem. What does it matter if the headers are different? They're separate articles and worthy of inclusion on that basis. Variety doesn't matter.

The style guide aims to set a standard that articles should meet. It's not set in stone. There are always exceptions and cases where it's not appropriate. Blanket-washing templates just doesn't work like this.

Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... Highway and Celestian both give somewhat harsh objections to what seems like a pure good faith idea and experiment (Maybe they were not actually meant to be harsh, but that's what it just seemed like to me at first). I personally might have proposed the exact thing Zapper is at one time or another, because by what would have been my reasoning it saves a lot of work IMO, and though it's an easy target for vandalism, it can always be reverted right away, and might have diverted some vandalism away from the articles themselves. One thing I didn't know until now, however, is that Wikipedia actually has technical limitations and that would be negatively affected by having multiple templates at nearly 500 pages. So yes, Zapper's proposal does have technical flaws, and I therefore agree with Highway and Celestian that it shouldn't be implemented, but my message is: If responses to good faith proposals are a good deal harsher than this, it might approach violation of this Don't Bite the Newbies Wiki-policy that I keep on hearing about. :( Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if my reply was harsh or nasty, since that was not my intention at all. Suggestions are always appreciated, even if they're bad. Also, the abopve was just my opinion. Others may (and do) disagree. Sorry again, and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's great that's cleared up. I'm sure that happens to everyone. As for Zappernapper, it seems that it's better not to use any templates because of technical issues. We'll have to just treat each article manually because Pokemon can have varying degrees of material to cover in different aspects. Some Pokemon are more notable in the anime than in the videogames Porygon and vice versa, while some might be more notable in appearance than biological traits and therefore should be sectioned differently to acomodate that. That's why a template is actually more trouble than it's worth. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it's just my anal-retentiveness showing, but the reason for "blanket-washing" is to try and reduce the confusion when someone who hasn't spent weeks worth of time pouring over these articles goes from page to page and finds them all written differently (and in many cases, poorly). Biology and Appearance have long been defunct yet they still appear on a large number of pages. Stylistic issues aside... the objection i'm mostly concerned with is the server issues. This was something I had contemplated, but felt that if the server can upload the much more complex {{pokeinfobox}} 500 times, along with the uncountable number of pages using superheroboxes, fictional character boxes, and biography boxes, how exactly are templates that upload only a small amount of text going to be detrimental? I realize that i don't fully understand the nuances of the server issues, but ideally the templates won't be changed very much so i don't quite get celestianpower's concern. The other concern has seemed to be with vandalism - all of pokemon is a hotspot. I actually have been thinking along the same lines as Erik, if they are vandalised, it will be much more noticeable and can be reverted much more quickly. Even if someone has Luvdisc in their watchlist, due to the hundreds of poke-edits that occur every day, it will still take quite a while before anyone notices that someone vandalized a header. -Zappernapper 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i missed those last two arguments somehow, and i was going to respond last night, but it was halloween, and i do have some ort of life, lol. neways... CP, i didn't take your argumnt harshly, you stuck to the idea itself and presented some very valid objections. as for the idea that all pokemon are going to need different attention, i completely agree, especially in "Other media" type areas. that's why the template allows you to only insert those you need. as for whether a pokemon is more notable in the video games, anime, biological traits, or appearance - they all require these sections. and having pages being drastically different from eachother while containing roughly the same information is distrating and if the main purpose of all actions is to create an encyclopedia this is an excellent way of making the goal more obtainable. what encyclopedia out there treats the same subject different ways? If i looked up Penguin in the Britannica i would expect it to be laid out in the same fashion as Wolf. But like you said each subject needs its own treatment, so i would expect a section on "Domestication" in the latter but not the former. This doesn't mean they won't both have sections entitled "Biological traits", "Geographical distribution", etc. One won't be called "Biological traits" with the other "Characterisitics".-Zappernapper 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very well-thought-out on your part, and the reasoning behind this valid. I for one would support most of what you're saying; it's altogether likely, however, that this discussion here isn't really considered "in the spotlight" until the Species Merge discussion below is more or less over. If there's enough consensus and valid reasoning behind keeping each of the 493 Pokemon in their own articles, then this project detail should be the attention of our discussions. For now, though, I think this is put on hold. Regards, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

are bumps appropriate? i wouldn't think so... but this has now stagnated while everyone waits for AMIB to come back and tear Bulbasaur a new one (j/k). i'd still like a response from CP because his arguements were the ones i was trying to address, and i hope that he can at least give me some more explanation as to what the technical problems may be in response to my reasoning. Otherwise, hearing from more people out there in wikiland would be nice. I know SaturnYoshi, Brandon, Erik, HighwayCello, and CP aren't the only regular contributors.... -Zappernapper 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Organization of Pokemon

