Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 11

Archive of discussions from December 3, 2006 - December 31, 2006

Archiving

I archived the talk page, which was 81 KB. I kept FFA. Feel free to re-add any important topics. Alvin6226 ^talk 02:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot

I inquired for a SuggestBot list yesterday, and I got it today. I trimmed down this list to only PCP articles:

Stubs Cleffa Whirl Islands Cherrygrove City Sootopolis City Verdanturf Town Cleanup Mossdeep City

Merge Gyarados Glitch City Add Sources Seafoam Islands Pallet Town

I can already see a couple problems here:

• All but two of those are location articles. Time to consolidate into four articles for four regions? Actually, Glitch City is not a location article by our standards, so make that three articles. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Whirl Islands and Cianwood City need to get merged regardless; Whirl Islands would have its own section, as it is important in the anime.

Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Importance"

Let's be realistic. Most Pokémon, in-and-of themselves, are not incredibly important within the entire video gaming world and most don't have much priority for being included in Wikipedia 1.0. I'm talking about this. I'm sorry, I just don't see Ekans as a medium-priority article. If anything, it has none. The only Pokémon I could see having the highest priority would of course be Pikachu, who is so popular that it has had its own balloon in the Thanksgiving Day Parade. But most Pokémon, in the grand scheme of all video games, are not of very high priority "within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0."

According to this, low-importance articles deal with subject that are "mainly of specialist interest". Inclusion of Pokémon like Ekans don't deal a wealth of knowledgeable information into the world of gaming. I just don't see most individual species being very high on that scale.

And dear God, does our project really cover almost 1,000 articles?? --Brandon Dilbeck 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine Pikachu, Mew, Mewtwo and possibly a few starters being relatively important, but others, I don't think so. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Very recently I logged into and started editing a new wiki based on the RPG series Golden Sun, and right away I figured something important: Wikipedia aims to be a general purpose encyclopedia with its content easily accessible to the casual reader, while all the various Wikis out there aim to delve into their specific subjects much, much more in-depth, and they are always by the fans and for the fans (it seems). Maybe in the ideal Wikipedia and related Wikis, most of our 493 Pokemon articles would be hosted at Bulbapedia the Pokemon-centric wiki while Wikipedia would hold just some separate articles on the most notable Pokemon, while the rest... may undergo a merging process so lengthy and involved that Highway called it "ridiculous" a while back.

There was a discussion a while back where one idea was to have 25 list pages, covering 20 Pokemon each, so that encyclopedic and none-too-overspecific overviews on the Pokemon from Bulbasaur to Raticate are presented on that page in a format that casual readers would like, with main article links to Bulbasaur and Charizard present. A rough example of what it would look like has been in my sandbox for a while now. If Wikipedia's Pokemon project aims to present the franchise to the general reader successfully, the merging of 493 Pokemon into 25 list pages might be our only viable alternative... But I certainly ain't saying that as the only one. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do people waste their time documenting the minutia of some commercial fantasy world? This knowledge may make you better consumers, but won't give you any historic, political, or scientific perspective. Pokemon and other corporate created fiction should only be discussed in the context of their detrimental impact upon human culture and the harm they cause to child development. Serious people need to start treating fandom/fantasyphelia as a mental disorder on par with religious belief. Delirium of disorder 14:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this, but it has been decided unofficially that Pokemon are significant enough to have their own articles and everything. Also, your say on this is removed because (1) you are not a member of this project and (2) you have vandalised Wikipedia recently. Sorry! Joiz ^A. Shmo 19:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?? The Project isn't an elite club or something, membership doesn't bring special privileges. Non-members have as much right to comment as members. As for vandalism, that doesn't make the user a hardcore vandal, or we wouldn't have the complex system of warnings and blocks. Only your first point holds valid, Joizashmo. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me. I would certainly contest anyone accusing me of vandalism. The past accusations were politically motivated. I'd also like to point out that I don't disagree that Pokemon can have pages on Wikipedia. I don't suggest that these pages be removed. Too many topics cannot be discussed because the pages have been removed and the word has been blocked from having a page about it recreated! This is a major flaw with the current Wikipedia. I just think that much of the effort put into improving CURRENT Pokemon pages is simply a waste of time. Delirium of disorder 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

General issue with many of the Pokemon articles...

