Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur/Archive1

Bulbasaur
I'm starting this nom over. There was quite a bit of discussion in the old nom, and since the article has probably changed quite a bit since them, I'm not sure how much is still relavant. Old nom is here Raul654 22:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * Support (again) - it seems to me that all of the old objections seem to boil down to "this is too short" without saying what could be added. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I have no particular love for anime, and Pokémon is certainly not representative for quality anime, but the article looks fine. Phil s 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per revisions. -- Wikipedical 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per revisions. Morgan695 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per revisions. -- TomStar81 01:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per my previous comment and even more with revisions. - Cuivienen 01:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It is most definitely deserving of FA status. Wikipikarefulgenschu 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Just as I did before. RyanGerbil10 04:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I wasn't aware of the first vote on this one, but it's definitely a strong FA candidate currently. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support again, this article is excellent even if it is pokemon. Dee man45 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, again, per revisions. — FireFox • T • 20:57, 28 January 2006 
 * Support as per the others. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, especially for such a subject. Ian13|talk 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Support
 * "Several Bulbasaur have appeared throughout the anime, although only two as major characters" -- explain what "the anime" refers to; as a matter of fact, I simply don't understand that entire paragraph
 * Section titles "in the anime" and "in the video games" are odd, consider removing "the" from both
 * I for one do not understand the significance of the Ken Livingstone thing.
 * Tuf-Kat 05:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These critisisms have been rectified in the article. --Cel e stianpower háblame 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One last point: please clarify whether "Bulbasaur" is an individual or a species, or both. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarified in the lead. It's a species. --Cel e stianpower háblame 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Tuf-Kat 06:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per what I said at the old FAC. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Gflores Talk 22:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --PopUpPirate 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support again. It's still a fine article.  Rob e  rt  01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support nice article. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hella support. This one should have become a FA quite a few weeks ago...[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  15:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but a good comment I'm reading all of what others are saying about that if bulbasaur would be accepted then all the others would have to also. Also it seems that it's getting hard to extend the article. I have an idea: Just look at the Pokemon article. It's so quality already. In German, it was made a featured, and the english version could do the same with a little work. If anything in this field can get a featured status, it's got to be the main franchise article. It's already got a lot of information on it and just needs tuning. Just a while ago I nominated it for Good Articles but somebody took it off because it didn't cite its sources. So much more can be said about pokemon as a whole there, as well as the reactions to the franchise and all the criticisms. If Bulbasaur is proven to be too niche of an article, I would strongly suggest looking at the pokemon article. Again, so much can be said there. Toastypk 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I will acknoledge that Bulbasaur is not a special Pokémon, but at the same time, it is the first one in the Pokédex, and the first one to be produced by this Wikiproject, which led to it being selected for nomination. Tsavage's analogy comparing Pokémon to leaves on a tree is inaccurate. A much better analogy might be to compare Pokémon to types of animals, or perhaps to professional fighters. Each and every Pokémon is unique enough to justify its own article. - Corbin Simpson 21:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Corbin: Unfortunately, my analogy is better than your alternatives (I am assuming you mean real animals and real pro fighters, not ones inhabiting an imaginary world). In the case of the TREE, the leaves first exist as a function of the tree, in service of the tree, as PART OF THE TREE. You can describe the leaves in general, but you can't single out just one of those leaves and say it is somehow "more of a leaf than the other leaves", unless that leaf does something...special. Remember, this is an encyclopedic standard we're talking about, a compendium (summary!) of EXISTING KNOWLEDGE, not just an indiscriminate, sprawling collection of info. Of course, you can take one leaf and describe it apart from all others, like, this green is different from that green, or whatever, but for an encyclopedia, a description of the LEAVES and their general variations is sufficient, there is no need to describe every leaf to describe all leaves. In the case of ANIMALS, that is simply a general term for very many different organisms with widely varying characteristics: without getting all metaphysical, "animals" have an existence independent of our classification, IOW, they are not first a "bunch of animals", they are what they are, they exist, and then we decide to describe them. A Pokemon character does not "exist" independently of Pokemon, it has nothing to distinguish it from other characters except what the game writers decide (and if one character has ADDITIONAL relevance to the...real world, that's what this article must explain). A PRO FIGHTER is first a person who becomes a fighter, and therefore has a unique personal history that becomes part of the fighter -- that is unique nature of each fighter... An INDIVIDUAL leaf is nothing but just another leaf until it does something to change the situation. In the same way, Bulbasaur is a Pokemon character type and no more, until it otherwise distinguishes itself (and this article does not do that). This is an encyclopedia, not an alternative guide to Pokemon. --Tsavage 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first leaf of spring and the first leaf of fall both signal the change of seasons, and with that a change in mentality and in emotion. Each of these leaves would be important if a person understood the context in which they were used. May I remind you that each article is required to meet a minimum standard for FAC canidacy here; to hold any article to standards which one person (and one person alone) acknowlages leaves the rest of us out in the rain, and if we continue to adhere to your ridiculously high standards people will eventually lose interest in this whole process. So this article deals with one pokemon leaf. So what? From where I stand this article deserve no punishment from you based on your precious illusions; furthermore, if you practiced what you preached here the other pokemon articles would already have been redirected to prevent such a situation from arising in the future. TomStar81 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * TomStar81: I'm really not trying to be a punisher, only to do a good job as a FAC reviewer. I'm sorry you feel punished. I've thought of another way to perhaps make my point to you. If this is truly a high quality, FA-grade article, it should answer at least most simple questions from an "average" encyclopedia user, someone we can perhaps agree has heard of Pokemon, but doesn't know anything else about it. I'll try to present some easy questions that the article might raise:
 * When was Bulbasaur created?