In Response to the problem that every pokemon has its own Page, I suggest that we organize pokemon into lists of pokemon type (Fire,Water,Psychic etc) I'm willing to undertake this task if enough support is expressed and if there are people willing to help.--Nicole M. 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object what reponse? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Nah. These new pages would be waaaaaaaaay too big, especially for Normal Pokémon, of which there are 77. Besides, what would you do for dual-type Pokémon? I think this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's a problem to be honest. It's simply a point of expanding and monitoring. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Nicole... have you read Wikipedia:Poképrosal? It basically is the result a very lengthy discussion over this so-called problem. Once you've looked over it, feel free to respond. One of the major points is that which Brandon mentioned - there is no clear way to organize them and consequent lists would become unwieldly. The other point is that there exists enough information on each pokemon to create more than a stub. Basically, entymology - physical description - role in video games - role in anime appearances - role in tcg/manga/culture. The water type has even more than normal... the pages would be nightmarish to view over 56K and since redirects cannot go to section headers, people would have a heck of a time trying to find the blurb of info they're looking for. -Zappernapper 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object We have Category:Fighting Pokémon and other such categories. Isn't that good enough? Joiz ^A. Shmo 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object The only people that see this as a "problem" are: A) People that do not work on the Pokémon pages and/or B) People that don't care for Pokémon at all. As mentioned above, every Pokémon is notable in more than enough fields to warrent an article and any stub-like articles will be expanded upon when more info is known. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object per the other guys - while they speak the truth, I would just like to say that our project pretty much aims to have all 493 of these articles as at least GA status. There's enough to be said about each Pokemon that that is possible. Not to mention that two Pokemon, Bulbasaur and Torchic, are actually Featured Articles, one of which was actually on the Main Page! That, in addition to the fact that many Pokemon encompass two types, makes what you're proposing a little flawed... But maybe you just weren't aware of all this, so I'll assume you were acting in good faith. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Being serious about this

I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't figure out some other arrangement than 493 individual articles. The problem is that I've never had any ideas for how to arrange them.

So, I'd like to enlist some help brainstorming. Let's say an AFD came down saying that all of the Pokémon species articles (besides Pikachu) need to be merged else they'll all be deleted. How would you merge them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nearly impossible for many pokemon articles. Even if we merged by type, each page would most definitly have the "high amount of kilobytes" thing show up when editing the page. We could merge together pokemon sets (e.g. the entire eevee set, The Vileplume/Bellosome set, etc.). We could also merge Legendary pokemon by generation, And, those without evolutions by generation. It wouldbe incredibly difficult, but possible.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 14:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

i like that idea, assuming workload isn't an issue. because all the pokeinfobox templates would have to be changed. but what to do about say Lapras? does it still get it's own page because it doesn't have an evo line? or would we group all those who don't have evo lines into pages by type? Lapras and Luvdisc being on the same page? could that potentially get too long? -Zappernapper 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Why would lists by type be unworkable?

Let's look at Mareep. After disposing of the infobox and boilerplate, we have...

• A speculative name origin.
• A recap of the Pokédexes.
• A pile of game-guide info, including where to catch a Mareep, what it's good at, and what it evolves into.
• A brief summary of a single episode of the anime.
• A list of CCG appearances.

If we ditched the speculative name origin (as incredibly weakly sourced speculation), both game-guides (WP:NOT), and let the lists of episodes cover the anime (just as a matter of redundancy), wouldn't we have...

Introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver, Mareep is an electric sheep Pokémon. It builds up a static charge in its wool, which it releases in the form of electric shocks. [Pokédex ref] It evolves into Flaaffy, which then evolves into Ampharos. [Serebii ref]

Even Geodude wouldn't be much more than...

Introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue, Geodude is an anthropomorphic rock Pokémon. It doesn't have a torso, but only a rocky, spheroid head with an arm on either side. Brock, one of Ash's companions in the Pokémon anime, has a Geodude for much of (whatever series it appears in, probably just the original series). It evolves into Graveler, which then evolves into Golem.

Not many Pokémon are going to exceed that length without relying extremely heavily on citing direct observation of the games/anime/manga. Even Bulbasaur has only about a paragraph's worth of info that isn't sourced to direct observation/primary sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed, however is direct observation blatant OR? and what's wrong with primary sources? while i suppose it's feasible (the two largest groups, water and normal, only have 4 and 13 articles that have no evo line respectively) to write these in such a manner (i'm still assuming to group most pokemon by evo line), the info you want to remove could still be construed as valuable to someone and is indeed verifiable, the only real requirement. if you're saying you'd like to merge all pokemon by type, whereas Dragon-types only have a handful - Normal and Water types have 70+ and 90+ articles respectively. and that doesn't address the issue of where to put dual-types. it's only a matter of coincidence that the few no-evo-line species i looked at could be easily grouped together by type. But prior-DP (assuming an evo-line seperation), where would I have put Sneasel and Lapras? Should I combine them into Ice pokemon? or b/c there's only two should i put Lapras in with Water and Sneasel in with Dark? But who else could i put in with Dark? If we have an evo/legendary grouping the other option would be Sableye, but then Misdreavus is by herself. It's just logistically psychotic. The simplest method, and the method which would cause least amount of changes, is to keep all pokemon seperate. I suppose one other alternative is to only group those with evo-lines and maybe grouping legendaries together, like Ac1983fan proposed. So that means Miltank will still have to have its own article. because grouping it with Kecleon will set a nasty precedent. -Zappernapper 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So if we merged them by evolution line, what would the article titles be? Would they be like "Bellsprout/Weepinbell/Victrebel"? Rather ugly. I don't see any problems with each species having its own article—nearly all of them are sufficient length and have plenty of good info. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be honest. I don't think we can write real articles for 99% of the Pokémon. I've been thinking about this for a long time now, and even our exemplars are borderline. If we can't write an article about Bulbasaur without resorting to Psypokes and Serebii and Pokebeach for pretty much everything, then all we'll ever be able to write for most of the Pokémon are extremely weak game-guides. (Mareep has all of these problems.)

