Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:29, 25 January 2008 editBarnyard animals (talk | contribs)157 edits →Bulbasaur: no you have never previously said that you made any error there← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:37, 25 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,240,946 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(211 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk page of redirect}}
{{Pokeproject|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{oldafdfull|date= 21 April 2007 |result= '''keep''' |page= List of Pokémon (1-20) }}
{{WikiProject Pokémon|}}
{{oldafdfull|date= May 21 2007 |result= '''NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE''' |page= List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination) }}
{{WikiProject Video games|Nintendo=yes}}
{{archive box|
{{WikiProject Anime and manga}}
] (16/07/07 - 09/09/07)
{{WikiProject Fictional characters}}
}} }}
{{old XfD multi
|date= 21 April 2007
|result= '''Keep'''
|page= List of Pokémon (1-20)


|date2= 21 May 2007
== Why can't we have both? ==
|result2= '''No consensus'''
|page2= List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination)


|date3= 31 July 2010
I believe it would make everyone happy. Misplaced Pages has damn near endless space for articles, I don't see why we can't have both your worthless list of vague paragraphs '''and''' a main article for the Pokemon themselves. Pikachu and Paras get to have seperate articles. These two get to have their own articles, and Good-Article/Featured-Article status pages were taken down for this seemingly unusuable list, so why can't there be a page for each individual Pokemon and the list? ] 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
|result3= '''Keep'''

|page3= List of Pokémon (1–20)
:Please read all the sections prior to this one. This has been gone over a thousand times now and it's getting old. You have left no reasons for having articles, we have left reasons for not having full articles. We can't go on explaining forever, maybe a template is in order. ]] 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{archives|
== you're being unfair ==
] (2007)<br />
I have looked at other articles... and other shows have MORE articles than Pokemon EVER had. Either you need to condense all those articles, or bring back ALL Pokemon pages. ] (]) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
] (2008–2009)}}
:What happens with other articles outside of the Pokemon WikiProject is none of our concern. That's like saying that we should do the same thing for ] as we do for ]. ] (]) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::What about use the <nowiki>{{splitsection}}</nowiki> tag on whatever you want split back to a separate article? ] (]) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
:::For the record I'm an infrequent user (age catches up) who popped their head in and was appalled by this change. The amount of content that has been removed along with individual pokemon pages is immense. All plot information, series appearances etc. At least revert to 2005 content with a different naming convention ie Charmander -> Charmander(Pokemon). ] (]) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Sections to be deconsolidated into individual articles ==

I propose the following merge-to-list process on the following Pokémon entries to be undone: ], ], and ]. ] (]) 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
:Reasons? ] (]) 01:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


==Ivysaur== ==Note==
*This page was previously ].
First quadruped in Smash Bros.? How many legs did Pikachu and Pichu have again? ] (]) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
*]
:Eh, it's a pointless bit of trivia anyway. Let's not worry about it, let's just remove it when these things creep in ] (]) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
*]
::Agreed and already did it. :P -] (]) 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


== Semi-protect? ==
== I propose we give each Pokemon its own article once more. ==


