Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 3 February 2008

Merge

The characters do not require separate coverage. This list will cover each important character and the more important Pokémon. The hundreds of minor characters will be covered within the episode summaries on the lists, and the minor Pokémon will be covered on the Pokémon lists. TTN (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF dawn is a main character just like misty, brock, and may. and team rocket doesnt need to be merged, it has enough to stand on it own -_- --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

OMFG you have got to be kidding -_- you want to merge people that have been in over 250+ episodes? and one person who has been in every season except the second?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read over WP:N. "It's a main character" and "It's been in hundreds of episodes" are not indicators of notability. They don't have real world information, so they need to be merged. TTN (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

you are going to get a lot of people that hate you for doing this. misty, may, dawn are notable--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

before you even think about editing again look at WP:POINT--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not notable, and plenty of people are already angry at me anyways. There is nothing pointy about trying to get some articles that fail core policies and guidelines merged. Though, something pointy would be removing some merge tags that I don't agree with. TTN (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

dont be a fag, i removed them because you are merging ash into here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ash does not assert notability, so he belongs here. TTN (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

yes he does, now stop merge everything you fucking see--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:N, you'll see that he currently does not. You're free to search for reliable sources, though. TTN (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

what do you call the anime and manga?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ash = Ash Ketchum#References.

Cool it

BEGD, you're stepping out of line here. Take a few minutes to calm down and stop swearing. That doesn't accomplish anything except for a loss of respect. Search for reliable third-party sources instead if you are so desperate for the characters to have their own articles. TTN, I have a quickquestion for you. You say that This list will cover... the more important Pokémon. What criteria do you use to say how "important" a Pokemon is? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why should i, people dont respect me here or in real life, what have i got to loose if i keep going?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The important ones will probably be mostly the ones that play a generally significant role. The specifics will be worked out later, but I'll just say that it'll be for the ones with more than a paragraph of information available for now. TTN (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

if you are going to merge them dont merge them here make a new page like "List of Major Pokémon anime characters"--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just integrate the information into List of Pokémon anime characters? No need for a rename. Besides, I don't any of the characters (except for Ash, possibly) merit a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chance Cleanup before Possible Merge

Unfortunately all of the pokemon character articles suggested for merge do fail the requirements for maintaining a respective separate article. A lot of the information discusses the pokemon of each character and not the character themselves. While it is important to note several key pokemon specific to the character, the bulk of each article should not focus on their pokemon nor should it list every single one the character caught. As such, a merge would be necessary. However, considering the immense popularity of the Pokemon franchise and the main characters, an abundance of out-of-universe information can be collected and a significant revamp of each article is certainly within. Instead of jumping into a merge that undoubtedly causes heated arguments on both sides, it would be best to perform major cleanups of the article to see if at the end the article is worthy of being independant of a list. If it can't, or the cleanup isn't taken seriousely and not done, then we can go ahead and merge the articles. This would give a chance for editors to do their thing and bring articles to standards...even though it should have been done in the first place. Though what's done is done so this gives editors a second chance so to speak and saves everyone from spending useless energy arguing. A time-table of say a month can be set on each article, then a review, and if it doesn't pass then a merge can be performed as agreed. It's certainly better than tagging merges on everything, though that would be a great way to get people's attention in saying this needs a big clean if you want to keep it. Fox816 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure cleanup has already been tried (evident by the empty creation and reception sections), and nothing has actually happened. There is no real point in waiting any longer at this point. If information is found, they can be split again. TTN (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

if you merge it please dont mess it up like they did on the naruto articles--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you find this information to be important, I suggest copying them over to Bulbapedia if they don't have it or another relevant wiki. TTN (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though true, that would be a waste of time to go back and forth between list and splits. As I said earlier, while it should have been done in the first place this adds more incentive for editors since they basically have it all risked. When under pressure, people generally do a lot more work and commit. I agree that the time given was far too lenient yet even an extra month won't hurt if its going to be merged anyways. It's far more better to use the energy spent on mindlessly pleading and arguing back and forth with editors and channel it into shining up an article. The article was only tagged today and already we've seen a fair share of wasted energy. It's only a little longer and if no progress has been made then a merge will have to be accepted by everyone since basically guilt would be to blame for not trying. Fox816 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, bringing everything together, and then expanding is a much better way to improve things than cutting them down piece by piece. It gives us perspective of what's important, and it allows for gradual improvement. I'm really not even going to pretend there is information for any of the characters (maybe, at the most, Ash has a little smidge), so giving time for improvement seems rather pointless. If someone can provide actual sources, I'll change my mind. TTN (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're giving time either way you go. Whether merged or not, time for improvement is there...with the only restriction being that separate articles have a limited time-frame to improve while in a merged list it's almost indefinite. Considering the volume of information already present in each character's article, it's better to improve them now while they're whole. That way you already have existing information in which you can slice out that which is unimportant. In a merge, major trimmings are done and often info pieces needed or can be elaborated upon are accidently taken out. Here whether merge or not, a cutting down will happen. Better to improve the whole now while it's there. Fox816 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of the individual Pokemon being merged into lists, there were several months in between the start of discussions and the majority of the actual mergings, were there not? It seems a bit presumptuous to say that nobody has searched for third party sources when the merge discussions have only begun today. Also, the "Character reception" sections haven't even been on the pages for that long. I know that I, for one, haven't contributed anything to these sections simply because I assumed that the creator of those sections would add information later, as opposed to just leaving them blank. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between 493 articles and 14 articles. This should go on for about a week or two at most. I'm pretty sure people have searched, given that the Pokemon project was pretty adamant about getting these up to our standards. If you can find some basic sources, I'm fine with leaving them for a little bit, but we really shouldn't pretend like improvement is really that likely. TTN (talk)

==Sources exist==-- People have even written academic papers on the darn things:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22037604_ITM

Geni 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what exactly does that have to do with the characters? That's an article on the metaseries that mentions some of them as examples (not relevant ones, though). TTN (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that use as an examples in scientific papers isn't significant? That would be say Drosophila melanogaster's main claim to fame. Another example would be GOTTA CATCH ‘EM ALL Structure, agency and pedagogy in children’s media culture.Geni 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are analyzing the series and metaseries. If you want to add them to Pokémon and Pokémon (anime), that'd be fine, but they have no real relevance here. TTN (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

and Charles Hadfield's The Canals of Southwest England is talking about all the canals of that area. Are you suggesting that we delete the article on the rolle canal?Geni 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. TTN (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey you appear to have carried out a Reductio ad absurdum on your own argument. Impressive but probably a fairly solid hint you need to rethink your position.Genisock2 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I just don't feel like responding to your totally irrelevant comparison. It's the same thing that you always do. TTN (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum is a standard technique in logical debate. If you have to reject logic for your position to hold together it is probably best that you adopt a different position.Geni 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I won't be responding to you anymore. TTN (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

lol--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources you provided are good to use on the general Pokemon series article, not the character articles themselves since the main focus is the series. It's possible to maybe pull out one or two things from that regarding the characters yet that wouldn't be enough. In terms of sources, we need ones that are specific to the character. Some examples would be: director/creator/voice actor interviews regarding the character in question, character designs, influences on design/behavior of character, character impact on the real world, etc... If you could say find a notable study paper entitled "Ash: The Boy, The One, The Catcher" or something like that then you could use that for Ash's article. Fox816 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

what the fuck do you think we watch the anime for?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)