I'm not saying I know how they should be arranged (type probably isn't the best arrangement), but I think, despite our best efforts, that we've failed to expand the Pokémon articles beyond stubs without having to constantly violate WP:NOT and WP:NOR. I think it's time to revisit Wikipedia:Poképrosal and discuss alternatives. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While I wholly disagree that the paragraphs you have written would be all that there is left (at the very least, you would say that it appears in the trading card game and anime/manga, and which games it appears in, when and what its purpose is in each), I do agree that we should revisit Wikipedia:Poképroposal. They gave us the chance to expand the articles, and then it would be re-evaluated. The re-evaluation has not yet been done. Also, it would be great for us to get a final reckoning, rather than an extended period of "well, we have Pokémon articles, why can't we have this?" on AfD. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the Pokémon appear in the trading card game, and which sets they appear in is pretty much pure game-guide. Likewise for the anime and manga; yeah, pretty much all of the Pokémon appear, in passing, in both the anime and the manga; why do we need to list every appearance in every Pokémon article when we already have them list in the character and anime/manga articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the move to boilerplate is a strong sign of the lack of content in these articles. Flogging Mareep again (and rightly so; we have it proudly listed as a GA and a completed article focus), half of the article is boilerplace or templates. This boilerplate is making maintenence easier, but it's covering up the dearth of content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure there'll be huge opposition to that idea from a lot of Pokefreaks, but if this is in the name of proper encyclopedic coverage, I'll roll with it. My suggestion is to create a page covering Lotad, Lombre, and Ludicolo all together and see if that works out, and if so, arrange all the rest of the Pokemon by family. Pokemon like Pichu, Pikachu, and Raichu deserve separate articles because of their extreme notability, however, so they would be exceptions. It may be a solution to divide it into articles named Lotad evolution line or Lotad family, Charmander evolution line, and individual Pokemon keep their articles like Mewtwo and Farfetch'd. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason Pichu and Raichu (both exceedingly minor in the games and not terribly important to the anime or manga) couldn't fit into Pikachu. That said, I'm not entirely sure families are the best bet, either. That reduces the overall number of articles, but doesn't solve the problem of a shortage of content for most of them. Mareep family would have exactly the same problems as Mareep. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what I'm proposing is meant only to be an improvement to the overall situation, not an all-out fix. Rarely can huge, overarching issues be fixed just like that. Now, take away all the templates and, uh, whatever "boilerplate" is defined as, from those three pages and you'll find about two paragraphs worth of original content to each of them. A Mareep family article would have those three pieces of content on one page, with only one Poke-page worth of templates on the page instead of three. Perhaps I should create a draft in my sandbox showing what my idea would look like, using the Lotad family. All-in-all, though, sectionalizing each Pokemon into families is meant to be a step towards the goal, not necessarily the goal itself, and once all the families conform to this system (assuming it works and is widely supported), we can work from there to improve further because we'd be much better able to implement the giant fix.

Now, this will probably mean removing Bulbasaur and Torchic's featured article status and cutting out most of their content, to Highway's chagrin I'm sure, but I'd like to hear what he has to say. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You've already decided, what's the point. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 19:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, discussing this with other users, they have come up with a valid point. Isn't this an obscene amount of work for an almost non existent problem? This sounds like a step backwards, we're limiting our coverage to boilerplate style paragraphs. It's bordering on ridiculous. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, AMIB seems to think it has to be majorly revamped, because game-guide and anime coverage on so many characters are apparently unacceptable on this encyclopedia. I honestly wasn't expecting this to ever be a problem, but now I'll have to keep track of all this to see who's right and who's wrong. I dunno how this will turn out, there certainly would be a lot of work involved if we go AMIB's way. Perhaps there should be more users giving their input. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

AMIB is sensationalising the problem. I think we need to revert to PAC, keep notable/Starter/Legendary Pokémon in lone articles and merge the stubs into lists. We shouldn't destroy Featured content because someone alone has issues with it. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My thought precisely. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If we could branch out the articles after de-stubbing, then I would support it. However, I feel we would lose so many edits, it would be like killing a million people to save the Prime Minister- pointless. If AMIB proposed to merge the histories correctly, then I'd be more pro the merging of stubs, providing they were split afterwards. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know too much about how this stuff works, so I'll let the other users debate this issue amongst themselves. At any rate, I'll consider making a draft of a merged Lotad/Lombre/Ludicolo article at my sandbox subpage within the next couple days. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have it posted in my sandbox now. This is pretty slapped together (I didn't even bother to put in the Pokemon infobox three times), but I think it gives an idea as to how an article describing a full Pokemon family would generally look like. Feel free to criticize it because it's not a heartfelt work. Thanks. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, we're not really serious about this, are we? I think that each Pokémon can be considered notable—see this for more information. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't consider myself serious about this yet, but A Man In Black seems serious; anytime I expect him to post an essay detailing why the Pokemon test is all wrong. I personally liked it at 493 articles, and I'm sure most other WP:PCP members do too. Well, let's see how all this turns out. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A growing disquiet

I'm not proposing merging all the articles tomorrow. I'm not proposing merging them next week. I'm suggesting we reexamine our course of action, and consider the fact that what we're doing is not the best course of action for this general-purpose encyclopedia. Our sourcing is rather poor, our articles are half boilerplate by length, and our articles often have lengthy game-guide sections that do little to impress upon the reader the role of Pokémon in any of the works in which they appear. Merging may or may not be the solution to this larger problem, but I'm feeling, more and more, that there's something fundamentally wrong about our current course of action.

The biggest obstacles to me making (let alone beginning) any merge proposal are the possibility that I'm wrong or that I'm right but the articles can be improved, the fact that I have no clue whatsoever how to merge them, and the fact that I'm already gobsmacked with things I've already started on.