Now THIS, THIS is persistent vandalism enough. Why vandalize Heatran when more people are going to look at Charmander? You've all seen the vandals, now let's block them. It'll save us lots of time and effort. I am in favor of semi-protecting this article. Discussion starts here. ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The reasons for merging the articles were idiotic and show that the editors are lazy. If the former articles were trolled and had spelling and grammar errors, then why not clean them up? There was no good reason for the merge. These articles contain virtually no useful information. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The reasons for merging weren't laziness and idiocy, they were notability and verifiability. Each individual Pokemon is of little importance in the real world. They've had little cultural impact whatsoever. This isn't a game guide (]), it's an encyclopedia. The will of the fans doesn't dictate content, the '''whole''' community does, with the goal of making a real Encyclopedia. This sort of ] is being trimmed down all over the place..... except maybe with Harry Potter, because those fans are the most rabid ] (]) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::Pokemon has had little cultural impact...? You've got to be kidding me. You have seriously got to be kidding me. Pokemon was one of the BIGGEST things ever. Where were you when the Pokemon fad started? As soon as the games hit the states, Pokemon's popularity EXPLODED. It's as big as Star Wars and Harry Potter. You cannot deny that THEY had a great impact on culture, so why do you deny that Pokemon did? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:The vandalism doesn't appear any more prominent then any of the other articles. I only see 3 maybe 4 times in the past week. ]] 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::I would vote yes. All articles with Starters and Legendarys should be semi-protected. But the thing is, sometimes IP users make good edits to these list. They are the people who make most of the edits. Without them, these lists would be abandoned. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Strong opposition. The damage done by semi-protection is far too great to eliminate what is honestly minor vandalism. - ] ] ] 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Right, the IP Users. True, they can be helpful. But why would Mudkip require special protection? Is the meme really that notable? Was that page really more vandal-magnetic than this one? ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::I don't really know. The Mudkip meme had always drawn people to get it included in Mudkip's page, and list section. But now it has a "For the meme, click here" link, so they are satisfied. Ever since I joined this project almost a year ago, I haven't seen any vandalism on Mudkip's section because of the meme. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::In the peak of the meme, the mudkip page was vandalized atleast 5 times daily. ]] 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::I remember that Bulbasaur's, Mudkip's, and gardevoir's sections had profanities.] (]) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::In the peak of the Mudkip meme they also vandalized ] frequently, along with other similar looking creatures. Protection is granted only in cases where articles undergo high levels of vandalism in a short level of time; either because of a ] or because people ]. None of the Pokémon articles is currently suffering much vandalism at all, and a ] would just be thrown out the window. ] <small>(], ])</small> 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Alright, then. But what's the deal with IP users? Why can't we all just stand by ], there's nothing wrong with being a logged in user. Encourage IP's to create an account if they wish to edit, that would discourage vandals who aren't smart enough to know nothing's wrong with logging in (vandals probably think there are membership fees). Sorry to sound immature and ask too many questions, but you people have been here a tad longer than I...and why is there a Bono link? ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Also, how can you deny some protection (invent a new level if you have to!) when the history is composed of approximately 45% vandalism, 45% reverting said vandalism, and the remaining 10% construction? Just curious. ''A truly eager apprentice,'' ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::] is a suggestion, not a policy. Not everyone actively edits Misplaced Pages, and many people just fix typos that they may see in a drive-by reading that editors with accounts have missed. Though IP accounts are responsible for a good chunk of vandalism, most of the vandalism that I have reverted has probably come from registered accounts. Besides, if a page is protected even new accounts are unable to edit them until they have made a specific number of edits and been registered for a specific length of time. Protecting pages is no discouragement; people will find a way through it. I know of cases where accounts have been created weeks in advance of a planned "attack" specifically to get around the vandalism.
:::::::::Protection is dependent on how much vandalism a page is receiving currently, not how much it has received in the past. If an article is edited very rarely, and it receives one vandalistic edit a week, then the history will quickly appear to be more vandalism than construction. But the vandalism is not occurring at a rate where protection is necessary. Protection is used only in cases where massive amounts of vandalism (or edit-warring) is occurring over a short period of time; for example, say 10 vandalistic edits in two hours. These articles are not at that threshold, and pre-emptive protection is not allowed. And the Bono link is there as an example of an article which receives so much vandalism that it is necessary to be protected for months at a time (though extended periods of protection is generally applied only to ] articles). You can request protection, but I can guarantee that none of these articles will be granted it. ] <small>(], ])</small> 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I see where you're coming from, but riddle me this: why are you so against it, and what objectively describes "lots of vandalism"? ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
←In the last week, only four of the edits that have been made have been reverted as vandalism. That is not enough for protection. I have already given an example of what would constitute a need for protection. As far as I'm aware there is no hardline between protection and no-protection, so if you are looking for a benchmark I am sorry but I cannot provide one to you. Protection does not happen as a result of percentage; I have already explained why above. Rather, when it is a result of vandalism it is based on a measurable frequency i.e. a certain number of edits in a certain timeframe. Four edits in a week definitely does not make this timeframe. Four edits in half an hour perhaps, but a week? No. <p>
]: "''Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Misplaced Pages. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.''"<p>
I am against it for all of the reasons that have been outlined above, by myself and by other editors. A recap: 1) There is no need for protection because there is no content dispute or enough vandalism; 2) Many IP editors do not come here to vandalize but to read; and sometimes they will fix an error in information that we have missed, or a typo, and so on. Many IP editors edit constructively, and there is a reason why accounts are not required to edit Misplaced Pages; 3) Since there is not any heavy vandalism going on, any application of protection would be pre-emptive. And Misplaced Pages does not pre-emptively protect articles except in the most serious of cases, as I have outlined through my direct quotation and link above. Four vandals in a week does not qualify as serious.<p>
I have already said that if you feel we are wrong, go ahead to ], the place where protection is requested, and ask for it to be applied. I have no problem with you doing that. I will not stop you, and neither will any other user here. But I can guarantee with absolute certainty that your request will be declined for all of the reasons I have outlined throughout my three posts here. ] <small>(], ])</small> 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:OK, no semi-protecting. Yet. We'll just wait and see if the frequency rises at all. Thanks for being civil. You guys know the policies better than I. This debate ends here, but anyone else who wishes to say anything can start a new topic. The result: '''no protection'''. Reason: not enough vandalism (although once is one time too many in my book). Let's just crack down on vandalism better. Too bad that blocking isn't a deterrent enough. ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that any vandalism is too much (I think it's just plain childish and a waste of the vandals time) but, no matter what we do, if they really want to vandalize then ]. ] <small>(], ])</small> 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
::Just to chime in, once is not "too much". If it were too much, all articles would be semi-protected. No point in preventing good people from editing in order to punish the bad people. - ] ] ] 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
:::I was referring to how vandalism is a crime, and crime is bad. One robbery is a robbery too many. Not saying we should semi-protect. Yet. ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