We're being WAY too analytical are trying WAY too hard to define and explain every single detail about everything in the Pokemon world as if they were real. Which gets absolutely ridiculous. The fact is, the fictional universe that Pokemon is set in is very much unclear, undefined, or contradictory in many fields. Which is absolutely fine, but we shouldn't try to force all of our real-world reasoning and assumptions onto the fictional Pokemon world.

Is Nidorina a rabbit, or even a mammal? Is Nidorina a reptile? We don't know, and we can hardly imagine the answer, and I'm sure Satoshi did not even have that in mind when he was drawing it. And so, the best way to treat this question is to NOT MENTION IT AT ALL. DON'T speculate if Nidorina is a reptile or mammal or rabbit. DON'T EVEN REMARK that Nidorina is rabbit-like in appearance at all. THAT'S ORIGINAL RESEARCH, AND INSULTS THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE READER. Leave it up to people to determine what Pokemon are.

Is every single animal in the world a Pokemon? Are some pokemon carnivorous? Pokedex entries often mention the dangerous nature of some Pokemon, and talk about their aggresiveness, supersharp teeth, extremely strong bones, etc. However, you never see it mentioned that some Pokemon hunted and killed another Pokemon and ate it. You never see a single Pokemon death. Does this mean that Pokemon never die? Of course not. It's just that the franchise never brings up the issue. SO DON'T TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO BRING UP THINGS THAT THE FRANCHISE NEVER DOES, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NOTHING VERIFYABLE TO SAY!!! Don't theorize on Pokemon breeding or feeding habits unless it's (practically) a direct quote from the show or a Pokedex entry. Don't bring up scientific terms to describe a world that doesn't work scientificially the way ours does. And only use the etymologies that are painfully obvious, cuz some of the ones out there are such long stretches, it's ridiculous

huggles, Blueaster 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please listen to this. Not doing what he days has caused things such as the WikiProject Cats people marking Electabuzz, because someone decided it was a cat. Don't remark on appearance when the series doesn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heehee! Lovely speech. But yeah, that might be another reason why it may be valid to do a Godzilla of a merge project that combines the nearly 500 Pokemon articles into 25 20-Pokemon list pages, with each Pokemon getting a nice crisp, 2-paragraph-or-so overview. In fact, I'd love to see AMIB respond to this. Something's gotta happen, though... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of a mega-merge at all. Toastypk 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I only see ugly trouble a-brewin' if we try merging all the species articles. In previous discussions, we couldn't agree on a nice, crisp way to appropriately merge them together. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to merge all of them, but something needs to be done. If anyone else tried to build articles solely from primary sources as much as we do with some of the Pokemon articles, they would be deleted in a heartbeat. Either we're going to have to merge them, or we're going to have to show that there actually exist secondary sources for every Pokemon. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You three are super-correct. And I would never have attempted a merge proposal had it not been for AMIB a while back. There was once a time when I felt that Wikipedia's content policies didn't necessary have to be followed to a T. I used to believe, "So what if we have 493 articles that consist of game-guide, original research, and a lot of unverified stuff in general? All that matters is that each Pokemon, being one of the 493 titular critters, is part of a super-notable franchise and that each one had appeared in video games, anime, manga comics, and trading cards. That, and the fact that there's always room for improvement in each article, warrants their inclusion." I used to think this way because I had originally thought that Wikipedia wanted game guide and an article about every subject under the sun; obviously I found I was wrong in recent months.

I think that this is potentially a lose-lose situation. One the one hand, this talk page has had all sorts of confrontational discussion about the problems with us having 493 Pokemon articles, with users like AMIB, Brandon Dilbeck in a discussion above, and Blueaster now, attacking the flaws of the system. On the other hand, my mega-merge compromise has certainly had opposition. Is there any solution that can be agreed on? Whoever can come up with one should get a barnstar.