I don't say this lightly: I think the goal WP:PAC set out to do has not been accomplished. We need to seriously examine what we're doing and what we should be doing. I intend to take Bulbasaur to WP:FAR as the start of this, not in the hopes of getting it defeatured, but with the goal of articulating the problems with that article, problems I feel have been perpetuated in Torchic and the various GAs. Ideally, these problems can be solved and we can carry those lessons into other articles; if they can't be, then we need to ask some hard questions of ourselves, especially about what articles the sources can support instead of what articles we wish we could have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We are still brain storming, there is mass oppose for this, and you're still saying "when this happens...". It doesn't matter who wrong you think the articles are, we need consensus, and I think you're forgetting about that. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing I'd like to know: You seem to have a big beef with the fact that these articles draw their information from direct observation of primary sources, as in, the games themselves. Is there a policy of Wikipedia that states that articles ought not to do that? If so, please link it so that I can read it, because right now, I'm not sure if such a policy exists. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources states that "For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.". Personally, I'm borderline against any merge; although it supposed to improve organisation, it would actually hinder the organisation rather than improve it: for a start it requires some sort of order to be imposed on the list, whether alphabetical, by Johto dex, Kanto dex, type, etc., while even Nintendo has not confirmed a fixed ordering mechanism, and may soon introduce a completely new Sinnoh dex, which would require a complete reorder of the list. Linking also becomes more difficult: either Flaaffy would become List of electric type Pokémon#Flaaffy, which will mean that less experienced editors will make links to almost useless redirects (Flaffy would redirect directly to the list, since section redirects don't work, and most people won't scroll through 70 odd Pokémon to find a pink sheep) or it will become Mareep family which, apart from being arbitrary (why not the Flaaffy family or the Ampharos family), would only ever be a rough name (Nintendo has never confirmed whether these are called Families or Genuses or Groups or Trees or what). Laïka 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. :) What's in my sandbox is by no means a solution, nor do I intend to make it one, though. I might say now that maybe A Man In Black has become a downright chauvinistic upholder of Wikipedia policy, and intends to impose that to all articles on the site; I hereby dub him the Czar of Wikipedia Cruft-fighting. ^_^ (Kaiser Jay would be a good nickname for him, Jay being one of the two titular Men in Black from those films of the same name. On the subject of secret identities, it seems Highway's secret identity has been revealed by pure chance alone... Wow.) I'll confess to a degree of irritation over the potential prospect of having spent the past year on Wikipedia editing what is now turning out to be a bad, failure-fated project. I can only agree that the problems AMIB points out in Mareep are true. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it okay if a page consists of 20 templates and templates only? Because if it were, this latest idea of mine might have been feasible: Instead of 493 articles, how about 493 templates? Each template would consist of one picture of a Pokemon and a paragraph's worth of summarizing prose content for that Pokemon, and then we could post these templates to pages titled like "List of Steel-type Pokemon" and "List of Rock-type Pokemon", the places where a hypothetical Aggron template would go. Then one could edit the templates themselves and the results would be visible on one or two list-by-type pages (depending on if the Pokemon has a type-combination) for consistency (I'm suggesting templates so that Aggron's section in the Rock-type list would be identical to Aggron's section in the Steel-type list). Since there are officially 80 Pokemon that have the Normal type among their types, we could have four List of Normal-type Pokemon pages, with twenty templates, and therefore Pokemon, per page. This could fit perfectly to Wikipedia's ideal of encyclopedic overviews without game guide and OR and all that because we're only giving a paragraph-long summary to each Pokemon, and having it divided by type like this could be a viable way to organize all these on this general encyclopedia without resorting to an official Pokedex ordering, and for Pokemon that are more notable these templates can have links to main articles. I could probably figure out how to incorporate evolution info and other things later on if necessary.