== Blastoise's origin? ==
You say that every Pokemon is of little importance to the world. Well, why don't we just condense every president of the US into one artivle? Sure, they may be important to Americans, but do the Chinese care? The Scottish? That logic is as retarded as this stupid project. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I know Blastoise and Bowser look the same, but there's a Japanese movie monster from where Blastoise is based on, right.
I agree a lot. There where no good reasons for merging. --] (]) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::That's not true. There were p] (]) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:Probably constitutes ]. ]''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
:::You are comparing real world articles with fiction. The U.S. presidents have a lot or REAL-WORLD info, it doesn't matter if all of the world knows about them, as long as it has real world info it can have its own article. Pokémon only have info available through the games, TCG and anime, unless you can find info about most of them by an interview, newspaper article, they can't have their own articles. Simple as that. But you could check out Bulbapedia. ] (]) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Why do we even need these lists if the pokemon are of no importance? Does wikipedia even need a list of Pokemon? ] (]) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


P.S. If you're a newcomer, you will look a lot smarter to others if you read the key policies first. I didn't when I started, and felt like a fool later.
== Truth behind the merge ==
::2J, he means the article says that "Blastoise has been compared to Bowser", but there is no proof. But there is a movie monster that Blastoise was confirmed to be based on. Hitmonchan, if you can find the source that says that, we would be very glad to have it. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


The movie monster would be Gamera, but I have heard no such comparison between the two. ] (]) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's painfully obvious why all the Pokemon articles were merged. It had nothing to do with notability and verifiability. Misplaced Pages wants to consider itself, and be considered by others, a real encyclopedia. Anyone hearing that line, after laughing heartilly, would simply point to the fact that Misplaced Pages had an article for ''each Pokemon''. Since no real encylopedia would ever have an entry for each Pokemon, Misplaced Pages could have no article for each Pokemon. Of course, given that encylopedias can't be modified by anyone, it's a losing battle for them, but there you go. ] (]) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:That's true. But ''why'' would no real encyclopedia have an article for each individual Pokemon? Oh, right, it's because they aren't notable. -] <small>]</small> 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:: The reason why no real encyclopedia has nothing to do with notability. It has everything to do with the fact that real encyclopedias don't let everyone edit. When you let everyone edit something, it is no longer an encyclopedia. ] (]) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, if you're going to assume that I'm wrong for no reason, I really can't argue. -] <small>]</small> 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Please don't mislead people. There is an encyclopedia out there that deals with Pokémon, it's called . It's a different encyclopedia that deals with Pokémon, and it's as real as Misplaced Pages, just deals specificlly with Pokémon. Don't forget that there are other encylopedias on the internet that deals more specificlly with a subject. Telling people that there aren't just is misleading. It doesn't belong to Misplaced Pages, that's the thing that counts. ] (]) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


== Can we just delete these lists? ==
Ok, now, was Misplaced Pages made JUST to tell people to go to other Wikis?!?!?!?! I know that when you look at Misplaced Pages, your supposed to go get a way to verify the info, but... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


They're mindblowingly useless and everyone knows it. They offer borderline no information, and lack even the most basic things. Like pictures. Anyone who actually takes the time to look this stuff up most likely wants to know what the damn things look like, but due to Misplaced Pages's laughable "jpegs make the site less free!" policy these lists serve no purpose. Why don't we just make all of these things off-site redirects to Bulbapedia or a site that's actually useful to the people who take the time to search for this information? Because after they Wiki "Charizard" and get this garbage, that's exactly where they're gonna go to anyway. - ] (]) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
== Individual Pokemon sections ==
:You just voted to keep ] with a really random rant, and now you are wanting to delete these lists? You need to stop drinking man. just kidding, but you aren't really being serious. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There is hardly any information in this list as many people have stated. It was mentioned that they weren't important enough or something to that extent. That is completely ridiculous and biased. If that many people are requesting something, it must be important to them. Pokemon's cultural significance can't be denied. I've found myself curious about pokemon that I haven't heard of in 5 years and when I went to check on them here I was very disappointed. I found out nothing. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The existence of the Bulbasaur is pretty much completely irrelevant at this point. It's not really that useful but doesn't quite warrant deletion. These lists though, man. Why are they even here? The most prominent thing they represent is TTN's ego from years back. - ] (]) 06:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::They are here to give information on the species. Just without much of the plot info, movesets, and other un-encyclopedic things. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 15:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Plot info is verifiable and important (if not overused), but I agree with movesets and other similar things being unencyclopedic. --] (]) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Bulbapedia does a much better job at documenting this stuff. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Species notability ==
I agree, it is quite ridiculous. Some characters on this list (especially the original starting 3: Bulbasaur was a featured article not too long ago!) are are prominent characters in their own right, each far more popular and recognisable than some other fictional characters on Misplaced Pages who have their own page. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


What are the requirements for a Pokemon to have its own article? ] (]) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
== At least do this... ==
:Like any subject, Pokemon must comply with the ], which state that it must have significant coverage in third party ]. If you look at the existing articles, the last section usually displays the notability. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


