Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/FAQ

Pokémon Adoption Center FAQ


 * A quick guide to who we are and what we do

What is the Pokémon Adoption Center (PAC)?
The PAC, located at Pokémon Adoption Center, is a Wikipedia project intended to expand the many Pokémon stub articles on the English Wikipedia.

How do I join/expand an article?
It's good to see that you're interested in helping us! We have a separate guide for that. Please see Pokémon Adoption Center/Tutorial.

Why expand Pokémon stubs?
Our general reasoning is threefold... 1. Information value: Simply stated, an expanded, full article is more valuable to the reader than an unexpanded stub. 2. Keeping up appearances: Some users feel that an abundance of stubs makes Wikipedia look bad, as readers searching for information and finding only a stub will look elsewhere and possibly be left with negative feelings about Wikipedia as an information source. 3. Deletion prevention: A good-quality, fully-expanded article is much, much less likely to be nominated for deletion than a stub.

How did the PAC get started?
The PAC was created as a reaction to a policy proposal called the Poképrosal, in which many Pokémon stubs and articles were suggested for deletion or merging into lists. Naturally, there was opposition to this, and a quite spirited debate ensued. Almafeta made the comment that If everyone who had spent time arguing for and against this proposition had instead taken the same amount of time to finish up one or two stub articles each, there would be no more Pokémon stubs to clean up. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd, arriving rather late to the discussion, agreed entirely with Almafeta's assessment of the situation, and set out to prove it by starting an "adoption center" as a section of the Poképrosal page. The center was an immediate success, and a month later was moved off the Poképrosal page (which is concluded) and onto its own article. The center has only grown since then, with 80+ former stubs expanded as of late July. If the pace continues, there will be no remaining Pokémon unexpanded stubs by mid-Autumn 2005.

Who runs the PAC?
The Pokémon Adoption Center is currently being run by Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd, with User:Pidgeot assisting with quotidian maintenance issues. However, the PAC is built on consensus, and most changes will be put to an informal poll or otherwise discussed to determine consensus before proceeding. This is generally done on the PAC talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Pok%C3%A9mon_Adoption_Center.

Who can I contact, and how?

 * General comments, praise, or complaints about the PAC itself should generally go in the PAC talk page.
 * If you would like to talk privately about the PAC, feel free to send email to Andrew Lenahan. Please note that you'll only receive a reply if your Wikipedia account settings include a valid email address, or if you put your email or another contact method in your message.
 * If you're expanding an article and get stuck or need help, or if you need assistance finding reference materials, contact Andrew Lenahan either on his talk page or by email using the method above.
 * Comments or questions about a specific Pokémon article should go on that article's talk page,
 * Comments or questions about a specific user should go on that user's talk page, and if that doesn't work, follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. The PAC will not get involved in disputes among users.
 * When in doubt, or if your reason doesn't fit with the above, try the PAC talk page first.

Pokémon shouldn't have articles because Pokémon sucks!
Obviously, not everyone in the world likes Pokémon. There's never been a cartoon (or anything else, for that matter) that the entire world has loved or hated. Everything is subjective. Besides, even if Pokémon were the world's most hated cartoon, universal acclaim is not a requirement for a Wikipedia article. Even near-universally-recognised "bad things" like The Holocaust, 9-11, and Plan 9 from Outer Space all have articles, and for good reason.

Pokémon shouldn't have articles because Pokémon isn't important!
Though Pokémon's overall quality is open to debate, its cultural importance really is not, and would hopefully be obvious enough that it need not be examined here in any great detail. However, we'll list some of the main points...
 * Pokémon is big. With two anime series of over 400+ episodes (and still going), five feature films in the US (even more overseas), an outrageously successful card game with expansions, literally dozens of successful video games, several manga and chapter book series, two theme parks (in Japan and Taiwan) and countless ancillary items (toy line, board game, stage show, etc.)!  As of 2006, Pokémon video games have sold over 140 million units worldwide, and the anime series is being shown in 67 countries worldwide in 25 different languages.  It would be no exaggeration to say that it's one of the most successful fictional properties of all time.
 * Pokémon has had a profound impact on culture. Though far from being the first Japanese animated show to be shown in the US, its success has pushed anime and manga into the mainstream.  Currently, it's not at all unusual for mainstream bookstores to have whole sections devoted to manga, and anime is available nearly everywhere that sells videos and DVDs, as well as on major TV networks.  Before Pokémon, it was much more of a niche market, generally considered a small subgroup of sci-fi fandom.
 * Though it's likely impossible to measure Pokémon's entire financial impact, suffice it to say that it's huge. As of February 2006, Electronic Gaming Monthly reported that the Pokémon franchise has generated USD$15 billion in worldwide sales so far.  This is more than the yearly GDP of many countries, such as Iceland.
 * Pokémon has appeared on the cover of Time magazine (November 22, 1999) Here's a picture.
 * Pokémon and its impact on global culture has received serious study by academics and cultural historians. For just one example, see the book of essays Pikachu’s Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon (ISBN 0822332876), edited by Joseph Tobin and published by Duke University Press.
 * Pokémon has been for sale for nine years, going on 10 (since early 1996). Its duration is moving it out of the realm of passing fad (such as pogs) and into the realm of video-gaming (and, thanks to the CCG and anime, cultural) icons such as Link (Legend of Zelda), Mario, Mega Man, and Sonic the Hedgehog.  In terms of units sold, Pokémon is the most popular video game series of all time, with over 150 million units sold according to a 2005 press release.  To put this in perspective, the bestselling PC game of all time, The Sims, has sold about 16 million copies.  The latest Zelda game, Wind Waker, sold about 4 million.
 * Pokémon isn't going away anytime soon. There is some perception that Pokémon is slowing down, and such criticisms are not entirely unwarranted.  Indeed, it has slowed down in some countries (and in some countries it never caught on at all).  However, Pokémon is still going strong in Japan, the USA, and elsewhere.  For example, in 2005, Pokémon Emerald was the second highest-selling video game for any system (first was Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas).  A total of 5 Pokémon video games were released in Japan in 2005, and more are planned for this 2006.  The Pokémon anime series is still going strong on both sides of the Pacific, as is the toy line and collectable card game.  Simply put, Pokémon is not in the process of going away, nor will it be within the foreseeable future.

