Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torchic1

Torchic
Here goes nothing, I'm nominating this because after months of full rewriting and being promoted to GA status, I, among others, believe that this article is ready to face the FA gauntlet that nominating an article of this nature is. While trying not to only judge this article within the Pokémon hub, this article is only second to Bulbasaur, which acheived FA.. eventually. In short I believe this article is of a high quality and please don't let your prejudices against "Pokécruft" fail this article, it at least deserves a chance. Thank you for reading this and all comments are welcomed, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor object Object, for a number of reasons:
 * A "Trivia" section is utterly inappropriate for a featured article. If these details cannot be worked into the text, they should be eliminated.
 * The links in the "See also" section are (all?) given in the body, and should be omitted.
 * What exactly is the footnote after "The drawing and sprite design" giving a reference for?
 * Most importantly, there are piles of uncited&mdash;and sometimes rather questionable&mdash;assertions throughout the article. Some obvious examples:
 * "Many gamers have criticized the Advanced Generation artwork as a whole..."
 * "Torchic as a species are universally playful..."
 * "Torchic dislikes darkness because it prevents it from seeing its surroundings..."
 * "If attacked, it strikes back by spitting fireballs over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit..."
 * "One of few things common to most of the Pokémon games..."
 * "...choosing it as the starter Pokémon is considered a steeper difficulty curve than choosing Treecko, the Grass-type choice, or Mudkip, the Water-type choice."
 * "Since Grass-type Pokémon such as Oddish, Sunkern and Shroomish are very popular early in all incarnations of the series, Torchic has a definitive type advantage against these Pokémon."
 * "This confusion with types is not unlike Gyarados, an aerial sea serpent, being a dual Water/Flying-type, as opposed to a Dragon/Flying-type as many suggested."
 * "It is set to appear in the un-released game, Pokémon Ranger, a Nintendo DS exclusive."
 * "His feisty Torchic is best known for the running-gag of using Ember on Brendan's hair, setting it ablaze."
 * "An important rule that many players overlook..."
 * "This makes Star Cards somewhat impractical, since they can not be upgraded from their Basic stage state, and are primarily savoured for their rarity instead."
 * "...most likely because of its initial popularity alongside the release of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire."
 * This article still needs substantial work before it's up to featured level, in my opinion. Kirill Lok s h in 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was against doing this to start with (damn Cel) but I shall try and give some feedback-
 * I'll just go and delete this article now... H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to have omitted a number somewhere in there, so I'll reply generally: everything that comes from the Pokédex can be easily cited as coming from the Pokédex, so that should present no problems. For the other items, I am asking for a citations for the (sometimes weasel-worded) opinions being given.  In other words:
 * "is considered a steeper difficulty" - by whom?
 * "very popular" - by what measure?
 * "as many suggested" - who?
 * "best known" - according to whom?
 * "primarily savoured" - according to whom?
 * "most likely" - according to whom?
 * As far as "Trivia" is concerned, a list of vaguely related notes hardly qualifies as brilliant prose; and I don't see such a section on Bulbasaur, in any case.
 * Finally, do keep in mind that I'm trying to provide constructive criticism here, and please don't react quite so negatively ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine it was there last week :P I've started doing most of them, thanks for the comments! H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the stuff I can still find or I can remove. The main problem is the theories that I generally thought up which I may need to investigate to cite... H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 23:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. Have you removed the other points permanently, or are you still looking for sources for them? Kirill Lok s  h in 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just gone through and all of the points that you raise above have been fixed (--[[user:Celestianpower|Cel] es tianpower háblame 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've struck most of my objections. However, the citations provided don't seem to directly support the "universally playful" and "best known" assertions; is there something I'm missing here? Kirill Lok s  h in 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The universally playful is from the anime I think, I'll probably remove that since it's not unaminously true. The main Torchic is playful, but others have been aggressive.. so that'll get fixed. And the "best known for" has been there since before I started working on the article and never got cleaned up. Thanks for updating your opinions and I'll fix your remaining quibbles. Are there any others points while I'm cleaning up? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the "universally playful" section and I changed "best known for" to "reputable". I'm not sure that's the best word but all the Pebble Version article said was "Torchic has a bad habit of incinerating people".. thoughts? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe "has a reputation for"? "Reputable" isn't used in that sense, if I recall correctly. Kirill Lok s  h in 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reputable" is now "has a reputation for", thanks for the suggestion. ;) Is there anything else? Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 14:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of those left unstricken have been fixed now - one has a source and the other is totally removed. --Cel es tianpower háblame 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good. Now that the significant objections have been resolved, a few more suggestions you may want to consider:
 * "Pokémon" seems to be inconsistently italicized, at least in the section headings. Is there some convention being followed here that I'm unaware of?