== Orphaned references in ] ==
If we can't have the individual articles back (quite what harm they posed is beyond me), then at least the link to Bulbapedia should be more prominent, rather than lounging alone at the bottom of the page. The full articles to each still exist, just on Bulbapedia, so I feel it would do everyone a favour if this was made clearer to the casual browser. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:External links go in External Links. The End. &mdash; <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Well, but the articles suck without images, what's the deal with not allowing them on lists? Makes absolutely no sense, because lists ARE articles, whether you wanna believe it or not. ] (]) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't see how that really relates to where links are supposed to go....&mdash; <span style="background:#FEC">]<sup>(])</sup></span> 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
==Bulbasaur==
Seems like there's an edit war starting/happening based on whether Bulbasaur should be a merged article, or a stand-alone like the Pikachu article. Instead of edit-warring, let's have a mature discussion on the matter here first. ] (]) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:Pikachu is the most used/recognizable pokemon, his importance to popular culture can not be denigned, I am not sure if the other pokemon have any of this impact at all? '''<span style="border: 1px solid #000000;">]]</span>''' 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::Most used? Hardly. Bulbasaur's used far more frequently, as it's one of three choices for starting Pokémon in four of the US main series games. Other than that I don't have anything to say about it (yet). ] (]) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Not "most used" as in the game (though Pikachu does feature in more games than any other Pokemon), I mean all forms of merch contain atleast a pickachu! '''<span style="border: 1px solid #000000;">]]</span>''' 19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A new discussion isn't going to help anything. It's already been discussed on four different occasions, and each time someone decides to wikilawyer over consensus. ] (]) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
: Yes, you do. The consensus is to have Bulbasaur as a single article and for reasons that are clear and supported by policy. Just because you disagree does not make you right. And does not give you the right to edit war and to peddle your own viewpoint over consensus. &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::No, they do not. Characters need signifcant coverage in the form of creation and reception notes. You never added anything like that to the article. Being ''mentioned'' quickly as an ''example'' in a couple of articles because it's one of the first three starters is not notability. Is this all because you worked on the article when it first became a FA (at least I think you mentioned that)? That seems like the case because you would be making the same case for the other two first generation starters if you were truly working from the standpoint of notability. ] (]) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::: See, you never listen. The "signifcant coverage in the form of creation and reception notes" is only your interpretation of a guideline. We've put forward many arguments many times, and you don't listen. You just carry on regardless of what anyone else thinks. That's certainly not working with policy. Who in this debate had an Arbcom case put against them? Surely that must tell you something? And the conclusion? "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Have you done that? No. &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Celestianpower, you are probably right about that he doesn't follow cons. but he is right about one thing. Whether or not to merge Bulbasaur has been discussed too many times. Honestly, it's the largest discussion I have seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


<b>Reference named "ign":</b><ul>
::::The arbcom has to do with edit warring to keep wikilawyers at bay and because people don't like articles being redirected, not because I try to merge single articles. Editors currently are working on updating and gaining a new community validated consensus for ] and ], so that's already being done.
<li>From ]: http://faqs.ign.com/articles/384/384093p1.html</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=http://uk.gameboy.ign.com/articles/389/389660p1.html|title=''Pokémon Ruby'' and ''Pokémon Sapphire'' Review (page 1)|publisher=IGN |accessdate=2006-06-01}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=http://gameboy.ign.com/objects/017/017508.html|title=IGN: Pokemon Ruby Version|publisher=]| work=]|accessdate=October 13, 2008}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|author=var authorId = "41402111" by Craig Harris |url=http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/162/162045p1.html |title=Pokemon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition - Game Boy Review at IGN |publisher=Gameboy.ign.com |date=1999-10-19 |accessdate=2010-10-12}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=http://faqs.ign.com/articles/422/422773p1.html |title=Pokemon Ruby Version Pokemon of the Day: Blaziken (#257) - IGN FAQs |publisher=Faqs.ign.com |date= |accessdate=2011-04-05}}</li>
<li>From ]: http://ds.ign.com/articles/115/1152217p1.html</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=http://faqs.ign.com/articles/379/379013p1.html |title=Pokemon Crystal Version Pokemon of the Day: Rattata (#19) - IGN FAQs |publisher=IGN |author=Pokémon of the Day Chick |date=12/3/02 |accessdate=2011-04-05}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=http://faqs.ign.com/articles/450/450410p1.html |title=Pokemon Ruby Version Pokemon of the Day: Zubat (#81) - IGN FAQs |publisher=IGN |author=Pokémon of the Day Chick |date=9/17/03 |accessdate=2011-04-20}}</li>
<li>From ]: http://ds.ign.com/articles/980/980866p1.html</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|author=Richard George |url=http://ds.ign.com/articles/115/1155143p1.html |title=Pokemon Black and White: Second Opinions - Nintendo DS Feature at IGN |publisher=Ds.ign.com |date=2011-03-11 |accessdate=2011-04-04}}</li>
</ul>


::::Anyways, try to focus on the matter at hand. Significant coverage is shown within our good articles, and what you provided was never close. ] (]) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
::::: But not being a good article has never meant not having an article at all, that's just silly. And guidelines have never overruled consensus on individual articles. Here, there are plenty of people (with valid arguments) who disagree with you. And as we can see when you redirect the article, it's nearly always a new person who reverts. You have no consenus, so you can't take the action. It's as simple as that. &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: And Blazikenmaster, I agree. It's a ridiculous amount of discussion, but what other options are there? &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