What about the Google test?
The Google test is an admittedly imperfect way to determine the importance of a subject based on the number of hits for it on Google. Generally, it is safe to say that a topic with no Google hits is very obscure and probably unworthy of an article. Everyone's own threshold of how many hits is "enough" is different, but based on observation of VfD votes, it seems to hover between 500 and 2000 hits. Let's see how Pokémon and its characters stand up to other popular fictional properties...

Pokémon:
 * Pokémon (the word, with accented é): 3,130,000 Google hits
 * Pokémon (normal e): 3,090,000 Google hits
 * "Pocket Monsters": 70,000 Google hits
 * Pikachu (the most popular Pokémon character): 1,140,000 Google hits
 * Mewtwo: 170,000 Google hits
 * Meowth: 93,600 Google hits
 * Charmander: 90,900 Google hits
 * Bulbasaur: 89,500 Google hits
 * Jigglypuff: 65,200 Google hits, plus some 5000 more as "Jiggly puff"
 * Psyduck: 53,800 Google hits
 * Masquerain (an obscure Pokémon): 7,570 Google hits

Other popular fictional characters with articles (for comparison):
 * "Mickey Mouse" - 1,520,000 Google hits
 * "Bugs Bunny" - 817,000 Google hits
 * "Jean-Luc Picard" - 172,000 Google hits
 * "James T. Kirk" - 133,000 Google hits
 * "Elmer Fudd" - 146,000 Google hits
 * "Jabba the Hutt" - 110,000 Google hits
 * "Scrooge McDuck" - 48,000 Google hits
 * "Michigan J. Frog" - 12,700 Google hits
 * "Linus van Pelt" - 10,300 Google hits
 * "Buster Bunny" - 9,270 Google hits
 * "Strong Mad" - 5,320 Google hits
 * "Rerun van Pelt" - 845 Google hits

Though this is an imperfect test, the general results show that Pokémon (even the lesser-known ones) score roughly as well as other fictional characters with articles.

Why can't they all just be merged into one big article?
One reason is that the resulting article would be, well, big. Huge, in fact. With almost 400 Pokémon out there, even if each Pokémon only got 256 bytes worth of coverage, it would already be the largest Wikipedia article. If each Pokémon got a section as big as, say, Stantler's current article, it would be several megabytes in size... and that's not even counting all the pictures!

A further reason, though perhaps a subjective one, is that individual articles are just easier to work with... easier to read, organize, categorize, link to, search for, reference, and so forth.

Won't there be too many articles?
We believe not, for two reasons:
 * There is a finite amount of Pokémon. Nintendo has only added so many each generation, and the number of new species they add each new generation is going down.  Simply put, it's more practical for Nintendo to make old species more popular than to try to sell new species.
 * Most of the Pokémon that are being added lately are legendaries that star in movies, and not entirely new breeds or evolutionary lines. (An exception would be Munchlax.)  Less than a dozen new pokémon are added every year.

Who was the first to sign up for the PAC?
The first courageous user who signed up for an article was User:Pidgeot, who was given Skiploom.

Who has expanded the most articles?
Currently, Sinistro is far in the lead, with 100 articles expanded. It is practically impossible to pass his contributions now -- and we're grateful for it. Behind him is WindFish (previously known as RealWingus) with 40 articles. Despite joining the dance late, Sonic Mew updated stubs with blinding speed and has now made it to second place with 33 articles. Rounding the Top 5 are Almafeta with 21 articles and, tied at 19 articles, Celestianpower and Luigi2.

However, you don't need to expand a lot of articles for your work to be appreciated. Even one quality article is an important step towards our goal, and thus is valued by us. Don't hesitate to chip in - every little bit counts!

What happens to the PAC when all current Pokémon stubs are expanded?
We're all going out for a beer. Ok, ok... most likely, we'll enter a sort of dormant status until more Pokémon characters are introduced who need articles. There's also a possibility that at least some of us will continue on to similar projects, such as filling in other gaps of Pokémon coverage on WP, or trying to get one or more central Pokémon articles into Featured Article status. We may also have an organised but informal "audit": looking over the articles we've expanded one last time to catch any typos, etc.

A few of us may try to emulate the informal and communal PAC style of collaboration with other WikiProjects, but ones with more encyclopedic tones (such as the Nuttall WikiProject).

The official successor to the Pokémon Adoption Center is now the Pokémon Collaborative Project.