 * The numbering for the general references and the numbering for the footnotes will be confusing if the article is printed, so the "Books" and "DVDs" sections should probably use bullets intstead.
 * The text is slightly confusing at times (e.g. in the "Characteristics" section: "This powerful fire also serves as its ammunition in battles. If attacked, it strikes back by..."; presumably the second "it" refers to Torchic, and not the fire), so a few rounds of copyediting might be beneficial. If I have some time later, I'll try to do a bit myself.
 * Keep up the good work! Kirill Lok s h in 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill, all done. I copyeditted the largest section, and Cel did the whole thing, but it would be great if you could do one too. Thanks for everything, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A note about the titles. They're not meant to be in Italics because they're generic. Thanks again, 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose This is not even a major pokemon character. Besides, didn't Pokemon die as a fad five years ago? Do we want Wikipedia to promote dying franchises above important subjects. Fanboys need to stop pushing their semi-religious agendas on the rest of us. They seem to want to nominate every tiny little piece of fancrust (yes I spelled that right). What we have here is the start of every Pokemon article becoming a photocopy of the beloved Bulbasaur and being offered up as a feature. Bulbbasaur was contentious at best.--Mark 2000 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is an AfD objection being made on this FAC page? In no way is this an actionable objection. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that not kind of a ridiculous reason to oppose an article? Phoenix2 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but how can you justify your "Strong Oppose" with the fact that don't like the subject? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, its perfectly reasonable to not want wiki to be a laughing stock, but rather a serious research instument. How can we do that if we keep rewarding rediculous subject matter?--Mark 2000 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, you've not even read this article. You've not commented on the actual content, just the subject. You're generally ramming your Point of View at us as if you're 10 and spamming this nomination. Oh, and "ridiculous subject matter" is spelled with an I, unless that was one of your witty "fancrust" jokes? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, that reasoning is not in the featured article criteria. In fact, it is totally against them, as one cannot change the subject matter. --Cel es tianpower háblame 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Celestian beat me to it. "Subject matter" is not a valid reason for objection. (As a side note, neither is subject matter a reason for support... many nominators would do well to remember this)  If a subject is notable enough to be included in the wiki at all, it is a valid subject to be a featured article.  Go whip up consensus for all pokemon articles to be deleted if you like, but this isn't the place for that. Fieari 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What Celestianpower said. If the subject is important enough to warrant an article, then there's no reason said article cannot be eligible for featured status. Kirill Lok s  h in 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Wiki guidlines it's very debatable whether this deserves to be an article. It's only a minor character. Hell, could you even really call it a character?--Mark 2000 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The proper place for that debate is WP:AFD; if you feel the topic doesn't deserve an article, you want to make a case for deleting it (which I very much doubt would be successful) there. Kirill Lok s h in 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And besides, it is definitly a major character, per it's appearences in four video games, plus the Anime-- A c1983fan  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral As for my vote, I'm concerned that the article doesn't quite treat the subject as a fictional creature enough. There's a little too much talking about it in terms of "Suspension of Disbelief" instead of in terms of the real world.  Usually, this would be enough for me to object outright, but I'm unsure how to suggest that you fix this problem, so I'll simply stay neutral for the moment.  But note my disapproval anyway. Fieari 23:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that the writing is too submersive into the character's world and I should try to write from a more analytical stanse? *checks notepad* (Disapproval noted) H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I was an ardent supporter of the Bulbasaur FAC, but I don't find the overall quality of writing in this article to be comparable to the Bulbasaur article. I have to agree with Fieari on the point that I am currently unsure of how the article could be improved, so I will wait and reevaluate my vote at some later point. RyanG e rbil10 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Has potential; I would recommend more thorough citing and removal of anything that could seem POV-ish. I'd rather wait to vote to see if things get improved; right now I'm neutral. Everyking 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object This is Bulbasaur in drag. Had I known this would happen when I supported Bulbasaur's FAC, I think I would have voted no on that too. Seriously, though, template writing is not brilliant and compelling prose. If you can rewrite this article to make it 100% original and not simply a cut and paste job of Bulbasaur I'll give it another looksie. As it stands now, not a chance... Weak Support due to my Strong Objection of the nominator's attitude toward people who kindly took time out of their lives to read the article and offer their opinions... --Jayzel 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. I'm sorry if I had a go at you, I do appreciate the people who read this and I thank them for that. I'm just getting really aggrovated when I'm trying to get this article promoted, and I never thought that I would only get praise, but it's just stirring me up that people are saying this should be deleted. It angers me, there's nothing I can do to fix that and I shouldn't care. Anyway, I am sorry for anything I have said (a chicken in high heels and adorned with wobbly lipstick is still making me laugh :P) and thank you for all your comments. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this objection. Surely a standard set of criteria for Pokemon characters keeps the quality of each article high? Taken on its own (without reading the Bulbasaur article) I think this is actually not bad. Certainly I've been using similar wording in the PATRIOT Act title series. I don't see why this is a big issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you actually compared the article to see what's the same? Otherwise you're just listening to hearsay and not forming your own opinion. And chickens in high heels sounds slightly comical :P, 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is now 100% original.. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with the same struction and layout in every character article, but numerous whole paragraphs is a bit rediculous. Say I accidently stumbled upon the Bulbasaur article, found it interesting, and decided I wanted to learn about the other characters in the series. I would become bored out of my mind reading the same paragraphs over and over in all the different articles. It would probably turn me off to wanting to learn more. Who in their right mind would keep reading articles that opened the same exact way, but with a different character name inserted? Also, I think giving this FA status would set a terrible precedent. Why would anyone bother to try to be creative or original when they could just stamp out thousands of cookie-cutter articles?--Jayzel 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The objection is that we shouldn't reward the same thing twice. Featured Articles should represent the diversity of Wiki. Is wiki all about Pokemon? Will we feature all the pokemon?--Mark 2000 05:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not an actionable objection. Featured articles should represent the diversity of Wiki, but they must represent the highest quality that Wiki has to offer; if the rest of the articles are not up to par,, but don't penalize projects that are doing their job improving the articles in which they can contribute their expertise. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm stepping in now. Yes, yes, this is a carbon copy *rolls eyes* Would you like to now what's the same between the two? All the information I've copied from Bulbasaur is:
 * The Pokémon anime series and films are a set of adventures separate from most other versions of Pokémon, featuring Ash Ketchum as the main character, and following his quest to become a Pokémon Master. He and his companions travel around the Pokémon world battling other Pokémon trainers.
 * The Pokémon Trading Card Game is a collectable card game first published by Wizards of the Coast in North America, in 1999. The concept is similar to that of a Pokémon battle in the video games in that each player takes turns to hit the opponent’s Pokémon.
 * As you can see, all I borrowed were explanations to what the anime and the Trading Card Game actually are. I would've wrote my own, but the quality of these articles is not as high as Torchic and Bulbasaur, so I used that information. If you'd like me to rewrite it that's fine, but I don't think I should have to. Oh and to whoever said "I wouldn't have supported Bulbasaur if I new this was going to happen.", I spent a great deal of time writing this, alongside Bulbasaur's FA, it's passed GA, it's improving right now, and I won't have all my work made redundant by you. Anything else? :) H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 09:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course I would like you to re-write it. I wouldn't have bothered to mention the issue if I didn't care. *Rolls eyes* --Jayzel 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if all you have problem with is those sections (I'm sorry if you call 2-lines a paragraph you've gone to the Div Side) I will gladly fix them, although I think they are very high quality and not needing replaced. I will though, at least it'll end this. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All these notes have now been fixed. This article is 100% unique from Bulby (if there is it's coincidental.) Now that we've sorted that out can we stop with the "Bulbasaur clone!111!!!" comments now? Oh, and are there any other issues anyone would like to address? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now. Objecting on subject matter is completely irrelevant here, but there are several things that give me pause:
 * Citations in the lead: if you have to use them, that means you're not going into the statement in greater detail inside the body of the article, which means that the statement should not be in the lead anyway.
 * I told myself that I wouldn't reply to any comments here but here I am :P. What do you recommend about the multi-billion-dollar bit? The Ken Sugimori thing is better suited to "characteristics" (where I moved it to) but I don't know what to do about multi-billion-dollar... --Cel es tianpower háblame 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just remove it. It belongs in Pokémon, not in Torchic. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem that I have in that case is that that was one of the criticisms of Bulbasaur. I was told to establish the notability of Pokemon (which is where most of Torchic's notability resides) in the lead. That's what I'm doing. You obviously disagree so I'm confused as to how to resolve it. --Cel es tianpower háblame 10:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * References: several sections lack references in several paragraphs: For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the In the Pokémon video games section, second paragraph of the In the Pokémon anime section, middle paragraph of the In the Pokémon manga section, and the first half of the In the Pokémon Trading Card Game section. While it is admirable that you remember those off the top of your head, if you know them cold, it shouldn't be hard to reference.