== Smogon? ==
::::::Did I say that it needed to be a good article? No. I said that good articles show what signifcant coverage details. When you provide coverage that actually matches a something on the way to becoming a good article (not that is actually needs to be one), then you and the other people will actually have an argument. Until then, you are just trying to have a page based upon subjective popularity that cannot exist without reliable sources to assert notability. Guidelines (that are based in policy) overrule in this case. ] (]) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There are very few sources that would be considered reliable ''secondary'' sources when it comes to Pokémon; would Smogon count? They are generally regarded as the definitive source for competitive battling (whether anti-Smogonites such as myself like it or not). Also, many Pokémon-related articles cite Bulbapedia - this is a tertiary source, can we fix this? ] (]) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
:It is a fansite, so it is not reliable. Bulbapedia is written by users, so it is not reliable. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
::I know Bulbapedia's not reliable by wiki standards, my paragraph criticized the citation of them. Thank you for clearing up the Smogon issue. Um... It seems to me that Wiki's guidelines aren't really conjusive to tackling Pokémon-related articles. A lot of basic information about the Pokémon, like their place in the metagame, is only available in so-called unreliable sources. ] (]) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:::<sub>"like their place in the metagame"?</sub> You mean NU, OU, etc? That stuff is not notable. Only serious competitive battlers care about that. I love Pokemon and I don't even care about that. Misplaced Pages writes articles mainly for people to learn about the series, for people who have never played it, or want basic information on some things. Those competitive battling ranks are not notable enough to be included. I don't even think Bulbapedia shows that stuff.
:::Also, I don't see where we have referenced Bulbapedia as you say. It is shown at the end of the article as a place where readers can gain further information that we don't wish to display. Wikis can be used as external links only when they are of a great size, and have a history of stability. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


::::No, not the tier system (OU, UU, NU, etc.), just basic things like 'Raichu, despite evolving from an iconic pokémon, is generally regarded as being quite weak'. Obviously an overview of everything about the competitive scene would be overkill, but 'this well-known Pokémon often considered to be weak by serious players' seems quite basic information to me. ] (]) 05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::And can you answer the question of why this single Pokemon is more notable than any other starter or legendary featured throughout the metaseries? In the very least, the ones within the first two generations could easily have the same coverage as what you're trying to pass off. ] (]) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


== Nidoking ==
:::::::If we're going by TTN's logic then I say ] is the only one who deserves a page. It probably does appear in more media than any other Pokémon. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The following has been removed: ''In a poll conducted by ], it was voted as the 42nd best Pokémon, where the staff commented on how Nidoking does not have a crown. They further stated that "Maybe in Generation VI he’ll finally get the adornments befitting a king".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ign.com/top/pokemon/42 |title=Nidoking - #42 Top Pokémon - IGN |publisher=IGN |author=Audrey |accessdate=2011-05-05}}</ref>'' — while I agree that the speculation about generation VI is unnecessary, and the speculation about his lack of crown is...bizarre, I think there's room to say that he was voted 42nd best Pokémon of all time. I'm not going to ] just yet (I'm a little shy), but if no one objects after a week, I'm gonna put in his 42nd best Pokémon of all time status back on this page. ] (]) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
:I put both back because it is perfectly fine. It is established editors from a reliable source giving criticism on Nidoking's character, which helps to make him notable. Sure, when there is one one bit of reception thrown together with real information about their character, the entries look odd. But once they get their own article, which is what the reception helps to do, the reception will be in its own section all by itself, where they won't get it mistaken for trivia. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
::That's silly, IGN as a whole isn't considered a notable source (with a few in-depth exceptional articles), although it's reliable enough to establish particular facts. Even if it was, none of that line is notable. I see no others with their positions in that poll listed, and an offhand comment from someone completely unconnected to development is absolutely not notable. If Mayamoto or a developer said he'd get a crown in the upcoming game, then it might be notable. I think it fits every definition of trivia. I also think you're mistaken about ever getting any separate article, the old one was redirected here 4 years ago and nothing has changed since. On the other hand, it would fit perfectly within Bulbapedia. ]<small><sup>(])</sup></small> 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
:::You have no idea what you are talking about. Coverage by third party reliable sources makes subjects notable. Commentary like this is considered reception by reliable sources, which is good to include. The results of the poll have not been added to all of the species because it is a hundred spots. That is a lot to add, and we might have added it to about 25/100.(also, the poll results by themselves aren't that notable, but the commentary on the winners is) Take a look at ]. While it is a fully developed, and nicely written article(I brought it to GA status), without the whole "Cultural impact" section, they would not have their own article. <sub style="color:#00008B;">''']'''</sub> <sup>(]·])</sup> 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== Nidorina and Nidoqueen ==


::::::::That's correct. It's the only one with any actual information to hold a page. ] (]) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Is it worth noting that they are 2 out of only 3 (out of all ''official'' 646) Pokémon that aren't legendary nor in baby stage, yet can't breed? (3rd is Unown) ] (]) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