And by the way, BD, I think the reason we couldn't agree on a nice, crisp way to appropriately merge the articles together because those discussions were never finished with a conclusion to either keep or merge. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

okay, what about this? It's not a merge but it's an attempt at a minimalist approach to Bulbasaur. I disagree with AMIB that you could fairly reduce Bulba's article to one short paragraph. I've removed some extraneous info and slightly tweaked some stuff from the main article, I didn't add anything. Here's the diff. If we are serious about a merge we need to be fair in what could be taken out of an article. I'm as against boilerplate and bloat as anyone, but I think that my version deals with these issues and still shows that there is an article there. Now Pokemon such as Weedle, I'm not too sure :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but why is everyone assuming that all Pokemon articles must be merged? Why not just the ones that can't pull off a stand-alone article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i'm not... just it seems some people are. here, let's sort the garbage by national number and then (like all articles) when one section gets too big we break it off into it's own article. this means that articles that have been actually developed will stay right where they are, but Mareep and Nidorina will be merged. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It just seemed that after all this discussion we've been having on this talk page, people looked like they were demanding a mega-merge, and I was trying to promote the idea of such a merge for the sake of compromise even though I've always disliked that very idea. I guess we should wait until AMIB comes back to "articulate the problems" with these articles, because we're pretty much stuck here debating until then. The bulbasaur diff, though, could be a smoking gun to prove wrong AMIB's original contention that 99% of the Pokemon creatures are impossible to write separate articles about. He'll need to provide his input on that. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

woa.... i wasn't asking for a merge, i was just saying that stuff that doesn't belong on WP ends up clogging alot of the articles... although... merging Pokemon would make for a good and consise solution, if we can figure out how... Blueaster 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about that. The reason your message made me think of that merging business is that truthfully there is a lot of game guide and original research that, er, insults the intelligence of the reader, and we've certainly been much too analyctical and are trying much too hard to define and explain pretty much everything in the Pokemon world as if it was all nonfiction; take away all of that from each of the lesser Pokemon creature pages and we are left with pretty darn low-content pages. And merging is often the solution in presenting the low-content subjects by putting their low-content pages into large-content articles. At this point, it seems that we've decided that merging would be a concise solution, but how to merge is the $64,000 question... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Evo line merging seems the best start, but after that, I don't know. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why evo line merging didn't sound good when it was proposed on this page a while ago was that you are left with articles like Dunsparce and Illumise and Lunatone and Perap. AMIB didn't think that was a good way to do it. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And still doesn't. It doesn't really solve any problems; it's a pointless merge for the sake of appearing to be doing something about the actual problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

i still like the idea of national number. what is the problem with that? Let's agree on a number of species per page that takes page size into consideration and go that route. I wouldn't think that 10-15 would be too cumbersome for people to have to scroll through, besides, what are TOCs for anyway? If we only merge low-content articles we shouldn't need too many pages. We can name the pages something like List of Pokemon species (#045-#085). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's more or less the merge idea I was preaching, though I figured putting all 493 within 30+ list pages, with the full-article-worthy Pokemon having main article links to their own main articles such as Pikachu and Charizard, would've been an interesting way to handle that. One way to look at this issue: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so we should expect casual readers to be looking at these pages, and these pages would have had a big merging job of some sort applied to them. I think I'll just leave coming up with the least controversial merge job to everyone else.

By the way, to deviate from the subject a bit, right before everything began here I completely rewrote Silcoon and Cascoon, and I had thought that all they needed now was the sourcing and citation to become articles in better shape than, say, the Dark Ride genre of attractions at Disneyland. :) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: someone added one of our previous Pokemon objectives to the Really Stupid Article Ideas list. Now check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perappu out. Over half a year ago, an irate user tried deleting Tamanta, Perap, and Buoysel on the basis that it's extreme fancruft. Here is a section of one comment of choice:

...I'd venture to guess that there are more articles here on some variaton of Pokemon then there are of World War I. Don't you people have your own wiki somewhere else for this fancruft?...