 * Date unknown, but he was on the first game, so maybe early 1990's
 * Who created Bulbasaur?
 * Ken Sugimori, according to his article
 * Bulbasaur is one of how many Pokemon characters?
 * 386
 * '''If "lead critter" means popular, why is Bulbasaur more popular than other Pokemons?"'
 * He is one of three Pokemon that can be selected at the begining of the game, and also his heavy presence in the anime and other series
 * Is Bulbasaur a special character compared to other Pokemons?
 * See above
 * Why does Bulbasaur evolve into an Ivysaur and a Venusaur?
 * When it reaches level 16 and 32, respectively
 * Do Bulbasaur evolve in the video game but not in the TV show? The article says "Bulbasaur has decided it will be best if it does not evolve. Although this decision is not accepted by other Bulbasaur (and evolved forms thereof), it has been a decision that the other Bulbasaur have come to accept.
 * I am not familiar with the show, but in the game, the trainers can stop the evolution process from taking place.
 * How do Bulbasaurs communicate, can they speak to each other, to other characters, to people?
 * Bulbasaur usually speak by saying their name, partial or in full, regardless of who they speak to. It's something straight out of Lassie (Bark bark. what you say?, bark woof woof. so Cats stole all of our bases?)
 * How can you tell Bulbasaurs apart, do they have names?
 * You can give the Pokemon names in the game, but not sure about the series. However, if the Pokemon is owned by someone else, then it cannot be caught by another trainer.
 * Are Bulbasaurs wild creatures, where do they normally live?
 * All Pokemon are considered "wild," but they live in grassy areas, like medows, but usually are only found in the game as trophies or gifts.
 * Are there baby Bulbasaurs?
 * Probably
 * Are Bulbasaurs "biologicals" based on real biology, or on a Pokemon biological system?
 * Probably the latter.
 * The article says "Because of the heart-shaped marks on this Bulbasaur's forehead, it is commonly believed to be female." If May is female, and most Bulbasaurs are males, why can't the hearts mean that the Bulbasaur is in love with May? Especially since the article later mentions a female Bulbasaur "who has a crush on" someone.
 * I am lost here.
 * Because the Bulbasaur that has a crush on him is in a totally different genre that isn't officially made by Pokemon, the manga. Pokemon to not get crushes on humans. Plus, why do you say most Bulbasaurs are male? There is a gender districution of 50/50. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I did was, I clicked the link for one of the references Statistical analysis of Bulbasaur at Psypokes.com and the page that came up said Bulbasaur Gender Ratio: Male 87.5% Female: 12.5%. So then, what's that about? --Tsavage 23:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry. I still don't think that that Bulbasaur has a cruch on the character. --Cel e stianpower háblame 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the trading card game, is the Bulbasaur a valuable card to have?
 * Common card, worth about a dime. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these questions are unreasonable or anything but really basic questions that an article reader might wonder about. Shouldn't a fairly comprehensive article answer some if not most of them? --Tsavage 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really not trying to be a punisher, only to do a good job as a FAC reviewer. On this I can not argue; these high standards of yours do make you an ideal person to review, provided that you not forget policy(s) here. You are right in your assessment that a reasonably comprehensive article should answer some, if not all, of the above questions. I will admit that my support arises from having seen the show and having watched the card game played. This makes my opinion bais to some greater or lesser degree. I have made a judgement call to support this article just as you have made a judgement call not to support this article, based on the minimum criteria demanded of an article and on what each of us look for in FAC canidates. The fact that my judgement falls in support and yours in oppose does not mean that I do not respect you opinion. TomStar81 05:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this sounds a little more like a rational discussion. :) If you don't find the article to be reasonably comprehensive by my test, then it follows that your vote of support is not for meeting the FA criteria, but, as you make clear, support based on using previous FAs as a minimum standard, which I don't believe is at all the process. In good conscience, you should recast your vote. In any case, I will strike my entire FAC objection if the above questions (and any other similar helpful bits that may occur to the editors) are reasonably addressed in good faith in the article. I'm not setting a list of demands that all my questions be answered, only using the questions as an actionable guideline to filling out the article to a minimum standard of comprehensiveness for this somewhat unusal encyclopedia topic. The references may still be guide books, but with this sort of additional basic info, at least readers will leave the article better informed about Bulbasaur... I don't know if you are part of the Pokemon posse, but I imagine the group can easily do this rather quickly. --Tsavage 17:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Conditional Support proveded that the above points raised by Tsavage are met. TomStar81 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC) TomStar81 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, Tsavage, that Wikipedia is NOT paper. We are able, because we are digital, to include vastly more information in our encyclopedia than paper could ever hold. We can be a collection of information pertinent to Pokémon with no worries as to whether or not we are wasting space. My favorite example is Klingon. If we allow this article, which is addressed to a faint, small minority, to stay simply because it is useful knowledge, then why not keep, and yes, occasionally feature, articles about a pop-culture phenomenon? Oh, and a tree's leaves are all the same. Pokémon are not. A pro wrestler, when taken out of the ring and the costume, is just another guy out on the street, not at all deserving of an article. His worth to the encyclopedia is completely dependent on his participation in the world of pro wrestling. Same thing with Pokémon... - Corbin Simpson 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is becoming vaguely surreal, like the through the looking glass version of Supreme Content Court, the Roe vs Wade of imaginary creatures' right to separate article existence solely because they...exist. So be it. :)
 * 1. One point in the WP:NOT policy is: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Other "points on the page" include a section titled: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that section. for one. explicitly excludes "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides". Please point out how the "In the video game" section is anything more than just that, a mildly instructive video game guide entry.