== please go to talk: 202-251 ==
:For those not following other talk pages related to Bulbasaur, , dividing them up between "Lists of Pokémon" and "Anime/Manga characters and gym leaders". He stated that
:::"All of the anime characters will be merged to one list, giving a brief, concise entry for each one. The major humans and Pokémon will be covered, while the episode lists and the single Pokémon entries will cover the minor ones. Pokémon like Ash's Pikachu, Bulbasur and Charizard will recieve entries, while minor ones that only appear once and awhile (Snorlax, Muk, Corphish, ect) will be covered within the lists."
:To date, no feedback regarding this has been posted. I don't know what his idea of a "brief, concise entry" is, but if it involves editing similar to some edits by him (see BTW below) then I think the subject is better off as it's own article.


there, you can find my request ] (]) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
:BTW, I never got feedback about why .] (]) 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


== pictures?!?!? ==
::Brief and concise means enough for an encyclopedia. Ash and some other main characters will probably have up to three paragraphs, and the others will have between one and two paragraphs. As the English Misplaced Pages, we only cover relevant voice actors (the original language and the most signifcant English dubs). I removed the Spanish one, and assumed that the link following it only had to do with the Spanish voice actor. I believe I already explained that a while ago. ] (]) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::You believe wrong then, you have never previously stated that you assumed the link following it had only to do with the Spanish voice actor, you only wittered about ] not being worth mentioning, despite the fact he appears notable to already have an article. "We only cover..."? on what exactly do you base '''your opinion''' that we shouldn't mention voice actors that have article to link to?--] (]) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
: Once again, TTN, as always, you're not listening. Misplaced Pages is based on consensus of editors, above anything else. Above policy. Above literally everything. There are many respected users arguing against you, so you don't have a consensus. It has nothing to do with "significant coverage in external sources" or whatever. If a consensus (or as close as possible to one) thinks an article should stay. That should be the end of the debate. &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
: And as to "While the entry will be increased, it will not be above three paragraphs", how on earth can you make such a definite judgement like that? It's not solely up to you; you don't own the article (or any article). &mdash;] <sup>]</sup> 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::Consensus is based upon arguments, not the number of editors trying to assert something. Otherwise, we would still have articles on all of the other Pokemon. Your argument is not strong at all (if you don't believe me, try getting comments from the video game or Nintendo projects), so it does not overrule the others. One to three paragraphs is the proposed and obvious format of the entries, so that's how I can tell. ] (]) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:I can see some characters like Gary, Tracy, and Ash's notable pokemon having one to three paragraphs. But for characters that have been in the series for a while (oh, say, Ash) I don't think we can really say that three paragraphs is the 'obvious' format. As for Bulbasaur, though, it really doesn't merit it's own article if it's going to be covered on the lists and on this character page. ] (]) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


?!??! <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The article has been protected until agreements can be made. ''''']]]''''' 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think any agreement can be made. The scope of this discussion is no narrow that the talk may go on forever with same users saying the same things all over again. Please unprotect the redirect and the list, restore them to the former and non-controversial state, bring Bulbasaur to AfD or RfC or something, then get a consensus ''there''. I might as well unprotect the page if no one objects. - ] (]) 06:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:37, 25 November 2024

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
 • List of generation I Pokémon
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
 • Talk:List of generation I Pokémon
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPokémon
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon
WikiProject iconVideo games: Nintendo
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by the Nintendo task force.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconAnime and manga
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
WikiProject iconFictional characters
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Archives

Archive 1 (2007)
Archive 2 (2008–2009)


Note

Semi-protect?