With this in mind, I think the best way we can figure out how to merge is think back to how the Pokemon articles would and should have been created back when Wikipedia was young. If this is a general encyclopedia while the various Wikis out there are much more in-depth and specific, what probably would have been made on Wikipedia were all the list of Pokemon pages I had been preaching in recent weeks, and separate articles on the most notable articles - Bulbasaur, Charizard, Pikachu, Mewtwo, et al - would have been linked as main article links in the sections on those Pokemon. Then Bulbapedia would have had one page per Pokemon and town and not Wikipedia. Sigh, it seems that the main thing preventing any merge from happening is that there are lots and lots of users who would rather keep the things the way they are. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I certienally perfer the way the articles are now. While I agree that some articles could be merged, such as all the towns to one map. But I'm not sure that merging the articles for pokemon would be a good idea; for example, if you merged the article for Pichu, pichachu, and raichu, what would you call the article? Pichu evolutional line? Creating a list is not helpful, how would you deside which pokemon require their own pages? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 12:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think right now it's a lot more productive to focus on the location merging than the Pokemon merging. I don't think there will ever be a decision agreed on to merge any Pokemon creature articles, but the separate pages on towns have made us look like bad Wikipedians according to WP:STUPID. I advocate the articles on Kanto, Johto, Hoenn, and Sinnoh being the merge targets of all the town pages so that you get Kanto when you search for Lavender Town; that's what the general readers of Wikipedia would prefer. Pokefans would go to Bulbapedia for a separate page on Lavender Town. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

I think the gym leader;s article could use a image of all the badges to date, but I'm not sure where to get such a thing.Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pokenum

What is the reason for having this template? See Template talk:Pokenum#Necessary?. —Centrx→talk • 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wehn we first decided to have a standardized intro including the total number of Pokémon( something that now seems to be up for debate), that number kept changing due to the pending arrival of DP. Rather than manually changing it in hundreds of species articles plus the dozen or so that already included that #, we implemented a template. Now that the number has stabilized, it can be substed or removed as desired, provided someone is willing to have it undeleted and re-insert it when the next generation looms. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why would you want or need the total number of Pokemon to be repeated at the top of every article? —Centrx→talk • 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Carving out too much of a niche?

Lately, I've been seeing a couple comments that we're carving a niche too much and that Bulbapedia could better use our prose. Are we getting too niche for the general purpose of WP? Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the complaint is supposed to mean, so no. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Random searching

I was going through the main Pokémon article and found this page: List of Pokémon references or spoofs. As it stands now, it's a terribly put together cultural references list that seems to be simply a list for the sake of a list. We need to try and nuke whatever we can from this, and make it somewhat presentable.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd advocate completely deleting the article, but if no one weeds it out soon, that might be the best thing to do. I mean, look at some of these:

"In Spongebob Squarepants, the clock in the Rock Bottom Bus Station looks somewhat like a pokeball."

"In a commercial for the HGTV show Designed to Sell, A kid is playing the Nintendo GameCube. On the TV screen, it show Swampert's name, partially visible. That means

that the kid is playing Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness or Pokemon Colosseum."

"In the movie The Pacifier, through various shots of the house, there is a Pikachu doll on a shelf."

Yeah, I don't know what to do with this. Only a few are truly notable. Some concern the "Electric Soldier Porygon" epilepsy incident, and the most notable of those could be referenced on that page. The rest just need to be tossed out. I'll get rid of the above ones (and others) right now, but I'll definitely need help.~e.o.t.d~ 02:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I removed over half of them - I left a comment about which ones I left in on that article's talk page. Feel free to comment on it and make other changes, as always.~e.o.t.d~ 03:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk about cleanup

Category:Pokémon article cleanup currently has forty-nine pages. We may want to focus on the following:

• Lucario (in light of the release of Diamond and Pearl)
• The game articles: WP:CVG can help
• Pokemon: Kanto (which is getting moved soon; talk about naming conventions)
• Team Rocket

This is TTV|talk|contribs|email (18:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)), reporting for WP:PCP.