Okay, okay, so I will admit that this radical idea of mine is probably as crazy and misguided as it is ambitious, but the way I see it: if we're trying to come up with an entirely new system to organize and document nearly 500 Pokemon without any bloated info, we'll have to consider many kinds and ranges of ideas from many different people. Here's mine. ^_^ Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 05:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Smurrayinchester's concerns for organization, I think that can be remedied by having multiple List of Electric-type Pokemon, with 20 Pokemon per article, and putting each Electric-list page one right after the other, sort of like the way the Best Picks of the BJAODN pages are laid out. Typing in Rotomu, the Electric Ghost, would link you to the second List of Electric-type Pokemon page, and you wouldn't have to do much searching around for it. Also, if templates aren't good, then there's not much wrong to having two separate Aggron sections encoded normally into their respective List-by-type pages, though it would make it harder to do vandal patrol. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To Summarize: Merge the 493 Pokemon and divide them by type. Have Lists of Pokemon by Type so that for Pokemon with two types, they have sections in both lists. Since there are far more Normal-type Pokemon than Steel-type Pokemon, break these lists down into sections that have a maximum of 20 Pokemon each. This will encompass the 80 Normal-type Pokemon just as easily as the 20+ Steel-type Pokemon or so. As an example, List of Normal-type Pokemon (1-20) would begin with Pidgey (which is also a flying type; the first entry in List of Flying-type (1-20) Pokemon would be the Fire-Flying Charizard, and Charizard is the third entry in List of Fire-type Pokemon(1-20), and so on) and it would end with Arseus at the bottom of List of Normal-type Pokemon (61-80) page (Notice the National Pokedex ordering). Since many Pokemon are dual-type, they will be included in two separate type lists and may therefore end up being different when they should be the same; making all 493 Pokemon into bite-sized templates may be a remedy to this. One this is implemented, redirect the stub articles to the list pages that have the Pokemon in question, so that if Pupitar, a Rock-Ground type, were the 32nd Rock-type in the overall collection of Rock-types, it could be found in List of Rock-type Pokemon (21-40). With that all laid out, I'll try to come up with answers to any questions people might have with this setup. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go back my earlier point of, this is a ridiculous amount of work to solve a not really existent problem. And we can't have fair use images in the template namespace. Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thought so, on both your points I might add. Alright then, the non-template version of this brainstorm idea above will merely be available as part of our pool of ideas; I certainly won't try to impose it as a solution. I sincerely hope something will happen to make AMIB a little happier; I guess for now I should just watch his plan to put Bulbasaur on FAR. Thanks for reading all my stuff, as well. :) Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This will be the extent of my brainstorming participation: What's in my sandbox now is a very rough depiction of what a List of Pokemon by Type page may look like. I made it as much for my own purpose in looking ahead as it is for showing everyone here what one way of doing things may look like. Now, I really don't think there'll be any support for any species article merging anywhere; What I really hope happens is that when AMIB takes Bulbasaur to another FAR, we'll find enough problem fixes that we can improve all our GAs and Torchic and perhaps keep it all at 493 articles. Regards, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep it simple, why can't we group them by National Dex number? If we do that, we'll end up with 25 articles. After that, we can create a List of Pokémon by Type and link each Pokémon's name to its National Dex List section. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem we are trying to solve here? Articles with superfluous information? Is that all? This is extremely minor, and IMO, not worth all the thought that you guys are putting into it. Also, do you have any idea how much time and effort it would take to change something which is already FINE?Spinach Dip 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The point that we are trying to make here is precisely that it's not fine. And as for the effort, Wikipedia isn't propped up on laziness or apathy, it is sustained by fanatical effort. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with The Raven's Apprentice that if there has to be a change, maybe doing it the National Dex way would be the way to go. There may, however, be no merging at all resulting from this. AMIB himself did say that he's not proposing merging anything tomorrow or next week, and that he's merely going to take Bulbasaur to a second Featured Article Review, ideally to find fixes to what he considers problems and apply those fixes to the rest of the 493 Pokemon creature articles so that they can be kept. At this point, then, maybe merging shouldn't even be part of the question; it's more like a drive to improve articles. Like I said, I won't give more thought to this matter unless something really substantial comes up. I'll just pay attention to the FAR. Regards, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue I have with merging the articles is that each Pokémon would not have its own article, which seems to make each seem less unique. Of course, there have been several suggestions as to how to group them.

Grouping them into articles by National Dex number doesn't seem appropriate because the Pokémon in the groups may have absolutely nothing in common except that their assigned numbers are close to each other. Now of course, we'd have to divvy them up somehow. And how do we decide how many Pokémon go into a page? Do we arbitrarily choose 20 Pokémon per page? Maybe 25 sounds better to others. We may as well choose 37 Pokémon per page if we're going to be arbitrary about it.

I don't think anyone's mentioned grouping Pokémon alphabetically, but there are similar issues with this. There are a lot more Pokémon starting with the letter M than the letter X or Z. This would create unequal pages (and there's nothing terribly bad about that), but larger pages would be split up, and this brings up issues similar to dividing Pokémon by number.

Grouping Pokémon by type seems difficult mainly because of dual-type Pokémon, which are very common. So the Pokémon would most likely be listed on two different pages, but this means that they would be edited separately. For instance, the Fire-type and Flying-type articles may contain different information about Moltres. This could be solved by using Erik Jensen's idea of introducing templates, but the problem with templates is that we would have hundreds of them, and beginning editors would probably not understand how to go about editing a template, which is so not Wikipedia.

To group them by evolutionary lines seems well structured (my personal favorite choice), and would easily allow a reader to view the "lifespan" of a Pokémon, from the first stage to the last (this would suit Slowpoke well), but again, there's the problem of categorizing the Pokémon; some Pokémon gain new types as they evolve (Torchic gains Fighting when evolving into Combusken), and others change completely (Azurill, a Normal-type Pokémon, evolves into a pure Water-type, Marill). Would we do away with the categories? I find them really useful and would hate to see them go, unless they were replaced by 17 or so templates, we already decided that we didn't need those.

I won't even discuss the issues of grouping Pokémon by color.

And Smurrayinchester/Laïka made an excellent point that we wouldn't be able to make redirects to sections in the articles because you can't redirect to sections. This would cause a big headache because we'd have to fix all of the links or else readers would have to search through the page or TOC to find the Pokémon they're looking for.

And merging the pages would probably mean the loss of FA and GA statuses. To implement a huge change would require a lot of work that I frankly don't see anyone wanting to do. It seems to me that one of the main reasons to merge Pokémon is to remove troublesome information from longer articles by merging them into shorter sections. I think that instead of merging them, we should figure out what exactly we need to do to make the current articles better.

--Brandon Dilbeck 20:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Nice speech. ;) Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 20:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR?