 * 2. Why bring the Klingons into this? What is the relevance? I'm not suggesting that Bulbasaur be deleted, only that it does not meet FA criteria. It is not comprehensive. Remove the video game section, and the anime section (which is only a bunch of instances where Bulbasaur appeared in the Pokemon series). What's left is very little: the introduction (half of which by length is several foreign language translations of "Bulbasaur"), some mention of cross-promotions with fast food chains, brief notes about manga and trading cards, and a worm named after it. Is that FA quality content? (It may not even be "article" quality, but this is not WP:AFD.)
 * 3. I respectfully decline to extend further the original LEAVES analogy and subsequent discussion; I think the points on both sides concerning its validity have been sufficiently made. (I do have a new CAKE analogy, but that also seems unnecessary at this stage...)
 * You're perhaps mistaking my objection for something more than it is, because it is framed in WP policy and guidelines (what else should it refer to ?). The argument you seem to be making is that, "Why NOT have Bulbasaur, it demonstrates the cool, anti-elitist, broad-based, inclusionary, digital abundance of Wikipedia?" I do like the sound of that, but I don't apply it to Bulbasaur as a Featured Article. Why not develop Pokemon to "FA quality", or if it is already, submit it...? That would be nice... --Tsavage 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support best Pokemon article we have --Jaranda wat's sup 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Once again. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 03:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems to be of FA quality. --Oldak Quill 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article, fits the criteria - much better than it used to be. — Wackymacs 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, good article. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great article! --Banana04131 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Objections

 * Object is CNN really the authority on Pokémon characters? Was there some kind of study involved in that article or is it the journalist's opinion? Anyways, I object mostly on the basis of comprehensiveness. The article does not cover the character in the real world much. For example, who/how/when/why was the character created? --maclean 25 07:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but if someone who knows nothing about Pokémon does konow Bulbasaur, that's relevant, no?
 * Who? The same person who invented them all, Satoshi Tajiri (as it says in the Pokémon article) - put that in if you like.
 * How? Well, drawn? What it was based upon is dotted about in the lead and appearance sections.
 * When? In the first Generation. I can find the year when it (and the other 150) was created and add that if you'd like.
 * Why? That's not really a relevant question, in my opinion. It specifically wasn'yt created for a reason. The franchise was created for a reason but Bulbasaur wasn't. --Cel e stianpower háblame 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Pokémon is a required reading, I don't think this article is comprehensive (articles need to be written for the non-expert to understand). As an article on a fictional character (or species) I expect to find its origin or 'raison d’être' (ie. in the real world) in the article. Also, I agree with the anon below that this article is currently more like a "character bio" (and plot summary) than a description/discussion of the subject (there is some good analysis in the article already and I was looking for more of that and less plot summary - especially for the manga and trading card game, why so much on video games and anime and so little on manga and cards?). I also agree with Tsavage's (below) assessment of the CNN.com reference.--maclean 25  19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon re-reviewing the article, I must maintain my objection. I could list small actionable concerns, like "in the same match duel a freshly rested Meganium to a draw" (should be wrested) or request better phrasing like in "it is commonly believed to be female" (makes it sound like there are people who disagree...so this is an opinion...which editor's opinion is this? do the rest agree?). However, I believe the flaw with this article goes much deeper than this. I will try to list these as best as I can below:
 * First, the article does not stand well on its own. As a non-expert, do I have to read Pokémon to understand this article? If the article cannot be self-contained then it should be merged with something that can make it whole. This dependence on familiarity with Pokémon is a result from not providing the appropriate context for which the subject belongs. An example: "to appear in the Advanced Generation series." Another example: "Bulbasaur remains on Ash's active roster..." - what is the role of Bulbasaur in the anime? I gather they are trained to fight something as a team...? Another example is the use of the word "Bulbasaur" throughout the article, referring to a specific individual, sometimes to a non-specific individual, sometimes as a plural referring to a group and sometimes referring to the species in general. For somebody not familiar with Pokémon this is difficult to keep track of. This can be resolved by indicating in the beginning that all member's of the species have the same name and that there are no differences between them. And what if anything is different between the manga, anime, video games, movies? Do they all exist in the same world or are they all unrelated stories?