There's already a "Kanto (Pokémon)", isn't there? Also, "Pokemon: Kanto" doesn't have much of a history (seems to have been copied and pasted from "Kanto (Pokémon)").
-- M C Y 1008 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I speedy tagged it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Highway should be happy

I’ve spent the last 10 hours or so updating the orphaned, miscategorized List of Pokémon Adventures chapters. All the English chapter names from VIZ volumes 1-7 and Chuang Yi Volumes 8-15 are now present. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor problem

Amarkov has put up Whismur up for AFD. I know this is already listed on the main project page, but it may need a better focus here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

TCG section needs work

I brought up the subject of making the TCG its own sub-project a short while ago, but I abandoned it due to having too little support and having too much college work to dedicate any real time to it.

Anyway, I am on christmas vacation now, so I can put some real time into making the TCG-related articles better (and boy do they need it). Please let me know any concerns you have.

Spinach Dip 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since no one here seems to care, I posted this topic on the premier PTCG website: http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?p=734060#post734060

If you have anything to say, please say it there. Spinach Dip 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How can I help?

I'd like to help, but I'm unsure where I should start, can anyone point me in the right direction?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Shedinja, so I'm going to tell you to clean that up. But really, just pick an article and add sources. With 493 species articles, 400 of which are not very good, you'll almost certainly pick one that needs cleanup.

Is there a article I should model it on?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic is good, if a bit bloated. While Bulbasaur is also featured, I don't know why it still is, it's so full of bad stuff. So use Torchic. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's just passed an FARC, so clearly it's still FA quality. —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will went I get the chance, probably later tonight--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay edited it, take a look. I'm Afaird I can't do anything with the Show information, because I don't watch it, and thus, know very little.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A few requests.

Hello, there. I've been meaning to join this project for the longest time now, and finally decided to. One major reason I joined was to try and help improve the articles of my favorite Pokemon, noteably Snorunt and Kecleon. To improve these articles, I'll need a few pictures that are hard for me to come about.

• I need pictures of both Snorunt and Kecleon in the videogames.
  • For Kecleon: I'd prefer a screenshot of when you encounter one with a Devon Scope, if possible. I'd also like a screen of Steven giving the trainer (male or female, preferebly not from Emerald) the Devon Scope, or, even better, using the Devon Scope on one.
  • For Snorunt: A battle scene or "Wild SNORUNT appeared!" screen of it in its natural "habitiat" (AKA Shoal Cave). Again, any gender, and preferably Ruby or Sapphire.
• I need TGC scans for both.
  • For Kecleon: He only has one, I think. The Sandstorm one. I'd prefer one of decent quality that I can use.
  • For Snorunt: The earliest one, which I think is Ruby and Sapphire EX.
• I'd like a screen of Kecleon from the anime. I'd prefer the one from the Johto episode involving the blimp; the name escapes me.

If anyone can help, it would be greatly appruciated. Jeri-kun 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also do well to post this in the talk pages for those two Pokémon articles, too. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will in a moment. The only reason I posted this here first is so I'd get some people looking at this. I doubt many people look at the Talk Page of these two articles. But, I will. Jeri-kun 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

etymology of name

How do you know ethmology of each pokémon's name? In Japanese Wikipedia, they are making issues of that now. Do you have any references?--Ræv 04:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it's much easier to make inferences that the names are as they are, even without known sources. A name like Dewgong for a sea lion makes sense when you think of dew and dugong.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't that count as original research? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