 * ...featuring Ash Ketchum as the main character, and following his quest to become a Pokémon Master – though what constitutes a Master is somewhat ambiguous. What on Earth has that to do with this article?
 * This one is the most troubling of all: half of the article talks about things that are irrelevant to Torchic and should be in the Pokémon article instead, and I don't know how to fix it. The tone is a problem too, as it has been noted above.
 * Overall, it is a good article, but not yet to featured status. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ..If I shouldn't talk about non-related information in the article, how can I go into later? You've kinda contradicted yourself, it's talking about the franchise, and that's the standard intro anyway. Bulbasaur (if you're all going to bring it up then I will) has that reference!
 * As far as I knew, citations were meant to be placed where needed, rather than where they were short, but I shall ammend all these problems.
 * Your lovely quote is describing the anime.. what if you haven't ever heard about the anime?
 * ..Well they aren't relevant.. could you please expand on that?
 * Could you please expand on " The tone is a problem too, as it has been noted above."
 * Thank you, your comments are welcomed. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said remove the non-essential parts of the article and move them to the Pokemon article. Also, if you haven't heard about the anime or manga, you're more likely to look at those pages first, instead of a particular Pokemon's article. Also, about irrelevant details, here's an example:
 * The Pokémon anime series and films are a metaseries of adventures, seperate from most other versions of the Pokémon video games. (An exception to the rule is Pokémon Yellow, a game based on the anime storyline.) The anime follows the quest of the main character, Ash Ketchum, an in-training Pokémon Master. He and his companions travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon, battling other Pokémon trainers and capturing Pokémon.
 * The name of Torchic is not mentioned once in that paragraph, so it tells me that it doesn't really have anything to do with this particular creature. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The contradicting was that you originally said that I should mention stuff from the intro later in the article. You later went on to say that it was worrying how the articles talks about other stuff. Kinda contradictory, huh? Anyway, you people can't stop arguing! Titox is saying "remove information that isn't from the Chicken bloodline" and ALoan is saying "making it plebb-friendly"! Meh, I'll deal with this a point at a time, tis easier.
 * You are suggesting removing all of the descriptive information, which makes it harder for the general reader. I value your opinions, but I don't agree. *sighs* The Bulbasaur article is just the same, and I know I shouldn't compare the two, but all of you are so I might as well. I don't whether you're complaining that this article is one up from Bulbasaur as "the next of Pokécruft crap" but it's not! It's a few people writing, and hoping that it doesn't crumble. And I can easily Torchic into that, I didn't see it as a problem. And the manga? The articles are dire. End of.
 * I disagree with your opinions on removing all of the information, because if you do, all will you be left is a fan-page. Which is what you're all expecting. Thank you for the comments, could you please strike out anything we've ammended? Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The anime paragraph has been fixed. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

better, must do better. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - sorry, not as good as Bulbasaur yet. Some examples: First section: Its small wings are useless for flying with, much like a chicken's -  Chickens are not flightless birds, you know.  That is why their wings are clipped, you see, to stop then flying. - aerial battler - I thought its wings were useless for flying with? Can it fly or not? - This power also serves as its ammunition in battles - What power? The power of "warm hugs"? - The drawing and sprite design of Torchic was created by Ken Sugimori's team for its 2003 release on the Nintendo Game Boy Advance - I thought we were talking about its characteristics, not the design process. -  Second section: Torchic is described as sharing many qualities with a chicken, including flightless wings and unsteady footing - Have you ever seen a chicken? - It can also call out much like a rooster does, but in a much quieter tone - It quietly crows cock-a-doodle-doo without waking the neighbours? -- After that I kind of lost the will to live.  Sorry; suffice it to say: can do
 * Okay, all fixed. Thanks for the comments (took a little while to see where you were coming from) but hopefully we've fixed your quibbles. And I'll just say here that whatever we do with the design thing, none of you can decide. *rolls eyes* Anything else? Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers
 * I'll re-read. The above were the most prominent issues I spotted on a quick read, but I thought the writing of this article was generally not up to the standard set by Bulbasaur.  It may just be my impression, but the prose in Bulbasaur seemed to be aimed at someone who had only a passing knowledge of Pokemon, with much more explanatory background, whereas this seems aimed at the Pokemon afficionado. The best solution for the design information would be to add it in its own section - the history of the design, who did it, when, when it was first launched to the public, when any changes were made, etc.  But I doubt there is enough public verifiable information to justify a separate section. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have tried to make it accessible but Torchic has been more of my personal project. Bulbasaur on the other hand had about 3 nominations, 2 peer reviews and was the PCP article drive, so it's had a lot more varied support than this. While saying that, I still think it's good... and to the design thing, that would work on something like Bulbasaur because it's appeared every single game, but Torchic only debuted in the Advance era, so there hasn't been a great deal of change to it's design, unlike Bulby who's changed time and time again. Thanks, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Object - I think this fails the test of notability in Notability (fiction). We simply cannot view all of the several hundred Pokemon characters as notable - they just aren't.  I'd back up a claim that Pikachu was notable - and draw the line there. See also Deletion policy/Minor characters.  