Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pokémon role playing games

List of Pokémon role playing games
Self-nomination and support The release dates for the Pokémon RPGs were cited well. It has a good lead section and the list was divided into 2 separate tables. All of the RPGs are in there making it comprehensive. Fun pika  22:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It has a lot of references, a lot of things are missing, that would be on normal articles. However this is a list, so these things, (such as many sections) aren't needed. TheBlazikenMaster 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it doesn't really have a lot of references, they're all the same source; as mentioned below, it's not really a reliable one. Oppose for that reason. -Phoenix 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not all from the same source. 3 separate sources were used. Though better sources are apparently needed (probably all from the official nintendo owned websites since any other site would probably be considered "unreliable"). Fun pika  22:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A professional site with employed writers and editorial oversight would do. It need not be official. I know that WP:RS is difficult for pop-culture lists/articles. There is so much "information" out there that is user-contributed and may well be of a high standard. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site, so has higher standards – especially for featured material. Colin°Talk 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't look like a fansite page to me. It looks like a list. How is it different from "list of Disney villains" and "List of fictional pirates"? TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting this list was fansite material. Merely that fansites are happy to share information that perhaps can't be reliably sourced. Wikipedia cannot. Colin°Talk 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't explain how it's different from the lists I mentioned. TheBlazikenMaster 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How is GameFAQs not proffesional? It isn't run by some random 16 year old who spends $20 a month on web hosting+domain. So it obviously isn't a personal site. The site is owned by CNET. Fun  pika  00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And YouTube is owned by Google – don't expect Academy awards any time soon. Who generates the content, who vets it? The release and credit data on that site is clearly user-submitted, by anyone with an email address who wants to register. Colin°Talk 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, source reliability is in relation to the subject at hand. However, no article should ever need to use GameFAQs, except maybe to check the game script for plot cites. If one uses self published sources, one should only use those that have a staff, with contact information, disclaimers, and sources cited (some of flareGAMER's articles fall into that "reliable for certain topics" category). Even then, one must make sure it's in relation to the subject at hand; if there is a more reliable source available, one should attempt to use that instead. &mdash; Deckiller 07:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per short & choppy lead. Also, I believe, RPGs should be spelled out in the title. Renata 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment*Instances of "RPG" have been replaced with "Role Playing Games". The lead seems to be at decent length. If you want to say how long it should be then do so. And it is "choppy"? The Wiktionary defintion says "(of the surface of water) having many small, rough waves". Is this article the surface of water? Also I bolded "oppose" since you forgot to do so. Fun  pika  00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In regard to prose, "choppy" means it doesn't flow well (kind of like water). This can be fixed by adding transitions, more succinct, yet complex sentences, and avoiding stubby paras. &mdash; Deckiller 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose.
 * This table of statistics, offering little content beyond statistical content, which could easily fit into, say, Pokémon (video games). Why does it need its own article?
 * This does not sufficiently explain why or how the "main" series is different from the spinoff series. Also, how are Pokémon Trading Card of the Stadium games not role-playing games? The differentiation between "main" games and spinoff games isn't justified, merely assumed.
 * You can lose the "see also" section; they're already linked in the lead. 4.245.23.121 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Which of the criteria makes a table of statistics so bad? Specify the one that says this. Fun  pika  18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that this table would fit into Pokémo (video games) neatly, so there's little reason to give it its own article, especially seeing as the criteria seem arbitrary. 71.17.29.209 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose GameFAQs.com is not a reliable source as it is user-contributed (e.g. "Information and/or credits for this game contributed by American Gamer, ph201, johnboy16, LordShinin, and Ubersuntzu."). The way the inline refs have been placed implies they only support certain release dates, but not any other info in the list. You may wish to have some general refs (bullet points) to cover the other points. If each ref supports all the info in a row for your table, then consider moving it to either after the name or in a column on its own. Colin°Talk 13:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How nice, now I get to translate the Japanese Nintendo.com. I did find GameFAQs reliable because they appear to check if the dates are accurate before accepting. But I am sure that you knew that already.  Fun  pika  18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it should be enough to provide both references. If you can't translate japanese well, i know there are a few people at the project who could get you the correct links and double check the dates at the official sites.  so cite the offical sites and then provide the gamefaqs as a convenience link.  as for developer info, cite the games themselves and once again provide gamefaqs for convenience.  Also, it seems you missed Colin's point about the ref placement. As it stands it looks like you are only citing gamefaqs for the release dates and not the developer info. You should move the english ref to the last column. Also, i would cast in my !vote, but there really isn't much to say that already hasn't been said. the lead is still choppy, with no thought given to why the next sentence says what it does (each sentence should build on the ideas before it to express the main point of the paragraph.  the current lead could easily be converted into a bulletd list.). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of that choppy lead section. Plus Pokemon Ranger isn't included. -Amarkov moo! 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - GameFAQs is somewhat reliable in regards to release dates and whatnot. They are as reliable as any other game database on the web. Some dates are user-submitted, many were added by the main site administrator, some are added (directly or indirectly) by GameSpot people (usually for official dates for newer games). The best way to source release dates would be to get the information from an official source (developer's website) or try to find some press releases from around the time of the launch of the game. If you have to use one of the many online databases, just keep in mind that the reliability of all of them is about the same. There is no large database that has great fact-checking. --- RockMFR 04:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the reason why the author was using gamefaqs is because it's an english site that lists japanese release dates, it's not hard to find the US release date on nintendo.com, but gamefreak is a japanese site and nintendo likes to pretend nothing happens in japan on their english site... so we're left with only a japanese "official" source. You'd also be hard pressed to find a press release in english discussing the japanese release date of Pokémon Green. (the extra bonus is that the gamefaqs site lists the same developer info that this list does). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Amarkov - If Ranger isn't on the list then it can't be a complete list of Pokemon RPGs. --Phill talk Edits 13:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what are you standing here for? Wouldn't the best solution be to add it to the list? TheBlazikenMaster 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS IS CLOSED PEOPLEThis closed a LONG time ago. Someone forgot to take it off the main page of WP:PCP. Fun  pika'  11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)