 * Second, the article has little in the way of the subject existing as a fictional character. Its discussion is dominated by a plot summary of the anime and a discussion of the character's availability in the video games. This lack of real-world analysis comes from an over-reliance on promotional resources. The other resources seem to be just padding: the CNN ones used to acknowledge Bulbasaur's existence as a "lead critters", a few for the anime plot summaries and other fictional statistics and one to the anyone-can-edit, non-relaible source: Bulbagarden.net. The only published sources are promotional books (which are used appropriately) but nothing in the way of third-party analysis (except CNN/Time used in the intro). Not exactly a glowing example Verifiability.
 * Third, the article is not balanced well. Specifically, why are the video game and anime sections so long and the manga and trading cards so short? Why is a plot summary so important in the anime but not the manga? Why no story background in the video game, or attack/defense analysis in the anime?
 * Finally, I would like to end by saying that I don't care for Pokémon, I have only reviewed this article based on its own qualities. I fear that if this is accepted as a FA then it will be used as a template for the other characters. I believe the article could benefit of a re-thinking of its organization and structure. There have been some very useful edits lately that have put useful info in odd places. With so much support here on Wikipedia, I would think that this article would be better presented. This article largely just preaches to the choir, so if their goal is to promote Pokémon then please work on making it more accessible. --maclean 25  19:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Object A well-written article does not mean it should be featured. To me this article is more like a short character bio that is pretty irrelevant. A better article would be "effect of Pokemon on mass media or child development" or something like that. Plus, all the sources come from either game sites or fan sites (which are secondary or even tertiary sources), and Nintendo gamebooks. If this bulbasaur becomes FA, then I guess similary Pickachu and all others should be FA too, which is absurd when you think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.66.80 (talk • contribs)
 * Could you please explain how this article could be improved then? Raul654 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oy. Bring such objections up on the FA talk page, not here, as they relate to FA policy rather than any specific article. — Cuivienen  ( Return ) 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Object I agree with BlueShirts and Tsavage, I believe they are offering very rational objections here. In contrast, I don't find most supports very helpful at all. Fine, so what if I object three times, I am just trying to help wikipedia. I will show you my input why this article by itself does not merit FA status. Where is your source that Bulbasaur is a portmanteau to make it sound like a dinosaur. Maybe Bulb is from light bulb, symbolziing the "shining transformation" of the Pokemons. It may be obvious, but do you have interviews from creators or anything like that? How do you know that it's a lizard, without any source this is comparable to saying that a gazelle is a jumping reptile. For all I care, Bulbasaur can be a mammals too (and does scientific classification really matter here?) You can say it's like a lizard, but that won't be appropriate here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not commentary. The Pokemon anime and game section I can't really find faults, except that they are descriptions of the game and the anime with Bulbasaur appearances. But again, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a game guide, a TV guide, or a personal fan page. Really, think about it. An article with only four sections, a half-ass introduction, half-ass description, a game guide, and a TV guide of synopsis. Does this really mean a FA. Think about it. If this is FA, then does that mean any Pokemon with 1. some description and media mention 2. game and TV synopsis, should be a FA, there are 150 of them, because it's possible to do that for all Pokemon. Just throw away your anime or Pokemon biases for a second, and compare this article to other FAs (go read them before you say anything), do you really think that this is FA caliber? I am not saying this subject sucks here, but making this a FA would be a disgrace to wikipedia don't you think, because this is definitely not one of the best articles wikipedia has to offer. 171.65.67.47 19:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Reached any consensus yet? I guess it's gonna be taken off FAC soon. Whoa Ho Ho MAN!