Now THIS, THIS is persistent vandalism enough. Why vandalize Heatran when more people are going to look at Charmander? You've all seen the vandals, now let's block them. It'll save us lots of time and effort. I am in favor of semi-protecting this article. Discussion starts here. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism doesn't appear any more prominent then any of the other articles. I only see 3 maybe 4 times in the past week. SpigotMap 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would vote yes. All articles with Starters and Legendarys should be semi-protected. But the thing is, sometimes IP users make good edits to these list. They are the people who make most of the edits. Without them, these lists would be abandoned. Blake 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong opposition. The damage done by semi-protection is far too great to eliminate what is honestly minor vandalism. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, the IP Users. True, they can be helpful. But why would Mudkip require special protection? Is the meme really that notable? Was that page really more vandal-magnetic than this one? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 14:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know. The Mudkip meme had always drawn people to get it included in Mudkip's page, and list section. But now it has a "For the meme, click here" link, so they are satisfied. Ever since I joined this project almost a year ago, I haven't seen any vandalism on Mudkip's section because of the meme. Blake 15:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In the peak of the meme, the mudkip page was vandalized atleast 5 times daily. SpigotMap 15:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I remember that Bulbasaur's, Mudkip's, and gardevoir's sections had profanities.Hitmonchan (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In the peak of the Mudkip meme they also vandalized Axolotl frequently, along with other similar looking creatures. Protection is granted only in cases where articles undergo high levels of vandalism in a short level of time; either because of a planned attack or because people just don't like the subject. None of the Pokémon articles is currently suffering much vandalism at all, and a request to protect would just be thrown out the window. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, then. But what's the deal with IP users? Why can't we all just stand by this, there's nothing wrong with being a logged in user. Encourage IP's to create an account if they wish to edit, that would discourage vandals who aren't smart enough to know nothing's wrong with logging in (vandals probably think there are membership fees). Sorry to sound immature and ask too many questions, but you people have been here a tad longer than I...and why is there a Bono link? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, how can you deny some protection (invent a new level if you have to!) when the history is composed of approximately 45% vandalism, 45% reverting said vandalism, and the remaining 10% construction? Just curious. A truly eager apprentice, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:WHY is a suggestion, not a policy. Not everyone actively edits Misplaced Pages, and many people just fix typos that they may see in a drive-by reading that editors with accounts have missed. Though IP accounts are responsible for a good chunk of vandalism, most of the vandalism that I have reverted has probably come from registered accounts. Besides, if a page is protected even new accounts are unable to edit them until they have made a specific number of edits and been registered for a specific length of time. Protecting pages is no discouragement; people will find a way through it. I know of cases where accounts have been created weeks in advance of a planned "attack" specifically to get around the vandalism.
Protection is dependent on how much vandalism a page is receiving currently, not how much it has received in the past. If an article is edited very rarely, and it receives one vandalistic edit a week, then the history will quickly appear to be more vandalism than construction. But the vandalism is not occurring at a rate where protection is necessary. Protection is used only in cases where massive amounts of vandalism (or edit-warring) is occurring over a short period of time; for example, say 10 vandalistic edits in two hours. These articles are not at that threshold, and pre-emptive protection is not allowed. And the Bono link is there as an example of an article which receives so much vandalism that it is necessary to be protected for months at a time (though extended periods of protection is generally applied only to WP:BLP articles). You can request protection, but I can guarantee that none of these articles will be granted it. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but riddle me this: why are you so against it, and what objectively describes "lots of vandalism"? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

←In the last week, only four of the edits that have been made have been reverted as vandalism. That is not enough for protection. I have already given an example of what would constitute a need for protection. As far as I'm aware there is no hardline between protection and no-protection, so if you are looking for a benchmark I am sorry but I cannot provide one to you. Protection does not happen as a result of percentage; I have already explained why above. Rather, when it is a result of vandalism it is based on a measurable frequency i.e. a certain number of edits in a certain timeframe. Four edits in a week definitely does not make this timeframe. Four edits in half an hour perhaps, but a week? No.

WP:NO-PREEMPT: "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Misplaced Pages. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism."

I am against it for all of the reasons that have been outlined above, by myself and by other editors. A recap: 1) There is no need for protection because there is no content dispute or enough vandalism; 2) Many IP editors do not come here to vandalize but to read; and sometimes they will fix an error in information that we have missed, or a typo, and so on. Many IP editors edit constructively, and there is a reason why accounts are not required to edit Misplaced Pages; 3) Since there is not any heavy vandalism going on, any application of protection would be pre-emptive. And Misplaced Pages does not pre-emptively protect articles except in the most serious of cases, as I have outlined through my direct quotation and link above. Four vandals in a week does not qualify as serious.

I have already said that if you feel we are wrong, go ahead to WP:RFPP, the place where protection is requested, and ask for it to be applied. I have no problem with you doing that. I will not stop you, and neither will any other user here. But I can guarantee with absolute certainty that your request will be declined for all of the reasons I have outlined throughout my three posts here. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, no semi-protecting. Yet. We'll just wait and see if the frequency rises at all. Thanks for being civil. You guys know the policies better than I. This debate ends here, but anyone else who wishes to say anything can start a new topic. The result: no protection. Reason: not enough vandalism (although once is one time too many in my book). Let's just crack down on vandalism better. Too bad that blocking isn't a deterrent enough. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that any vandalism is too much (I think it's just plain childish and a waste of the vandals time) but, no matter what we do, if they really want to vandalize then they will always squeak through our defenses. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to chime in, once is not "too much". If it were too much, all articles would be semi-protected. No point in preventing good people from editing in order to punish the bad people. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to how vandalism is a crime, and crime is bad. One robbery is a robbery too many. Not saying we should semi-protect. Yet. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blastoise's origin?

I know Blastoise and Bowser look the same, but there's a Japanese movie monster from where Blastoise is based on, right. Hitmonchan (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably constitutes original research. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro favorite haunts 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you're a newcomer, you will look a lot smarter to others if you read the key policies first. I didn't when I started, and felt like a fool later.

2J, he means the article says that "Blastoise has been compared to Bowser", but there is no proof. But there is a movie monster that Blastoise was confirmed to be based on. Hitmonchan, if you can find the source that says that, we would be very glad to have it. Blake 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The movie monster would be Gamera, but I have heard no such comparison between the two. 173.180.64.146 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we just delete these lists?