The problem witht his theory is that Bulbasaur is more likely going to get it's chained pulled. Charizard is a much higher quality than it and I still can't get it featured. I think we need to focus on improving the article, as opposed to pulling down FAs, so we end up saying, "Ah we have no FAs, let's start ridiculously merging!" Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the person above me. What happens to the 2 Featured and 20-ish Good articles we have when you do something like this? We'd effectivelly be wasting huge numbers of man-hours, with the result that we'd now have to re-write 493 articles from scratch (although; now they'd be much smaller, meaning generally that we are compiling a huge pile of stubs together and calling them 'true' articles). Having the layout the way it is now is (by far) the lesser of two evils. Spinach Dip 10:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, my advice to everyone (AMIB included) is to simply have a "November Revisal Project" section in Bulbasaur's talk page and use it to monitor improvement of that page, and use what we come up with in there to fix Torchic and the GAs. It seems true that a FAR may be overkill if we can do it like this instead, at least beforehand. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Now while Bulbasaur is up for review we need to be clear on one thing. Is using boilerplate language to introduce each section what we want to do? Because it seems that's what's being put in a lot of the GA articles. i.e. this is something commonly seen as an introduction for the anime section:

The Pokémon anime series and films are a meta-series of adventures separate from the canon that most of the Pokémon video games follow (with the exception of Pokémon Yellow, a game based on the anime storyline). The anime follows the quest of the main character, Ash Ketchum—an in-training Pokémon Master—as he, and several other companions) travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon along with their Pokémon partners.

I think it would be agreed that this is a good paragraph, but should it be on every species page? Why or why not? Should it be put in all, and then slightly changed over time, so long as the core features are still there? Using it more as a starting point, than a boilerplate. -Zappernapper 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to come back to this

RL stuff is starting to intervene. I'm going to come back and articulate my problems with the articles the way we're doing them a bit better. It was probably jumping the gun to suggest solutions before I had named all the problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it's a habit of mine to try and impose solutions right away to controversial issues that I'm involved with. Now, in about 20 kilobytes, this talk page will soon outsize the last archived page, so maybe when you come back this page should be archived again and you can start over from scratch. There needs to be a serious, level-headed discussion where people aren't gasping at each other due to the initial preposterousness of what you were bringing up here; there would be the best chance to look at the real issues and successfully amend them. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

EP037 article merged

On the anime subject, EP037 article Anime: Pocket Monster Problem Inspection Report was merged into the article on the episode that the report was based on, Electric Soldier Porygon. I plan to do more maintenance of articles. If any EP articles get deleted, EP037 stays because of its effect on the anime industry. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References

It seems that it's become standard to list all Pokemon games as a reference for each Pokemon regardless if the Pokemon in question was in any of these games. I see this mainly with the Third Gen Pokemon and a few here and there with the Second Gen. I'll be fixing these as I see them, unless there is a reason I'm missing. -- Jelly Soup 07:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You could be referring to something in the original games, or an older Pokémon. That's why they're still there. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have linked to an example. Compair the last two edits of Wailord. -- Jelly Soup 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

{{pokerefs}}. Get AMIB on the job. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been substed. Unless you have AWB then you've had it. :P But I think they're still useful, because it's a solid back when referring to key game concepts in older games, example being breeding. Existed in Ruby, implemented in Gold. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shin'ou name change

Shin'ou has been renamed Sinnoh, per this. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, the parameter is still going to be named "Shinounumber" in {{Pokeinfobox}}; I'll rig it up so you can use the Sinnoh spelling sometime later today. Oh, and instead of just linking the front page of Serebii, we should probably mention that the spelling of Sinnoh is confirmed in Pokémon Ranger. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I was just linking to back up the new info. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Pokémon

What is wrong with mentioning a few sentences about religion (or the lack of it) in Pokémon? What is wrong with saying the most (if not all) of the characters in the anime are not religiously devout. Religion is not mentioned at all in the cartoon. LinkinPark 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because religon is never mentioned in the anime, it plays no role in it. So, saying a charactr has no religon adds nothing to an article about a character in a show were religon isn't an issue and probably doesn't exist.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with mentioing a few sentences about cheesemaking (or the lack of it) in Pokémon? What is wrong with saying that most (if not all) the characters in the anime have no particular preference for cheddar, gouda, or Danish Blue? Cheese is not mentioned at all in the cartoon.

We don't do this because it's pointless to talk about the infinity of things that are not in the cartoon. We instead talk about what is in the cartoon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, most of this should not go into the character articles. What about saying that there is no religion in Pokémon in the Criticism of Pokémon article. Religion might have little relevance to Pokémon, but it does have relevance to that article. If I remember correctly, Miltank's milk can be used to make cheese, so your analogy fails. The anime characters love the cheese from Whitney's diary.

Alright, for a different example. Why not mention water distillation and deionization (or the lack of it) in Pokémon? Why not say that it is unknown whether or not Ash thinks deionized water tastes better than regular water? Water purification methods are not mentioned at all in the cartoon.

Bad example again! Suicune could purify water. Well, for a better example, talk about the lack of evidence for Ash's political beliefs. I wonder if the writers made him a capitalist or a Marxist. On a irrelevant note, it seems that Jesse and James are capitalists because they are quite successful at selling stuff. LinkinPark 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Purify, yes; distill and deionize, no, and yes, that was an irrelevant note. Now, sources are the important thing. If you have sources, go for it; otherwise... -- THL 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Lnkin Park, that's enough. Just 'coz we've been assuming good faith all this while doesn't mean none of us are capable of punching your lights out if you really annoy us. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but comments like that are unacceptable. Please keep comments directly related to the tast at hand and keep them civil (Yuo don't need a link, do you?) Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I think this is a case for ignoring all rules and assuming bad faith. This religion thing has been stretching on with neither reason nor result long enough. Yours frustatedly, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well regarding religion, I really think most of it is pointless. Why? Even if the original anime has a scene, let's say, of the characters going to Mass and recieving communion, it is extremely likely that 4kids would either censor it, or ban the episode. So it seems unlikely religion will enter the anime. Currently, I only want to add one more sentence about religion in the criticism of Pokémon page, mention Misty has holds a cross against a Gastly, and say Ash Ketchum has a strong sense of morality and ethics. That's all I want to say about religion. It is hard to say that any of the characters are atheists; it doesn't really mean anything in a show where religion is not mentioned, and most likely doesn't exist in the Pokémon universe. If it doesn't exist in the Pokémon universe, I am sure Richard Dawkins will enjoying living in the Pokémon universe. LinkinPark 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