 * Voting three times is against the rules and it certainly does not help Wikipedia. In fact, it causes disruption and makes Raul's job all the more difficult. Please stop it. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I thought votes don't matter here. I mean, this FAC has more supports than objects. Plus, what should I do if I want to add more to my objections? Thanx 171.65.67.47 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have stricken your extra objections. I'm not certain that anons can vote at all on FAC, but as I'm not sure I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just comment again along your objection. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Object The subject matter is definitely not FA caliber. Nothing insightful is provided. It's all about stats and appearances and a couple media mentioning of Bulbasaur. Lots of wasteful sentences to make the article longer. For example: Since you can't say anything about its gender, you put that "like many other Pokemon, its gender is unknown...blah blah blah. Plus, where is your source that it is commonly believed to be male? I mean, what the use? Agree? Why not making "Pokemon" a FAC? Or "Nintendo" a FAC? I don't see how Bulbasaur is relevant at all. I suspect that Bulbasaur will hardly be a FA, but likely to be a perennial FAC. - 171.65.66.217 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a comment on FA policy and not this FAC in particular. Any article on Wikipedia can become a featured article regardless of its "importance" - "subject matter" is not an FA criterion. While you make some valid points - about the gender line - most of your objection cannot be addressed and does not even pertain to this article specifically. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "commonly believed to be male" line. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also have Raul note that this user has only two edits, both to this page. It is also almost certainly the same user as 171.65.66.80 who objected above. —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this should is supposed to stand out on it's own merits, and there is not rule saying that it's parent article has to become an FA in order to make sub-articles become FA's. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object As we enter the second month of deliberations, a more all-out effort to clarify my (and several other similar) objections seems necessary. IMO, while this looks and reads like an "encyclopedia article", with the neat infobox, Notes and References and all, the subject itself does not seem to merit a separate article. How is Bulbasaur so uniquely different from other Pokemon characters? It would seem more properly a redirect to Pokemon or Pokemon types. In fact, if you imagine picking any topic -- like...Bulbasaur -- and saying, let's write an article about it at all costs, with whatever little we can find, this might be the result. It simply doesn't sufficiently distinguish this Pokemon character from the 150 or more (?) other characters. It's like taking an article about a famous tree, say, the Major Oak (the "Robin Hood" tree in England), and then deciding to write separate articles for each leaf on that tree. Sure, the leaves are arguably "famous oak leaves" because they make up the tree itself, and no two leaves are identical, but unless each leaf had uniquely distinguished itself from all other Major Oak leaves, this subarticling approach would be absurd. The only difference here is that the parts of the "Pokemon franchise" known as characters are uniquely named and described, but that is only a property of what they are within the game system itself. As presented, this article is really no more than a video game guide entry. The article suffers from an absence of demonstrated notability, and much of it actually goes against the WP:NOT policy, which precludes "advice ... suggestions,... walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides". It gets worse. In apparently trying to shore up the "encylopedia" format by including (padding with?) various info, a fair bit of puzzling and inconsistent stuff has been (probably inadvertently) included, for example, in one place stating that the German translation of Bulbasaur refers to some sort of rodent, while elsewhere describing it as a lizard. Some examples which I find illustrative of this overall evaluation:
 * the lead is padded with unnecessary translations Why include French and German translations? It is interesting to note the translation from the original Japanese character name, but then to go on to others serves what purpose? It is like including all of the foreign language titles of a movie. Unless some context is presented justifying it, it seems like indiscriminate inclusion of detail. And are there only Japanese, English, French and German Pokemon versions? German and French translations removed. -TS
 * "a portmanteau of "bulb" (from the large bulb on its back) and 'sauros' (Greek for "lizard")" is unsupported and seems like a stretch, since "dinosaur" is also mentioned. This seems more like an awkward attempt to construct an etymological reference that isn't warranted. At the least, it needs a citation... Bulb+dinosaur would be suffient...
 * the "lead critters" quote and statement is vague and the citation source taken somewhat out of context The intended impression, I gather, is the "major news media have identified Bulbasaur as outstanding from most other Pokemon characters". This is not exactly the case. The CNN.com quote in better context is: "Each card pictures one of some 150 Pokémon characters ... some of the lead critters are ... Pikachu ... Jigglypuff ... Bulbasaur". The Time Asia article reference to character popularity is even more passing: "the three more popular Pokémon ... Charmander ... Bulbasaur ... Squirtle". So, from these sources, Bulbasaur seems one of several more popular characters from amongst all characters, but otherwise not outstanding for any independent reason. Line up a hundred people, and more passers by will likely "like" some more than others -- without elaborating on the reasons for this, there is no particular claim here other than the obvious one, that people have preferences.
 * the "Appearance" and "In the video game" sections (one-third of the article) violate WP:NOT These are practically textbook video game guide entries, providing only self-referencing info originating from within the game play system. For another topic, this would simply be a product description or product specification.
 * "The Dark Prince uses the Daggertail, a powerful mid-range, chain-like weapon, and the Dagger of Time. Unlike the Prince, he cannot collect any other weapon." - Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones game guide, included with the game CD.
 * "Bulbasaur's reasonably high Special Attack and Special Defense statistics mean that it has strong grass and poison attacks (such as Vine Whip and Razor Leaf) and is strong when attacked with these sorts of attacks." - this article
 * the "In the Pokémon anime" section is essentially a list of Bulbasaur appearances in the Pokemon TV series This is a dubious enough approach, as in Sam Malone (Cheers), but there, at least, Sam is a leading and distinct character, not one of dozens of game characters explicitly created to balance each other out in game play (IOW, an critical aspect of Bulbasaur is that it is NOT outstanding within Pokemon, else it couldn't be beat...correct me if I'm wrong). In any case, this one-third of the article offers no real insight into Bulbasaur, just a selective, neutral description of events in a cartoon series.
 * the inclusion of the "BULBASAUR" software worm sentence is arbitrary and as it stands unnecessary detail With a US6$ billion annual worldwide franchise, Pokemon is obviously popular, so there are no doubt MANY THINGS named after characters and many places where their names may appear. Unless some particular connection between Bulbasaur and the worm is established (e.g. was it specifically targetting Bulbasaur fans, not just Pokemon fans?), it doesn't belong in "In other media", maybe perhaps in trivia. And a trivia section ALONE wouldn't justify a Bulbasaur article, unless each item could be related specfically to Bulbasaur, not just "one of the Pokemon characters". IOW, keyword search results for Bulbasaur don't justify separation from Pokemon as a whole. Worm removed. -TS
 * the two primary references are both official Pokemon consumer guides They are not even official third-party developer manuals or anything else that might have "background" info on Bulbasaur, they are fully part of the consumer franchise... That's tantamount to writing an article based only on advertisements and product literature.