SteveBaker 15:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tell you what you're doing wrong but instead I think I'll let Kirill's words speak again: "The proper place for that debate is WP:AFD; if you feel the topic doesn't deserve an article, you want to make a case for deleting it (which I very much doubt would be successful) there. Kirill Lok s h in" If you have a problem with this article existing, take it there. If you'd like to comment on the actual quality of it, please note your comments. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Having read the deletion policy, Torchic definitely deserves an article. It's been said elsewhere but, if all the Pokémon were merged together, the list would easily be the largest article in the pedia. By a landslide. Torchic is more than a minor character (if you had actually read the article) you would have found out that Torchic is one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the start of Pokémon Ruby or Pokémon Sapphire, and by-far, Torchic is the most popular. So, in short this article is just as significant as Bulbasaur and Pikachu, and isn't a minor character. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Somehow all Pokemon are notable in this site, I placed quite a few pure digimon character cruft in AFD before and they end in no concious or kept and that digimon junk is much less notable than pokemon. And Torchic is not a minor character in Pokemon. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the articles are high-quality, I wouldn't mind having all 380+ Pokemon be FAs. They just aren't yet. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone said that in the last Bulbasaur nomination also, and I agree with it. 380 FAs, that cover a wide topic (videogames, anime, manga, TCG, cultural impact), give an incite into how today's creature are seen in a fictitious world, and an accurate reflection of Japan as a modern culture. Yep, that would be awful. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Object Although I'm throwing myself into the fire with this, one of my regrets was not objecting to the Bulbusaur article as I didn't like all the insults slung around.  As I fear this might eventually pass, too, I don't want to be silent again.  The article lacks just about anything which would be important to the outside world.  Why is this encylopedic besides it being a character in Pokemon?  Has this character influenced future Pokemon/video game characters/merchandise?  Was this character influenced by prior characters?  What are sales figures for Torchic merchandise?  Why was Torchic chosen to be one of the lead three Pokemon of the new game instead of any of the other million characters?  Why was this Pokemon even included in the game at all (considering I'm sure there were hundreds of drawings which were thrown in the trash)?  What is the designer's opinion of Torchic?  Have other video game designers/writers/experts commented on Torchic?  Does Nintendo themselves have any comments on Torchic's influence on pop culture/video games/trading card sales/anything?  Has anyone besides first and third party strategy guides designed to promote Pokemon commented on Torchic, as judging by the references it appears not.  And I could go on... My concern is that the answer to most of these questions are "no", "the information isn't out there", or "he's just a pokemon and this is what pokemon do", in which case, Torchic should not be a featured article as there's nothing encyclopedic about it.  I hope to not see 380 articles which simply tell which episodes a minor character appeared in, and to say that Torchic is an "accurate reflection of Japan as a modern culture" is insulting to the country's achievements. --Ataricodfish 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I call on Raul to make clear that this debate must be conducted within the context of optimizing the article, and that there can be no question of the non-notability of the core subject matter for the purposes of a FAC discussion. Only votes which acknowledge that Pokemon in general are a legitimate WP subject and that Torchic specifically is a legitimate article can be recognized as valid. All discussion has to be done within that context, within the boundaries set by those basic assumptions, according to the principle that a vote must be actionable; in any case, it is clear that the community as a whole has already clearly affirmed the legitimacy of Pokemon as a subject. Everyking 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that User:Celestianpower deleted my objection as well as User:Everyking's comment.  You can see his change here [].--Ataricodfish 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep cool, Cel didn't do it on purpose. There must be an explanation, he wouldn't have done it on purpose, it's totally out of character. And why would he delete Everking's comment? It's in our favour.. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, and I'll chalk it up as an accident for now. I left a message on his talk page as well, and obviously don't hold the deletion against you as you didn't do anything wrong. --Ataricodfish 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and in response to your comment, I've been pouring over Nintendo magazines, and all I've found so far is Torchic shaped pasta curry, is that what you meant? :P H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 12:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite. :) To be honest, I don't think that Torchic or many of the 360 Pokemon can get the information to turn it beyond a well written fan guide and into a encylopedic featured article, and I felt the same about the Bulba article, but that's the past.  I'm not dismissing Pokemon as lacking noteability, as some of the objections above.  A FA on Pokemon, Pikichu, or possibly Meowth would have sizeable information on it's influence on culture, sales figures, designer comments, etc.  I personally don't think you can find that with the other 357 Pokemon, whereas you could probably answer each of my above concerns with Pikichu.  There is much much more that could be written in this article beyond an episode guide which wouldn't help any non-fan of the series.  That's the information I'd hope for this and any article on a fictional character. --Ataricodfish 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there I could do to improve the article? Opposed to pinning down Ken Sugimori for an interview? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 13:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, answering those questions above would be helpful. My point is, you shouldn't HAVE to pin down Ken Sugimori to improve this article, there should already be articles, sales figures, interviews, criticisms, etc. available in publications.  