Talk:Charizard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCharizard has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 31, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 6, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 25, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 13, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 7, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 19, 2010Good article nomineeListed
August 11, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article


History-merge?[edit]

Note: This discussion took place on a page merged to here.

I would be fine with deleting this page, but is there any way this page's history can be move to the real Charizard article? Maybe move this page to Charizard, and then revert to the recent revision? I dont know if that would work or not. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A history merge can be done. Why did you do a copy+paste fork anyway? Gigs (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because somebody was saying people might get confused if lots of history just came out of nowhere. It made sense at the time. Blake (Talk·Edits)
I'll put a note on the page that you have requested a history merge. Gigs (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charizard/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS issues
  • The lead is a bit too long, given the length of the article. I recommend, per WP:LEAD, cutting it down to two full paragraphs (as the article is only about 11,000 characters of prose).
  • All Japanese translations of the subject (that goes to other games as well as Pokemon), need to be bolded in the first sentence of the lead.
  • Books and video games (such as Pokémon Adventures and Super Smash Bros. respectively) need to be italicized. Please go through the article and make titles of books are italicized.
  • You have some overlinking in the article as well as in the citations. (In the article Charmander comes to mind.) In the citations, just wikilink the first occurrence of the source, company, etc. and then delink the rest of them.
I thought you could re-link things in each section if needed? Some people might get redirected to a section, and not want to search the whole article for the one time Charmander(or other things) is linked. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For larger articles, that might be the case here, but for short articles, not as much due to its size. –MuZemike 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I remove all but one link, or have a link per main section, but not subsections? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough I think. –MuZemike 17:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prose issues
  • In the "Concept and characteristics" section, In the Pokémon anime, they use facial expressions, body language, and repeat the syllables of their own names, using different pitches and tones. → the grammar is not quite correct there. "Facial expressions" and "body language" are two items in that series, but the third item "repeat" is not an item (noun) but a verb. Please correct the grammar in that sentence (note: there are two ways to correct it that I can see).
  • Just plain removed the whole thing. It wasn't sourced and it isn't needed anyways. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section (starting on the second paragraph), you seem to be switching back-and-forth mid-sentence between singular and plural with regards to describing Charizards' characteristics. Correct those inconsistencies.
  • In the "In printed adaptations" subsection, It then teams ... three birds in the process. → The sentence is too long and drawn out. Please try to break it up into two smaller, more manageable sentences. This will make it easier for readers to digest the content.
Other things to remember

Note: this does not count against you in this GAN, but serves as good reminders and references, especially if/when this article approaches A-Class or FA.

  • Always remember that you need to include non-breaking spaces between numbers and units of measurement.
  • Be on the lookout for redundant wording like "later evolved" (since "evolution" always points towards the future).
  • Watch out for instances of "noun plus '-ing'", where you have a word ending in "-ing" immedately proceeding any noun. See WP:PLUSING for good exercises on how to eliminate those occurrences.
  • Names of companies are not italicized in general.
    Are you saying they aren't in the article, or they shouldn't? Because Nintendo and GameFreak italicized would seem odd. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that you had Hasbro and Tomy italicized. Those normally aren't. –MuZemike 15:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Well that was one of the things that was kept from the old 2007 article. I didn't edit much of that old stuff. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your citations, you may want to use the standard citation templates, just so that consistency is ensured.
  • Normally I would require a reference for This DVD is part of the 10th Anniversary Box Set,... by Pikachu and Jigglypuff respectively., but I can understand why that may be problematic if it just involves reading the back of a DVD box.
Conclusions

On hold pending the above improvements. –MuZemike 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will be sure to change some of this when I have time. I thank for you improving the grammar(english isn't exactly my favorite subject), and giving feedback. It is very helpful and revealed some things that were overlooked. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, and commented on a few things. Tell me if you think I didn't fully fix an issue. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Everything looks pretty good, now. Nice work. –MuZemike 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I might try improving Mr. Mime and others now with some of the things brought up here. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Poll[edit]

Should someone put in the article that Charizard won #1 in this IGN Poll http://www.ign.com/top/pokemon/1 ? 173.186.19.164 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked[edit]

This article seems to have been hacked by someone; look at the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.92.119 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype Charizard concept[edit]

I found this statement on the page directly below the image of Charizard at the top right:

"Charzard's [sic] original sprite had purple wing membranes and he was originally fire/poison type. Charzard also had yellow eyes and a violet flame."

I removed it, as it was improperly located and had no citation, and I couldn't find an online source that confirmed it. If anyone knows of a reliable source for it, feel free to add the information back in. -742mph (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Game jargon[edit]

In this edit I removed the section on competitive usage because, although done in good faith, it was chock-full of in-game jargon that is completely inaccessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the game. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide. I will further note that I found out after my reversion that another editor had done the same on the basis that the content was game-guide-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Play?[edit]

Should I put a section of Competitive history? Galefuun (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your original edit because it wasn't formatted properly or in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. I believe that an "in competitive play" section would be interesting, although I don't believe it works as its own heading, rather a sub-heading under Characteristics. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I made this. TheTiksiBranch (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Battling[edit]

Hello,

This section seems filled with conjecture and rather emotive/subjective language. Just FYI.

Kind Regards 203.221.127.156 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reassessment reassessment?[edit]

Tagging @Greenish Pickle!, @QuicoleJR, @Pokelego999, @Zxcvbnm, @AirshipJungleman29 as the participants in the Good article reassessment from last week.

I'm.. generally confused as to everything that happened there. The article was kept as a GA on the grounds that "Delisting good articles is done when it is determined that the original review was incorrect or no longer applies.", but that's just not the case - per WP:GAR, "is a process used to review and improve good articles that may no longer meet the good article criteria. GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted." And the nominator's concerns were partially ignored - in fact, a good chunk of them still apply.

Particularly, I'm concerned about the verifiability of some sections of the article. The Reception section has a cleanup tag specifically for this purpose - by my guess, about half of it is cited to lists of "top 10 coolest pokémon" and the like - is that really the type of sourcing we want to use? But these issues go deeper into the article - for example, there's an entire section of plot that really seems to be toeing the line of WP:MOSFICT - a lot of it is interpretation and analysis that seems to fall afoul of WP:OR. Compare that to the section about the video games directly above it, which doesn't go nearly as in-depth about the plot and (to me at least) feels much more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, the section "Competitive battling" is entirely cited to the previously mentioned listicles and a fanzine.

I don't think this article is necessarily bad by any means but it does need a sprucing up, for sure. casualdejekyll 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualdejekyll, I'm not entirely sure why Greenish Pickle! decided to close the discussion (to be perfectly honest I hadn't noticed), but I have no objection to you renominating it. For what it's worth, the only issue I can see is the WP:MOSFICT issue; if the "listicles" are from reliable sources, I don't see a reason to remove them. Greenish Pickle! referred to "scholarly sources" without providing specifics in their nomination, so if those were found the article could certainly be improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone who is passionate about this topic should try cleaning up the article before renominating anything. Just stripping it of GA status won't really accomplish much. By and large, the problem lies in Reception needing a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GA Reassessment closed before I was able to add anything further to the conversation, but my points still stand and I still agree. I think Charizard has what it takes for GA Status, but the article needs some touch-ups and rewrites, namely things like "Patch up sourcing state in Reception" and fixes/changes on various sections (For instance, Competitive Battling doesn't seem too notable by and large, especially since none of the other Pokemon articles have this section) I'd make changes myself, but I'm pressed for time these days, so I'm not sure I'm too well equipped to handle fixing a Good Article. Pokelego999 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charizard&oldid=1218438141"