Well, that was kind of mind-boggling, and it seems kind of ridiculous to go on, but I could (please ask if you must). Basically, Bulbasaur is "well-known" because it is a proprietary game element name of a popular game, but apart from that, it is not shown here to possess any thing that distinguishes it from any other part of that game. To "fix" this article would mean justifying it by demonstrating that Bulbasaur is more than simply one of a class of similar components in the Pokemon game, already covered in Pokemon types. If such material exists, then this article is obviously serious lacking in comprehensiveness. --Tsavage 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The edits noted above are good. Bulbasaur the Article I think benefits from them. Please note that if all of my objections are treated similarly, there will remain only a stub, one that needs enriching with information of real encyclopedic interest. I would hope that a "sincere attempt at addressing some of the overall unreasonable-by-virtue-of-number Tsavage objections" doesn't lead to an "FA for effort", where this article as it stands is still at least 80% straight video game guide/fan guide material, and referenced exclusively from such sources. --Tsavage 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Most information is derived from instruction manual and game guides, with some "padding" going on. is this encyclopedic? BlueShirts 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What in there do you think is not relevant and is just padding? And it would seem many people disagree with your conclusion that it isn't encyclopediac. --Cel e stianpower háblame 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Object The point is, is that if this is given FA staus, what will that mean for other well written Pokèmon articles? The Snorlax page for instance is nearly as good as the Bulbasaur one, and if the Snorlax page gets some good references and some ironing out than it will be eligible on the basis that Bulbasaur is a FA. The point is, is that there is also the Good Article classification, which I feel is a very good fit for this well written article, when I read through this article, i cannot help but think, this isn't FA status. Thethinredline 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This will mean nothing to the other articles related to Pokemon. While I am still unfamiliar with the Good Article process itself, I wonder what suggestions you like to bring to the table so either myself or celestianpower can fix it. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this oppose vote isn't valid at the moment as the criticism isn't workable. --Cel e stianpower háblame 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, i'll withdraw my criticism, however I am not the user who anonymously offered ojection below... That is someone else.Thethinredline 08:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. It reads like a fan magazine information wise. It's neutral enough, but only contains the type of information a fan would want: how it plays, what games/shows it is in, etc. Only two quotes make any effort to establish the importance or relevance of the topic, and neither are compelling. What could help would be some industry sales figures, and some other attempt at determining the popularity/importance of the topic. The references are very weak and either reflect lack of research or lack of the existence of verifiable information. Either one keeps it from being the best Wikipedia has to offer. I'll check back periodically here if needed. - Taxman Talk 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this any good? It talks about Pokemon toys (using Bulbasaur as an exaple) came above Furbys in terms of Christmas sales in 1999. I will continue hunting. --Cel e stianpower háblame 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * object rambling style with not enough cohesive motivation....references are inadequate...if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis....need some research on japanese linguistics regarding japanese name instead of all the inane question marks dont you think????????? :) Anlace 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the question marks are a problem on your end. I see Japanese characters. Tuf-Kat 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This means you have not installed Japanese fonts onto your system, this is your fault Anlance, not Wikipedia's or the article's itself. Alternatively, your browser you're using may also affect this aspect of the article. — Wackymacs 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to address any other comments from Anlace other than the font? BlueShirts 01:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ".if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis" - this is not an actionable objection. Raul654 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit off the mark, but not totally. Lack of verifiable material is sufficient grounds for deleting articles, so it should be sufficient grounds to keep it from being featured. - Taxman Talk 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The information is certainly verifiable, it seems to be more of a question of whether people want to trust the sources as some of them have vested corporate interests in the topic. To me, that argument sounds ridiculous, but perhaps not to others. After all, who knows Bulbasaur better than its inventors, Nintendo? —<b style="color:darkgreen;">Cuiviénen</b> (<b style="color:darkblue;">Cuivië</b>) 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting a little off what the original objector said. It is not an issue of verifiability as all the references, except Bulbagarden.net and the probably the McDonald's card list, are used correctly. Though I see they are currently in the wrong order. The point being made is that the research for this article was not exhaustive, but limited to internet searches and two promotional books. There are many non-promotional books on Pokemon...none provide analysis of one of its lead characters? The objector said, in my estimation, that from the look of this article it would appear, "no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic". --maclean 25 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since it seems so difficult to establish consensus, especially around the issue of comprehensiveness, I've assembled what I think is a fair and balanced excerpt of comments that I think roughly agree on the same problem, from eight object votes, none of them mine. The common thread should be obvious here, from EIGHT presumably separate FAC reviewers, that the subject isn't fully covered, that it is not sufficient for video game character comprehensiveness to build an article entirely from game guide/TV guide info:
 * It reads like a fan magazine information wise. It's neutral enough, but only contains the type of information a fan would want: how it plays, what games/shows it is in, etc. Only two quotes make any effort to establish the importance or relevance of the topic, and neither are compelling.
 * Most information is derived from instruction manual and game guides, with some "padding" going on. is this encyclopedic?