i think that taking apart blends so readers cn see them more easily is fine, you aren't actually doing real OR, you're just showing what makes up the word in cases where its obvious (the explanation fo Umbreon should stay, speculation on Celebi should be removed). phonetic references are obvious so i think it's safe to say something like, "Seel is named in reference to the Seal that it physically resembles." But as much as I'd like to say that Oddish is named after a Radish I don't think we should unless we have something from a primary or secondary source. As far as reliable sources go, I'm strongly of the opinion that as editors of Pokemon articles we have some knowledge of who a reputable source is, and fansites can be reputable. If serebii or psypoke was to start offering etymologies on their sites it would be appropriate to say, "It is speculated that the name Celebi is derived from celestial and Bī, the Japanese word for beautiful.<ref/>" This is a fact, it is veriafible. One of these sites would theoretically be better than a journalist for TIME making an editorial supposition due to the experience level of each with the subject matter (but oddly enough, we're happy to post a reference to Carmen Miranda but argue about etymology being OR - in my hypothetical world). WP:RS mentions Attributability, Editorial oversight, Replicability, Recognition by other reliable sources, Age of the source and rate of change of the subject, and Persistence. Certain fansites meet these requirements, except for "Recognition" mostly because it is hard to find many reliable sources on a non-scholarly subject that refer to eachother, but these are not "must meet all" requirements like WP:FUC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to there are no source but non-reliable fansites. Should we remove descriptions about each pokémon's name origin?--Ræv 04:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should remove it. In my opinion, ignoring WP:OR just because we can isn't a good thing here. This thing really doesn't add much (if anything) to the articles, so ignoring the rules is pointless. -- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the origins of the name is interesting. It maybe WP:OR but It's not as if it's a super major part of the articles.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but it is, like you said, a small part of the articles; therefore, it isn't worth ignoring the rules to include them. -- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 05:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I was thinking more in the other direction, it's not compermising the articles any to include the information :P--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

<--- But it is ignoring the rules. -- The Hybrid wishes you a Merry Christmas 07:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

very true Hybrid - speculation of editors should be removed. Do it now! However, I think that blends could be regarded as descriptive rather than analytical. But we should remove the idea that Celebi's name sounds like Celery. Now... while specualtion of editors isn't allowed, is there any trustworthy, notable fansite that gives their specualtions on the etymologies? I don't see anything wrong with, "Editors of serebii.net have suggested that Celebi could be a play on it's Japanese name of Serebii and the English word celebrity." They are IMO a better source than TIME for quoting editorial opinions. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

oh yes, and we should also try to avoid wanting to call everything a portmanteau just because we like the word as much as Humpty Dumpty did. A good example is in a comment on Charizard's FAC review, where one editor complained of the fact we were saying the name was a portmanteau combining charcoal or charred (when char would have sufficed - but then it couldn't be a portmanteau, or blend, and we couldn't have linked it as such like we have an addicted habit of doing as much as possible). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 11:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption agency

I would recommend an adoption agency be placed as a sub-page to this project so that, if members want a Pokémon article assigned to them, they don't have to post on the talk page. Does that sound like a good idea? Joiz ^A. Shmo 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Going back to PAC style? I don't know if that would work. TTV|talk|contribs|email 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't make that the main focus of the Project like the PAC was or anything. I just think it would be better to have a place specificly for people asking what they could do to help. Joiz ^A. Shmo 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would people need to sign up like that to edit an article? Can't people work on an article without assigning it to themselves? I'm afraid this would lead to people thinking they own those articles. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no-doubt editor out there who work better when given something specific to focus on and then can count on getting immediate feedback on their work. Encouragement and guidance are important to some people. But that kind of dialogue would become distracting on this page or the main page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could set up a PCP version of WP:ADOPT. -- THL 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who follows the pokemon adventures manga?