If there isn't, there's probably not enough information to move this beyond a Good Article to a Featured Article.  If there is, it's vital its included to demonstrate Torchic's importance.--Ataricodfish 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well can you comment on the actual article? I do appreciate your points, but it's like worrying about the plates when the kitchen's on fire. I can check around, but I don't see how you should completely fail an article based on the fact that information doesn't exist. Thank you for the comments, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how nice the plates are. :) As for the article itself, I'm not downplaying how well its written.  I think it's a very good overview of the character and his appearances.  However, I feel that there's a different standard for good articles and featured articles.  While the writing is fine and I suppose the information is accurate (I'm not familar with the later games), it feels lacking "real world" information.  He's noteable as he's a Pokemon character and that's fine, and the article TELLS me that but doesn't SHOW me it.  There should be *something* out there about the influence behind the character -- after all, for whatever reason, the designers chose him as a central character to the later games, so they must have felt he was more special/marketable/etc. than the other characters.  The article is good but not ready for featured status as the encylopedic information is lacking.
 * However, although I believe my objection is actionable and my objection remains, perhaps we just see a difference of opinion here. I have high standards for the FA articles, and although the article is fine as a Cliff Notes to the character, it doesn't back up its importance outside the Pokeworld (if that's a word).  Who knows, perhaps I'm the only one that feels this way, and then our debate is a mute point and it will pass through FAC.  Best of luck with your nomination either way, and I appreciate that our conversation has remained civil and productive. --Ataricodfish 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about deleting the comments - it was totally by mistake. Accept my apologies. --Cel es tianpower háblame 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if I think about it logically, Torchic is considered cute and aethsetically pleasing, which is why it's used for marketing in Japan (clothes, gashapon, keyrings etc) I could probably cite it somewhere about the underlining "cute" ploy from the anime and somewhere else, and all of this to the section with the toys and other merchandise.. would that be of any use? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Celestian, apology accepted, thanks! --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Highway, that actually might answer something for me as to why Torchic is more noteable than other characters, although I don't know if completely. Obviously, an outside source would have to describe his "cuteness" and why he's marketable, but if something is found, that would be excellent.  It's definitely a good direction for the article.  It shows that Torchic is something more than just a drawing in a cartoon, and that's what I'm hoping to see. --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've written the first section, hopefully its okay. I'd like to hear any thoughts on it, because I have no clue what I'm doing. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But saying that a Japanese cartoon character is notable to the real world for its "cuteness" is like saying an American superhero is notable to the real world for having special powers, or more comparably (in terms of scale of pervasiveness)like saying an American actor/actress used in advertising is especially notable for being good-looking. The correct term for the "cuteness" discussed here is kawaii and this quality is endemic/epidemic to huge swathes of Japanese popular culture. There's nothing special about Torchic being "cute"/kawaii. Bwithh 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But Torchic has been marketed especially in this manner. Pikachu isn't marketted as "kawaii", it's designed as cute and positive, both for male and female youth. Torchic has. Nintendo has shoved all the attributing factors into Torchic to make it specifically popular, being a Fire-type, widely the most popular of the starters, made it "kawaii" to gain female support, gave it weaknesses, its unsteady footing and its original problems with the early in game bosses, such as Cyndaquil in the anime who couldn't produce Fire for a long time, plus it evolves into Blaziken, one of the most powerful Pokémon in the game, which attracts male gamers. Torchic's design isn't just a coincidence. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're saying that Pikachu isn't marketed or designed as "kawaii"? The wikipedia article on kawaii cites Pikachu used in airline marketing/branding as one of its main examples, and the wikipedia article on Pikachu him/her/itself says that "Pikachu is so cute that in the anime and various manga, most trainers choose to keep it from evolving". In a Dec. 1999 article about the Japanese business of kawaii in Wired magazine uses the example of Pikachu in airline marketing in its lead paragraph. But my larger point is that there are so many many many examples of cuteness in Japanese pop culture and marketing, from fashion advertising to government information campaigns to military recruitment advertising, that it's hard to see how Torchic is being "especially" marketed as cute. Also, kawaii/cuteness isn't narrowly identified with female consumers - in Japan, its just as much a popular aesthetic for men as well (though with more sexual overtones).Bwithh 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But that isn't WHY Pikachu is popular. They plugged it on the show BECAUSE they thought it was cute. There isn't any marketting with Ash going "I want Pikachu!! He's so cute", which is there is, more or less, on Torchic. I actually am fixing Pikachu, and I haven't gotten to that, Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse. Thank you for your insight on Kawaii, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 00:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse." Um... okay. what? Bwithh 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Torchic IS kawaii, Pikachu ISN'T, Torchic has been marketted this way, Pikachu was marketted in a SIMILAR way, but not quite. Pikachu was chosen as the lead Poke because he was likeable by both boys ang girls and because he was funny. You could argue there was minor kawaii there, but Torchic is completely kawaii. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have supporting external references for your position that Pikachu is not kawaii and Torchic is especially so? otherwise... POV/original research Bwithh 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey there -- I've read over the additions and its not quite what I mean. In terms of marketability, there would have to be a major source that would back up the "cuteness" in marketing specifically to Torchic.  Something like The Wall Street Journal or Business Week or a toy industry trade journal.  What I'm hoping for is something specific to Torchic in terms of what makes him unique by reputable outside sources.  Yes, I'm sure his cute appearance is a selling point, but really, few of the 360 Pokemon are really repulsive and the same could possibly be said of the other Pokemon.  Right now, it gives the appearance of POV, even though I agree that a major selling point of Pokemon are their appearance.  What makes this difficult is that an article or quote has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general.  And obviously, I'm not just looking at marketability as to why Torchic was important.  A focus on how Torchic was created, designed, influenced, influential, etc., would be excellent, but it has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general. --Ataricodfish 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There are more, but really those kinds of problems persist. The writing in general is slightly fannish but not too bad - if someone were to rewrite it again to make it flow better it could be a FA easily - it is a pretty short article as FAs go so it shouldn't be too difficult. Just another star in the night T 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Object First of all, Strong Objection to all these arguments that the article isn't notable - this is a FAC and we should comment on how to improve the article. Anyway, my problem with the article is parts of the writing, for example,
 * 1) it starts out with "multi-billion-dollar[1] Pokémon media franchise" - the "multi-billion-dollar" is totally unrelated to this article and seems to exist only to prove this article's worthiness (in fact that is the general feeling I get after reading this, unfortunately)
 * 2) The second part of the first paragraph (starting with "Its main purpose in the games") reads very awkward to me and almost like a run-on sentence. suggest rewriting
 * 3) "In all three versions" this is a new paragraph but there is no connection to what the three versions are - normally when you start a new paragraph you start to talk about something completely different, either that or more context. Perhaps all the game introduction should be in one paragraph
 * Thank you for your comments, I have some notes:
 * The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on
 * "Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?
 * If you read the first paragraph it explains why Torchic is so important, because its a Starter Pokémon from the games listed. If you think it would be better to put that note at the bottom of the first paragraph, I can understand that. But I think that would make it more "ready very awkward"
 * Thank you for your comments and I would like further information on your notes. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 10:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on" - yes, one of the parts of FAC is learning which objections to ignore (or at least press for a reasonable one) - often people who comment simply dislike the subject and will object for unactionable or unreasonable things or even to the article itself. Hopefully Raul discounts the obvious biased ones in the end.
 * ""Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?" - BookOfJude rewrote this and it is better now

Anyway, the main problem is that I've looked at a hundred or so of these, and this is one of the first ones I feel a strong need to rewrite large parts of - and I'm a fairly poor writer myself :\. For example, my last edit squished an embarrasing spelling and grammer error. What about the wikiproject - couldn't you get a set of new eyes to make a whole article pass and fix it up? Because that's all it needs as far as I'm concerned. Just another star in the night T 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure if that would help, Cel and I are about the best writers in the WikiProject that are interested in fixing them. Most of them are useless newbies, sorry to say. Could you maybe make a list? I know that seems a stupid way to do it, but if you could make a note of all the problems then I can combat it. I can't see any major ones but I'd be interested on your thoughts on the matter. Also, I didn't mean that Raul should ignore those complaints, Cel, Kirill and myself, as well as others, believe the intro is fine. Tito and yourself don't. There's not really a middle ground but I think its more important to have some reference than none. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a lot better now on that level - so I'll withdraw for now. Bunchofgrapes is on the money though with a lot of his/her criticisms of the article - take care of those and I'd like to support as well. Just another star in the night T 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. This article is not well-written at the clause and sentence level. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) This has largely been fixed. New objection points below. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object due to writing style problems pointed out by User:Bunchofgrapes and the real world relevancy issue as per [[User:Ataricodfish. Bwithh 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment.I wish you begin improving encyclopedic articles (like Pokemon) before putting so much time in working on specific and less notable subjects. CG 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, people work on what interests them personally, not necessarily what is of greater objective importance. FA rewards the good work put into any article on any subject, if it is sufficiently well written and done and all that.  Of course, if it's not good enough, that's another story, but telling people what articles they should and shouldn't work on is, in my experience, an exercise in futility. Fieari 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I won't let this turn into the Bulby FAC. I don't care what your thoughts on the subject are. Please comment on this article or stop leaving nonsense. I will edit what I wish, thank you for the support Fieari. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object.