 * Where else do you expect to find information? They created it: nobody else could tell you about its character. What about goomba? That's FA but who else tells you about it other than the people who created the games? Plus, there's only 2 references. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The concern is not that it uses the manual/guide sources, but rather that the article uses them so heavily. I'd certainly expect a writer to go to the source to find out certain details. Other sources are only used for very specific phrases, with the exception of the anime plot summary. The result is a limited discussion of the subject. -maclean 25
 * The references are very weak and either reflect lack of research or lack of the existence of verifiable informaton. Either one keeps it from being the best Wikipedia has to offer.
 * See above. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * rambling style with not enough cohesive motivation....references are inadequate...if no one of stature has pusblished anything meaningful on this topic then the article suffers from inadequate academic basis
 * Two things, 1). A lot of people disagree with you on its style. 2). Raul has disagregarded the second criticism. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There may not have been any non-fiction/academic books on Bulbasaur by itself but there has been a few on Pokemon. I don't know this for sure but they probably mention Bulbasaur and might provide some analysis of the character. -maclean 25
 * Although its not a bad overview of bulbasaur within the video game, there is little assertion of his importance outside of the video game.
 * Did you not notice the anime section? In other media? I'm about to add some bits about the toys too, if you'll bear with me. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The anime section is dominated by a plot summary - this is not an "assertion of his importance". I expect a plot summary of the Bulbasaur storyline in the anime. However, the anime section, as opposed to the video game section, does not analyse Bulbasaur's role in the series. Also, I starting to get confused with the anime..."Advanced Generation series, the third series of the show." what is the difference between show and series? Do it mean something like the third season of the show? (or do I have to read the Pokemon article first? I refuse!! I should be able to understand the article without prerequiste reading - except the technical info like Pokedex and attack levels.) Did Bulbasaur have big role in the movies?
 * In the media section I see that it was recently discovered that Bulbasaur was the lead character in a children's book. There is probably more. And that the subject appearred in more card series than just the Japanese McDonald's trading cards. (why did so many people think the article was comprehensive before?) Next thing you know, there will be an entire section on the subject's role in the fantasy card games, or someone will add in  something about Beanie babies made of the subject. Also, I hope people are able to see the difference here between using CNN/Time to tell the reader that the subject is popular and using merchandise and cross-media tie-ins as examples of its popularity. (hint: one provides details and concrete examples, the other says 'you trust this source, right? well they think this'). -maclean 25
 * As to the Pokemon trading cards, yes, it does - this is detailed in the section. I added in the other book and Furby reference. --Cel e stianpower háblame 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Short, and I'm not convinced that this is all that could be found. For instance, information on evolution gets only a mention in the infobox - I suspect this could be as much as a whole section on its own.
 * Evolution is now mentioned in a paragraph of its own. This criticism is no longer relevant to the article. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is just an inherent limitation on the article's quality when all of the information comes from Nintendo publications. ...There's just nothing special here.
 * I like you'll find that the articles quality is good. You may disagree with the quantity but that's bnot an FA criteria.
 * Nothing insightful is provided. It's all about stats and appearances and a couple media mentioning of Bulbasaur. Lots of wasteful sentences to make the article longer.
 * Where are the wasteful sentences. I can't find any. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's gotta be some sort of sub-consensus? --Tsavage 02:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, no, that doesn't. Counting running totals is bad for the process. That's Rauls's job. Anyway, some of these opposes are nonsensical. I've qestioned some of them above. Plus, if you want the number of supports, theres 25. Plus, all of your points have been solved: I don't see you crossing out your objections. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. (I have a deadline, but I'll comment, and check on the status of my withdrawing objection "deal", after 2pm ET, if this is still here...) Till then, consider: Would you support a...well-formed FAC detailing the specs and functional details of my fine Sony 6-in-1 Universal Remote Control? It will have an infobox (for consumer electronic/home entertainment products), it will have an impressive set of references, including trade journal articles that mention it, and it has the notability of being a world-famous Sony product... A convenient WP guide to a fine universal remote... Perhaps that's the "comprehenisveness" question? --Tsavage 14:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Wikipedia community had agreed to allow an article then yes, of course. --Cel e stianpower háblame 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do the raw number of support v. oppose votes count? or is it a 'two-supporters thinks it meets FA quality and nobody has brought up anything that would make Raul654 suspect otherwise' thing? or something else? --maclean 25 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps this comparison will help clarify the issue of comprehensiveness and being "too short", and notability, for that matter. IMO, much of the problem with this FAC review is that without a solid knowledge of Pokemon and Bulbasaur, it is very difficult to come up with convenient, "actionable" criticisms when the problems are comprehensiveness and compelling content and writing. Compare this article with another FA, for Link (Legend of Zelda) (and read, or at least glance at that article). I'm not sure how much this has been edited since FA promotion -- in any case, this is an excerpt from the current first paragraph:
 * Introduced as a generic sword-fighting hero, the character was typical of fantasy-adventure games. However, later Legend of Zelda titles revealed significantly more details about him. The game's success—over 6.5 million copies sold worldwide[1]—and that of its numerous sequels made Link one of Nintendo's best-known characters. Link is named for the "link" the player shares with the hero of each game[2], and in every game, the player can name the character according to his or her wishes.
