User talk:180.194.152.196

Pokémon articles
Just to let you know, I suggest slowing down on Pokémon articles for a bit, just until I've finished trimming a lot of gamecruft content. I'd like to get the articles up to a certain standard of quality and then work on helping certain borderline articles avoid deletion. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, you shouldn't really waste your time on Pokemon articles, articles like Giratina would still wont survive. Btw, I've restored only Polygon, Den of Geek, Paste on one article and GamesRadar describing the Pokemon as Bruce Lee on other one as I think they are worthy to be included. 180.194.152.196 (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I'm trying to cull any articles that are blatantly outdated and padded. So while Lucario and Lugia certainly seem padded, for instance, there is some additional merit to them that suggests there may be something more to them. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think all of them might be ok, Not sure on Haunter or possibly Unown I believed Unown is ok, Ill expand Lugia tomorrow. I think I have faith that Blastoise can hold up notability. 180.194.152.196 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Put Blastoise in a user page and I will check it out, yeah? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll put in on draft. Also, if you believe Haunter is still notable (not to mention Gengar was huge and redirected at the Afd) I'll attempt tomorrow also to expand it. 180.194.152.196 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed the Blaziken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.194.130.4 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I'm just nominating these five. I'll probably do the AfDs in batches of five (or less, depending on how many need to be AfD'd, and how successful these go). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Before ending this conversation, any thoughts about Klefki? I used all the sources you've listed. If you have sources on other Pokemon that you think that is notable, I can attempt to create it. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, aside from cleanup, I think Klefki is fine. Klefki and Mimikyu seem to have meatier sources, which I attribute to them being made at a time when people knew better than to pad articles with weak sources (I'm including myself in this too). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at even the ones that appear notable, some of them seem really week. Like, Mew has some notability, but it's not as strong as it could be. Same with Pikachu; outside of promotion and references, there's a lot of content that could be trimmed to be more basic, or, ideally, expanded to give more context to why, say, Time held Pikachu so highly. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (When I was viewing sources on Klefki, I found lots of critics also talking about the Ice cream Pokemon Vanillish as more worst Pokemon ever than Klefki) I made an edit request on Pikachu's talk page with multiple content to be added, but I don't think they will do the request, since its kinda huge and needed to be copy edited anyway, its all fine for me. 180.194.130.4 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rainbow Road
Hey! I'd like to ask you about this edit - in my opnion, having it as subsections would make more sense as these are pretty lenghty paragprahs and is easier to read on mobile. The summary also confuses me a bit - it looks more like a list? I personally think the best option would be to have the subsections as well as the "in " text, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts. your thoughts would also be appreciated. Thanks! Rema goxer (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it, I mean I didn't really helped that article to build up anyway.

Nomination of Klefki for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Klefki, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Klefki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Unown, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 🍓⋆JennilyW♡🍧 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Klefki
Hello, 180.194.152.196. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Klefki, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Klefki


Hello, 180.194.152.196. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Klefki".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Blastoise


Hello, 180.194.152.196. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Blastoise".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)