If so, the Mudkip article really needs that section expanded. (In fact, most articles probably do, but...) Any help would be appreaciated.--Ac1983fan 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember to congratulate ourselves for getting this far~

We've progressed, too! And yes, most of us know about Torchic being a Front Page for a while now (image to remind us of this) - which showed just now. We should all congratulate ourselves (whether article contributors or background workers) for getting this far! Isn't this our second article to make it to the front page? Cheers. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedians are apparently taking note of this. Check this out. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the Pocket Monsters are getting to be notable INSIDE Wikipedia now. XD - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 07:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

this topic flew under my radar... thnx for the link Raven, i had a very good laugh :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Charizard FA nomination

FYI, although I am not a member of PCP, I have nominated Charizard as a FAC. It definately qualifies as one. Please feel free to leave comments.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard Andros 1337 21:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Red/Blue & Green articles.

I will shortly be creating a merge proposal to merge the articles Pokémon Red and Blue and Pokémon Green and am alerting the Pokémon Collaborative Project of this. I suggest this merge for the following reasons:

• Although technically different versions, the games themselves are near identical in everything but name. They are simply regional variations.
• The article for Pokémon Green article contains little worthy of note that is not already included in the Red/Blue articles - the content is a near copy. Any version specific information is short and can easily be part of the main article.
• Pokémon Red and Blue has been assessed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games to be an article of Top importance, one of only 38 in this project, due to the fact it started a multi-billion franchise. However, Pokémon Green is intrinsically linked with the initiation of this series, but should instead be listed with Red/Blue.
• From what I understand, previous merge requests have simply resulted in the template being deleted with no proper discussion. The time is now right for a proper vote to be proposed.

Please discuss this merge on the Talk:Pokémon Red and Blue
--Mouse Nightshirt 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

{{Pokenum}}

This discussion kinda just didn't happen. Does anyone have a good reason why it is necessary to include the number of Pokemon in each and every article? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's used for when new Pokémon are revealed, such as when we didn't know the limits to Diamond and Pearl, that we would end up with 493 Pokémon total. I don't know the MoS that calls for it, but it's probably linked somewhere. I also know Centrx doesn't care for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You sidetracked around the question. Why is any number necessary? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Forward compatibility, as stated on the project page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the point Amarkov's trying to make is that no one cares for the total number of existing Pokémon. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that every article contains the same huge intro paragraph--this pokenum number is one word in the huge paragraph that many people have complained about. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is substed, and there was a FAC that could be interpreted to say it should be there. I see no such for this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should we remove 493 but not all of Pokestart? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Because they are seperate issues. Pokestart has a reason for existence, grounded in a FAC, while {{Pokenum}} has no such reason. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where can I see the FAC discussion? --Brandon Dilbeck 05:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... well, this is rather embarassing. It turns out that, after I think about it, I've never actually seen this FAC, only heard about it from two other people. Oops. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated {{pokestart}} for deletion; regardless of if background information is needed, it goes against every rule on good writing I've heard of to just copy an introduction from another place, just putting in a different name. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link!!! --Brandon Dilbeck 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pokenum too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't {{Pokenum}} been up for TFD more than once?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of the pokemon is something ingrained with the pokemon themselves, every region has it's own numbering system, for example. It's jusst how it is. Unlike digimon, where a new mon was introduced every show, almost, pokemon are mostly based on the idea of collecting, for example, in some games, you collect gems or something, repersented like : 100/500. It all has to do with the pokedex, which is where the numbers came from. In pokemon Handbooks, the pokemon are in pokedex order, not alphabetical, or what have you.

So why in every pokemon article? because, it is, for lack of better terms, the way it is in the pokemon universe.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? I'm not sure I understand whatever you said, but it seems to me as if you're saying that the number of Pokémon needs to be mentioned in every Pokémon article because that's the total number to be collected. But that, instead, provides a further argument for removing it: Wikipedia isn't a gameguide, it's an encyclopedia! And it's supposed to be out-of-universe in perspective! Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to explain, for example, every Pokemon figure you could buy (or so I remember) included that pokemon's number it's part of the mythos of the Pokemon franchise.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Report filed for projects WP:PCP and WP:TVS. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Poké Ball article

is in need of repair... and a section on the pokeball trainer cards in the card game. Blueaster 07:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

what specifcally did you have in mind in the way of repair? this would be better to bring up on poke ball's talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)