(..........) -- THL

Pokemon TCG

I am an active player of the Pokemon TCG, and I have to say; The article you have on the Pokemon TCG has nothing to do with what the TCG really is. You have sections in the main article about half decks, the Tropical Mega Battle from 6 years ago, and Pokemon Cards in Hong Kong. Two of those have no bearing on the general english-speaking players, and the other is outdated by at least 5 years. The last thing I want to mention right now is the terribly out-dated Pokemon Organised Play article. It has not been edited for over a month, although major announcements have been made about the upcoming season, including (among other things) the fact that there will be no Gym Challenges this coming play season.

I'm not suggesting editing things right away, but I want this question to be open for discussion: Where does the Pokemon TCG family of articles go from here? Spinach Dip 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what that is meant for? Maybe it needs to be updated, but Wikipedia covers history worldwide, not just current events in a narrow part of the world. The latter is mainly supported by Wikinews. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

perhaps there just aren't enough editors here who are knowledgeable about the TCG. If you feel an article is lacking, fix it yourself, however pay special note to TTV's response, merely repeating news info is not what wikipedia is about. However, discussing how POP has changed over time, with relevant references, and in an encyclopeadic tone would be most appropriate and welcome! happy editing -Zappernapper 21:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of points I want to make, so let's get into them one at a time:

1. I know this isn't a site for breaking news or anything, but when an article professes something as true, it's usually not good if that information has been outdated for THREE MONTHS.

2. Hong Kong is an extremely minor area for the PTCG. It belongs on the front page no more than Croatia, Ecuador, or Zimbabwe. Maybe, the answer is to make an article solely about the PTCG differences in other countries.

3. If current PCP members know little about the TCG, maybe it should be a sub-project or something, headed by people who actually know about the TCG?

4. I could get editors who know what they're talking about. In fact, I plan to do so soon. Spinach Dip 09:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could head the effort to revise the TCG article to potentially GA status. You could probably create your own sandbox page and outline how you think the article should be laid out, and receive input from other users on there, and then start rewriting the TCG article. (Don't feel you have to, though.) Thanks, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you could head the effort to revise the TCG article to potentially GA status.

I intend to. Check the discussion page on the PTCG article to see what I suggest doing to fix up the article. ANY feedback is appreciated. Spinach Dip 09:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

10th Anniversary tour

Do we have an article on the Pokémon 10th Anniversary Tour? It was kind of like Journey Across America in the UK, with a lot of 6 year olds. I nearly stood on one thinking it was a spare stool. ;) Anyway, I don't think many of the goers are old enough to write an article about it, and I was wondering if it deserves one. Thoughts? Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 10:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. It's certainly notable out of all events because the 10th Anniversary Tour ended up not just being in America. That, and if you can find solid citations, we can show that it disproved Pokémon was a dying fad. :x - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, does the American tour have an official site? The Australian one sure does. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 11:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It'll be a flash monstrosity. Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You said it. Silly Pokémon USA, you can't even get a page link from there. Ah well, we could just reference the whole site. So who wants to start? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 12:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start? I wasn't exactly there. I did enjoy it though, I had barfed up the wall 6 hours earlier and stil went. Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that contributed to the birth of a Grimer somewhere... -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Anyway, I've started an article (Pokémon 10th Anniversary Tour) - feel free to find some citations and add more text. We urgently need to make it feel notable! - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I went, i live near chicago, so i participated in the pokemon battle tourney... didn't win the trip to Tokyo, or NYC, damn. there were actually a lot of teenagers, and a couple people around my age so my wife and i didn't feel like complete freaks, even got our free pics with Pikachu and Munchlax! ok, ne'er mind. I don't know how notable it is, but i'm sure something should be written on it... would it be better if we grouped all things like this in an article called Pokémon events since there prolly won't be much to make them past stubs? -Zappernapper 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

More species focuses

I am of the opinion that having focuses is very beneficial to our editing. It causes many of us to gather around one article and make a lot of productive, rapid edits to it. However, our current focus, Crawdaunt hasn't had very regular edits. I figure that if we have 3 different species focuses at a time (and 3's not a lot—there's almost 500 Pokémon to get through) and stagger the time at which they're changed, we'll be sure to have plenty to do. It just feels to me like Crawdaunt's gotten it a bit of a rut. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What articles would make good focuses? Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 08:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anorith and Dugtrio could benefit from some help. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i think we should try to focus on pokemon that are most likely to be searched for, than picking random stubs. For example, Anorith is understandable as it's one of only a few fossil pokemon. Dugtrio kinda falls into a sea of blah-ness. It's no more special than all the other pokes like Spinda or Luvdisc (unless you want to consider that Luvdisc is the crappiest pokemon intended for real gameplay to date, IMO XD ). I guess i'm saying we should focus on things like Mew and Mewtwo over Crawdaunt and Dugtrio. Neither of these are GA and they should have been FA by now, there's enough info and they're more notable than starters IMHO. If someone who isn't fanatical enough to spend hours on here editing pages were to search for a pokemon, these are prolly the most likely candidates. It's fine if we have a random focus, like Miltank, because the other pokemon that person will look up will be their personal favorite. But the more obvious ones, like legendaries, poke-event pokemon, starters need to be focused on first - they ALL need to be GAs before Cascoon is. -Zappernapper 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Maybe we should work on more important articles rather than improving less important ones. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Make Highway understand that. He's the one who's fanatically editing and/or coordinating the fanatical editing of random Pokémon articles to GA and FA status. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

in all fairness highway usually focuses on starter pokemon - which are the most wikilinked. see, HC? i don't really hate you. -Zappernapper 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mirror articles

