Talk:Scyther

Orphaned references in Scyther
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 Scyther'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 "gamesradar": From List of Pokémon (202–251):  From Lucario:  

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 ⚡ 08:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Scyther and Scizor
What about merge this article content along with this, and this content to (re)create a new article named Scyther and Scizor? There are other articles like this one I'm proposing such Pidgey, Pidgeotto, and Pidgeot, Koffing and Weezing, and Nosepass and Probopass, and the reception is generally direct to both Scyther and Scizor as could be seen in the history of Scyther and Scizor. I will only suggest to use this and this source that are used in nowhere. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Those articles you mention are merged because they are notable as a pair, or as an evolution line. Their reception talks about them mostly as a group, not as individuals. Charizard is in a separate article from Charmander because its notability is as an individual, not as the last in an evolution line. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: those are articles are not merged, and I'm proposing it merger. What's your opinion about it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the ones you linked to that are similar to what you are proposing. As for my opinion, I am not sure why exactly it was split back apart. I assume because not enough of the reception was shared, but looking at it, it doesn't seem to be that bad, and I wouldn't be opposed to them being one article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll only wait for more commentaries. If no one oppose it, I'll merge them. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)