 * The premise is clear, the context and the role (notability) of this particular character are established, interest is created, "anyone" who reads on is well-prepared to find out more. This is compelling writing summarizing a solid article. While the main text covers the same general territory as Bulbasaur, unlike here, it is well organized (check the ToC) and detailed, and thoroughly develops the introductory themes. After reading the entire intro, I expected to find out what makes up a smash hit video game character, and that is delivered. I can read the entire intro and stop, or read all of the rest of the lengthy article, or jump to sections based on the ToC. No such thing is possible here. It is unfortunate that clear actionable one-liner objections can't be as easily presented for comprehensiveness, good editorial planning and structure, good research, and compelling (interesting and well-structured) writing. However, these are given equal weight in the FA criteria, regardless of whether they are harder to pin down than copyvios, lack of references, or some of the other more mechanical FA requirements. (I will get back to my "vote", I'll probably withdraw, not strike, my objection, as it has once again become too unwieldy to comfortably maintain.) Hopefully this latest comment helps to focus our marathon discussion on basic QUALITY. --Tsavage 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment in terms of comparison with Link - although I disagree that one can go to any section and immediately undertand (I go to this section and have no idea what the heck it's on about). Bulbasaur, while shorter, is basically the same as Link as most of the article focusses on information gained exclusively from game guides and official sources. In the Bulbasaur article (thanks partly to your criticisms), there are now many more references to statistics and this helps both the article on a verifiable basis and on that of support for the claims made. Its popularity is now more clearly demonstrated. --Cel e stianpower háblame 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Article reads like it hit the ground dead. -- Peripatetic 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not an FA critera, ergo, invalid vote. --Cel e stianpower háblame 12:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose. Everyking 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment/QuestionHas there already been a ruling by a higher power as to whether or not the pictures used on the page are indeed in infringement of copyright?Thethinredline 08:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The bueracratic fuck in me says that they are, Pokemon says that they are, but Wikipedians think it is fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How are the pictures infringements upon copyright? You are aware that images that fall under the fair use category are not copyright violations, aren't you?[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My view is that we should respect the copyright holders of the image: Pokemon USA, Inc, the company that holds the copyright of anything and everything Pokemon. According to their terms of use page on their website, their content cannot be used for commercial purposes, and Jimbo has banned those images since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 19:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Jimbo banned images that the company has authorised us to. This is a clear case of Fair use. Plus, this is not a commercial purpose. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Quote from the lead of Bulbasaur: According to Time magazine, Bulbasaur is considered one of the "lead critters" in the series and CNN refers Bulbasaur and his later evolutions as "the Carmen Miranda of Pokémon figures". Why do we need Time and CNN to tell us this? :) Those are, at best, tertiary sources about Bulbasaur and neither of the two articles says anything substantial about him. I mean, I'm sure that CNN has at some point mentioned Odin in their coverage but it would be strange to open the Odin article with a quote from CNN about how he is one of the "lead gods" in Norse mythology. What critical/analytic/academic sources on Bulbasaur are available? Quote those. - Haukur 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: can someone post an external link to the referenced book: "Pokémon Special Pikachu Edition Official Perfect Guide"? The ISBN 130206151 is drawing blanks and google shows nothing. Also, the http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/May's_Bulbasaur is listed in both the "References" and the "External links". It should only be in one or the other, but not both. If it is a reference, may I ask what info was used from there? --maclean 25 10:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you about the first one but I can tell you about the Bulbapedia link. I got some of the information about May's Bulbasaur in the anime from there - in fact, I think there's an i-note somewhere. --Cel e stianpower háblame 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Under that ISBN number, I found listed at Amazon.com Pokemon Special Pikachu Edition Includes Red-Yellow-Blue (Versus Books Strategy Guide). It is one of several in a "Perfect Guide" series. It is apparently out of print and available through Amazon from secondary sellers. The publisher, Versus Books (DBA of Empire Publishing Inc, CA), may no longer exist, as their office contents were sold at public auction. No description of the book is given, but an Amazon "Book Description" for another Pokemon Perfect Guide by the same author (Casey Loe), says:
 * ... the most detailed walk through and the most massive Pokedex ever. This book not only will help you find all the Pokemon, but will also give you get the most fun out of the experience of playing Pokemon Crystal. Only Versus Books can provide the Perfect Guide for Pokemon games.
 * So, it is one of several commercial "value-added" game guides for Pokemon players, with walkthroughs, game play strategy and the like. --Tsavage 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer the "the "lead critters" quote and statement is vague and the citation source taken somewhat out of context," I redone the CNN statement, since in the CNN article, it compares Bulbasaur, and his later evolutions, to Carmen Miranda, which is something I think that is unique. The Time Asia reference still says that Bulbasaur is one of the lead critters/creatures in this game. As for the DE and FR translations, I nuked those, and I also nuked the virus references, since I do not see any concrete evidence that the viruses were named intentionally after this creature. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 20:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Bulbasaur FAC is gonna be down pretty soon. It's not going to be FA for sure. Definitely not one of the best articles wikipedia has to offer. 171.65.66.179 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)