I found two different articles with the same content. Pokémon Red and Blue and Pokémon Red, Blue and Green (Game Boy). The latter seems to be forgotten about. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

thnx yoshi! i speedy tagged it, looking at the history it would appear someone just created the page withh all the same content... perhaps they weren't aware of redirects? -Zappernapper 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just doing my part!  :) -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A new sub-project?

With the ammount of enthusiasm surrounding my editing of the Pokemon Trading Card Game article (which has been less than amazing), I'm beginning to wonder if the TCG deserves its own project, or sub-project under the PCP.

Let me know your thoughts so we can discuss this. Spinach Dip 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, such a project would include exactly two articles: Pokémon Trading Card Game and List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets. Maybe if there was more to work on? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is more to work on. It's all been neglected for far too long.

For starters; The main page should be brought up to GA status at least. Pokemon organized Play needs MAJOR editing. 23 Sets need articles. Energy card, Pokemon card, and Trainer Card can all be improved. There's at least two spin-off articles that are needed from the main page. Every article needs references. The PTCG category needs to be reworked, all articles should be kept up-to date, and random speculation needs to be deleted and withheld from future edits.

That's a little bit more than 2 articles. Spinach Dip 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

actually there are 15 pages listed in the TCG category. i have no idea if any of them need to be merged or expanded, but considering the amount of members we have, i think it would make sense if we had a subproject with their own goals, and discussions. the subgroup could also help to expand on the TCG sections that are lacking in the species articles.

could someone show me how to include a wikilink to a category without making the talk page a category item? -Zappernapper 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about refs

Most of the human character articles seem to be citing Serebii's episode guides as refs. Instead of that, shouldn't we be using something like:

“ Pokémon anime. Episode #85463, "[insert ep name here]" ”

as refs? After all, we're getting the info from the anime, not the guides, and the guides, however long, are not comprehensive. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, there appears to be two reasons for citing episode guides:

1. To provide a link so people can read at least a basic overview of the event being addressed.
2. Whether or not this is a bad thing will depend on individual perceptions, and it may not have been intentional, or I could be wrong. It seems like deception to me to cite episode guides; it seems like disguising a primary source as a secondary source. The lack of secondary sources for Pokémon could make this okay, but like I said this is up to individual perception, and I could be wrong. Cheers, -- THL 09:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing the episode name and number when addressing something specific (Ash and Misty battled for a Totodile) is the best form for using it as a primary source. Keep in mind that if you were cite serebii as a ref, you would be saying that you are relying on serebii's guide raher than direct observation. Which is better? -Zappernapper 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct observation could be called original research, but with something as obvious as saying they battled that probably wouldn't be a problem. It would probably be better to cite the episode, as that eliminates a middle man and has to be more complete then Serebii's guide. It also eliminates another fansite citation, and can keep the article from relying too much on one source (assuming that there is more than one reference to Serebii.net like many articles). For things that require interpretation, like personality-defining moments, it would probably be best to cite Serebii to avoid the original research claim; whether or not Serebii interprets it. -- THL 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities and Towns

The proposal to merge all the cities and towns was brought up here, but I've no idea what became of it. I know for a fact the the Sinnoh cities were merged yesterday into Sinnoh#Cities and towns. Unless anyone has any objections, i'd recommend we get to work merging the rest of them, cutting down all the gameguides, Bulbapedia-style infoboxes and cruft. (Of course, why List of Kanto locations exists, retaining every little bit of cruft, while the articles on individual Kanto locations are still extant, is anyone's guess.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pokémon Stages II

I hate to bring up an old topic, but it seems that this conversation died without reaching a real conclusion. Are we removing references to Stages from all the infoboxes (which would in turn mean deleating the categories: Category:Baby Pokémon, Category:Basic Pokémon, Category:Stage 1 Pokémon and Category:Stage 2 Pokémon), or are we leaving them in? In the case of the latter, are we going to change the title to "TCG Stage", seeing as how the anime and games do not really use "Stage"? If it is changed, then the Togepi line can have its Stages replaced (TCG only refers to Togepi as "Basic") and the categories can be filled. This would finally eliminate any confusion over which Pokémon is what stage and bring this topic to a close. As it stands now, it seems rather odd that the Togepi family is the only group without a Stage listing. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently had a little talk with NP Chilla (t c), who had been adding Pokémon to Baby, Basic, Stage-1, and Stage-2 categories. I recall that AMIB and Amarkov had been working on an adjustment to the species infoboxes so we could avoid these terms. How are we doing on that project? Are we good with implementing the additions to the articles? Or do we want to continue using Baby, Basic, and the other terms despite the issue with Togepi? --Brandon Dilbeck 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine is as good as it's going to be. I have no idea about his. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)