 * Plurality / meaning of "Torchic". The lead starts out defining Torchic as a species, then quickly switches to sentences treating Torchic as a character: "Torchic is most famous for being one of the three Pokémon players can choose from at the beginning of their adventure..." Either the article should consistently treat "torchic" as the name of the species ("Torchic are most famous for being one of the three types of Pokemon...") or this dichotomy should be clarified. Also, the article uses "Torchic" as both singular and plural (like "fish" or "sheep") -- how do we know that's right? Source?
 * Lapses into an in-Pokemon world-viewpoint. The article needs to be more consistent in describing Torchic in terms of our real world, not the fictional world it inhabits. To pick out one section, the "Characteristics" section is written as if describing the characteristics of a real creature.
 * Original research. As far as I can tell, "A possible reason for Torchic not being a dual Fire/Flying-type is that it evolves into Combusken, a dual Fire/Fighting-type.[10] Further evidence for this is that Flying-types have a natural advantage over Fighting-types, making it super-effective against its own evolutionary chain." is all original research.
 * Lack of secondary sources. The games, their instruction manuals, the pokedex entries, and the strategy guides are all primary sources for this material, produced (or in the case of strategy guides, closely overseen) by the same companies that created this character. The reference used for "synopses of Pokemon Anime appears to be just a fan site, so if I'm being ungenerous, I'd call it an unreliable source, or if I'm being generous, I'd call it a proxy for the cartoon itself, another primary source. I don't think enough secondary sources providing critical analysis of the topic are present here to make for an FA. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your further comments, I'll probably deal with them one by one (I read the first and started itching to reply) so here goes;
 * From the introduction to "In the Pokémon video games" is referring to all Torchic. Anime and Manga are referring to seperate Torchic owned by people. The Trading Card section is somewhere in between. Its set in the relevant WikiProject Style guide that all Pokémon names are singular and plural "One Torchic, two Torchic, red Torchic, blue Torchic." H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers
 * So is "Torchic" a species name or the name of a Character? Try to substitue the word "sheep" into many of the article's sentences, and you'll see what I mean -- they are nongrammatical, unless if you assume you are dealing with a specific sheep that someone has confusingly named "sheep". &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally, its used to plug Pokémon better in the anime. Pokémon in the manga tend to have their own nicknames. The original names are used in the anime so after people finish watching it, and they go looking for it or buying a toy they don't ask "I'm looking for a toy called Fred!" Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So? It's still a problem for the article. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What someone has suggested to me is to write "This article discusses both Torchic as a species and individual Torchic owned by trainers.", but I doubt that'd be appropriate for an FA. I found Celestianpower's (think it was him anyway) comment when he wrote the Pokémon Adoption Center/Style: "Like sheep and fish, the plural of Pokémon is the same as the singular, and the same is true of each species, i.e., “One Snorlax, two Snorlax, green Snorlax, blue Snorlax”." Thoughts? H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe just treat it purely as a plural species? "A Torchic is...", "Torchic are", "May and her Torchic", and so forth? Kirill Lok s  h in 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a common error that many people make when writing. There also seems to be different between the generations; I would more likely say "A couple of Bulbasaurs" than "A couple of Torchics". But it's something to be aware when reading and writing. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Characteristics section is meant to be in "Pokémon world". It's taking information straight from the Pokédex, and in-game tool that logs all the information on Pokémon. So you can't really keep original research without keeping it in the Pokémon world.
 * Probably, I tried to cite it as best I could. Would any rewording help? I guess not but oh well.
 * Well, Serebii is used for all the guides because it is the only collection of fan guides anywhere on the internet really. All of the other sources are non Serebii.
 * Thank you for your insights, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)