They're mindblowingly useless and everyone knows it. They offer borderline no information, and lack even the most basic things. Like pictures. Anyone who actually takes the time to look this stuff up most likely wants to know what the damn things look like, but due to Misplaced Pages's laughable "jpegs make the site less free!" policy these lists serve no purpose. Why don't we just make all of these things off-site redirects to Bulbapedia or a site that's actually useful to the people who take the time to search for this information? Because after they Wiki "Charizard" and get this garbage, that's exactly where they're gonna go to anyway. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You just voted to keep Bulbasaur with a really random rant, and now you are wanting to delete these lists? You need to stop drinking man. just kidding, but you aren't really being serious. Blake 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The existence of the Bulbasaur is pretty much completely irrelevant at this point. It's not really that useful but doesn't quite warrant deletion. These lists though, man. Why are they even here? The most prominent thing they represent is TTN's ego from years back. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
They are here to give information on the species. Just without much of the plot info, movesets, and other un-encyclopedic things. Blake 15:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Plot info is verifiable and important (if not overused), but I agree with movesets and other similar things being unencyclopedic. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bulbapedia does a much better job at documenting this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Species notability

What are the requirements for a Pokemon to have its own article? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Like any subject, Pokemon must comply with the Notability guidelines, which state that it must have significant coverage in third party reliable sources. If you look at the existing articles, the last section usually displays the notability. Blake 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Pokémon (1–51)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Pokémon (1–51)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ign":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Smogon?

There are very few sources that would be considered reliable secondary sources when it comes to Pokémon; would Smogon count? They are generally regarded as the definitive source for competitive battling (whether anti-Smogonites such as myself like it or not). Also, many Pokémon-related articles cite Bulbapedia - this is a tertiary source, can we fix this? 2birds1stone (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fansite, so it is not reliable. Bulbapedia is written by users, so it is not reliable. Blake 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I know Bulbapedia's not reliable by wiki standards, my paragraph criticized the citation of them. Thank you for clearing up the Smogon issue. Um... It seems to me that Wiki's guidelines aren't really conjusive to tackling Pokémon-related articles. A lot of basic information about the Pokémon, like their place in the metagame, is only available in so-called unreliable sources. 2birds1stone (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"like their place in the metagame"? You mean NU, OU, etc? That stuff is not notable. Only serious competitive battlers care about that. I love Pokemon and I don't even care about that. Misplaced Pages writes articles mainly for people to learn about the series, for people who have never played it, or want basic information on some things. Those competitive battling ranks are not notable enough to be included. I don't even think Bulbapedia shows that stuff.
Also, I don't see where we have referenced Bulbapedia as you say. It is shown at the end of the article as a place where readers can gain further information that we don't wish to display. Wikis can be used as external links only when they are of a great size, and have a history of stability. Blake 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No, not the tier system (OU, UU, NU, etc.), just basic things like 'Raichu, despite evolving from an iconic pokémon, is generally regarded as being quite weak'. Obviously an overview of everything about the competitive scene would be overkill, but 'this well-known Pokémon often considered to be weak by serious players' seems quite basic information to me. 2birds1stone (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nidoking

The following has been removed: In a poll conducted by IGN, it was voted as the 42nd best Pokémon, where the staff commented on how Nidoking does not have a crown. They further stated that "Maybe in Generation VI he’ll finally get the adornments befitting a king". — while I agree that the speculation about generation VI is unnecessary, and the speculation about his lack of crown is...bizarre, I think there's room to say that he was voted 42nd best Pokémon of all time. I'm not going to Be Bold just yet (I'm a little shy), but if no one objects after a week, I'm gonna put in his 42nd best Pokémon of all time status back on this page. 2birds1stone (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I put both back because it is perfectly fine. It is established editors from a reliable source giving criticism on Nidoking's character, which helps to make him notable. Sure, when there is one one bit of reception thrown together with real information about their character, the entries look odd. But once they get their own article, which is what the reception helps to do, the reception will be in its own section all by itself, where they won't get it mistaken for trivia. Blake 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That's silly, IGN as a whole isn't considered a notable source (with a few in-depth exceptional articles), although it's reliable enough to establish particular facts. Even if it was, none of that line is notable. I see no others with their positions in that poll listed, and an offhand comment from someone completely unconnected to development is absolutely not notable. If Mayamoto or a developer said he'd get a crown in the upcoming game, then it might be notable. I think it fits every definition of trivia. I also think you're mistaken about ever getting any separate article, the old one was redirected here 4 years ago and nothing has changed since. On the other hand, it would fit perfectly within Bulbapedia. Foxyshadis 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You have no idea what you are talking about. Coverage by third party reliable sources makes subjects notable. Commentary like this is considered reception by reliable sources, which is good to include. The results of the poll have not been added to all of the species because it is a hundred spots. That is a lot to add, and we might have added it to about 25/100.(also, the poll results by themselves aren't that notable, but the commentary on the winners is) Take a look at Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam. While it is a fully developed, and nicely written article(I brought it to GA status), without the whole "Cultural impact" section, they would not have their own article. Blake 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. Audrey. "Nidoking - #42 Top Pokémon - IGN". IGN. Retrieved 2011-05-05.

Nidorina and Nidoqueen

Is it worth noting that they are 2 out of only 3 (out of all official 646) Pokémon that aren't legendary nor in baby stage, yet can't breed? (3rd is Unown) MarcowyGnom (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

please go to talk: 202-251

there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

pictures?!?!?

?!??! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.40.45 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Categories: