Wikipedia talk:Poképrosal

How do you get Pikachu on a bus? Poke 'im on.

Meh...
I would seem to be the only person who likes the articles specialized for each Pokémon just the way they are now, and who doesn't want a mass move-reorganization-etc. -_-; Almafeta 19:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're not alone. As soon as a poll is created for this, I will be voting against the proposition. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But the way it is now, some have even been nominated for deletion! While in those cases the Vfd has dissolved into "hold off until Poképrosal's finished" I don't know what fate they will meet when this is over and they are unmerged... Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Meh. Over a half-million articles in the English wikipedia, and to some people the idea of a page per Pokémon is so abhorrent that they intend on replacing 380 articles with 1 table and 5 sections each with 380 redirects to 1 page that has 380 tables and 1900 sections.  I just don't get it.  -_-;  Almafeta 08:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! I agree. This is merging is just "busy work" to keep wikiaddicts doing something. Instead of doing merging, come to 2004 Encyclopedia topics and create content and fill in real content holes! Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It might be better to make pages on the Pokemon universe, etc., its own Wikipedia Project (poke.wikipedia.org?), if people are going to continue to attempt to delete these pages or attempt to move them into ambiguation pages. Almafeta 00:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a Pokebook in Wikibooks that should cover the games in great detail (including map layout, walkthrough etc) iirc. Radiant_* 07:17, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

=Archive=

Proposal to merge
Wikipedia contains several hundreds of articles about individual Pokémon. However, the vast majority of these are stubs (see Category:Pokémon stubs), containing only a table of statistics such as the one to the right, and one or two lines of text.

Unfortunately, this does not make the information very accessible. If one wanted to compare statistics of a number of Pokémon, there is no convenient way of doing so. Also, information given on a basic Pokémon is often duplicated in the articles of evolutions thereof.

While certain Pokémon are obviously more notable than the rest (e.g. Pikachu, Mewtwo), arguably it is not feasible to write a lengthy treatise on each individual one.

The WikiProject Pokédex has not been very active lately, with less than 25 edits to project and talk page combined, since January 1st.

I believe, therefore, that the information on most individual Pokémon would become more legible and comprehensive if the relevant articles would be combined in groups. For instance, taking each subcategory of Category:Pokémon species by type, and merging those articles into a list.

See also the semi-policy on characters from fiction, WP:FICT.

Since this is rather broad in scope, I figured an RFC would be appropriate. I now yield the floor to comments. Radiant_* 12:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
In theory, this is something I could agree with, but only as long as no information was lost, and people could feel free to split out articles if there was enough material. I fear people would use this as an excuse to remove what they see as "Poke-cruft". Meelar (talk) 13:13, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) However, why shouldn't each POKéMON have it's own article? To quote your semi-policy:
 * It should be pretty simple to come up with a tabular format for these merged subsets of Pokéstuff so that no information is lost. I personally would like to see such stubs deleted, but this proposal is very agreeable. I don't have a problem with articles on individual Pokémon, per se, but stubs such as these have no encyclopedic value, as they are just statistics tables. android&harr;talk 13:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion, but I think it's better suited for Wikibooks.
 * Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances.
 * POKéMON is everywhere, and there is bound to be at least some merchandise for most, if not all, of them. In my opinion, this is enough to be transcending.--Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 14:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you count trading cards, I seriously doubt there is 'at least some merchandise' for most Pokemon. Please provide some evidence thereof. Pokemon can be neatly tied to a particular fictional universe, even if that universe consists of several games, cartoons and movies. I agree Pikachu is transcending as a cultural icon, and possibly two or three others, but not most of them. By nature, it's not possible for all or even most characters in a setting to be transcendent. Radiant_* 15:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Radiant. That's a rather curious reading of WP:FICT – all Pokémon exist within the same fictional universe and can be neatly tied to it. Using "has merchandise available" to define "transcendant" is a very bad idea. Take, for example, The Simpsons. IIRC, there are exceedingly minor characters that have their own action figures. Homer and Bart obviously deserve their own articles, but are Lionel Hutz, Bumblebee Man, and Professor Frink transcendant characters? I think not. android&harr;talk 17:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, how should the word be defined? Merchandise is, to me, an appearance outside of the characters' normal environment (the GB games). If this is not how transcendent is to be understood, then a different word should be used, since it's the only way you can apply one of the meanings of transcendent to a fictional universe.
 * (For the record, the bolded text was only placed in the quote to match the formatting used at WP:FICT. It was not supposed to imply that I thought part had a special significance.) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, see, I thought you had emphasized those words. In any case, we both glossed over the term immediately preceding transcendant: cultural icon. Superman, Homer Simpson, and perhaps Pikachu are cultural icons; individual minor Pokémon are not. android&harr;talk 19:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Transcendant" is something like Dopefish. The only canonical appearance of the Dopefish was in the "Well of Fishes" level of Commander Keen 4.  However, it's had cameo appearances in games such as Quake, Descent III, Max Payne, and Wacky Wheels, it's been referred to in numerous other places, and the phrase "Dopefish lives!" and Dopefish forum avatars are relatively common sights. --Carnildo 19:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since most of the articles are stubs, it should be easy to come up with a horizontal-format table such that groups of related Pokémon can be merged into a single article, with each Pokémon having a table and a one- or two-line description. --Carnildo 17:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before anything is done, don't forget about Pokémon. The original intent was for Pokémon to be a game guide and ONLY a game guide, and the Wikipedia articles be on the parts of Pokémon that are not tied to the game (eg. the anime). There will inevitably be some parts that will interact with each other, while some parts of the Wikipedia articles will be removed once the books end has that information (note the particular inconsistencies of the infobox pages acrosss Pokémon pages). To this end, even the tables may vanish somewhat, and some articles may have little left. Of course, being a member of the Wikiproject, I feel that ideally each Pokémon should have their own page, but then there are practical considerations.

Anyways, Pikachu is certainly notable, and by extension their other forms. Starters and legendaries are also notable because of their nature. Porygon is notable for the seizures, and Jigglypuff is the most frequently-seen recurring anime character not associated with any particular trainer. These will have to be kept at the very least. (Some may consider keeping articles on team members).

Most Pokémon do have some form of merchandise associated with it outside of the video games and the TCG: there's the V-Trainer and various action figures (both legitimate and bootleg, as well as "fan-art").

kelvSYC 01:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If there's a Wikibooks Pokémon game guide, then I suggest we transwiki all the Pokéstubs over there and delete them from Wikipedia, leaving a single "List of Pokémon" and an article on Pikachu. --Carnildo 02:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me. android&harr;talk 02:35, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal. Recently similar action has been taken by User:Master Thief Garrett in the Zelda characters space (see Category: Legend of Zelda characters), and I consider it a vast improvement. The essential argument you're making is twofold:
 * 1) That individual Pokemon are not notable. Merchandise is not by itself evidence of notability. Notability can be seen as a measure of roughly how many people are familiar with a concept. Coca-Cola and George Washington are highly notable. Certain Simpsons episodes are fairly notable. Red-black trees are less notable. The mathematician Nicholas Mercator is hardly notable at all, but still has an article for other reasons. Although many people are familiar with esoteric Pokemon, these are only a tiny fraction of the number of people familiar with more common subjects.
 * 2) That it is not likely that a detailed article will be written on each Pokemon. This is due in part to their lack of notability (less people are familiar with them or care about them, so less are around to write about them), but it's also due to the limited amount of information provided by their creators and marketers, which can be easily summed up in a few paragraphs. However, I also support keeping the most famous Pokemon, such as Pikachu, in their own articles, in the same way that Link, Zelda, and Ganon still have their own articles. Deco 02:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * WOW! I never thought I'd end up being an example to others by doing something so sensible! I had similar plans with all these Pokemon, but, again, I feared mass fanboy reverts if I tried to "un-important-ise" a particular beloved character. But with this merging proposal, a general consensus viewpoint can emerge to combat such issues. Good old democracy. Master Thief Garrett 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The mergification of the minor Zelda articles is a definite Good Thing&trade;. android&harr;talk 04:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this proposal is strictly necessary. What the Wikiproject suffers from at present is a lack of interest - if more members could be persuaded to write articles that conform to a certain standard, each pokémon could have a detailed article and infobox. I would also support the notion that the Wikipedia and Wikibooks Pokédex should be greatly interlinked, to provide a more concise resource. As the spirit has now taken me, I may start to revamp the project and attempt to get more people interested. If there are any objections, let me know here or discuss it on the Wikiprojet's Talk page. CNash 16:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Additionally: The vast majority of Pokémon stub articles have been created by an unregistered user (132.70.50.117), who has merely created the page with only the infobox and a stub template visible. (In the process, he hasn't followed some of the guidelines set out in the Wikiproject, but that's not the point.) This forced the remaining Wikiproject contributors to expand the articles before a call for their deletion or reorganisation was made - which we did not accomplish. I'll start blitzing through and see what I can fix up. CNash 22:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * While I am no fan of Pokemon- I rather despise it- I believe that these stubs should be merged. In my opinion, precedent is set by such articles as List of minor Star Wars characters: for the myriad relatively insignificant articles, there should be a composite merged page, but more prominent or major subjects (pokemon in this case) deserve to be articles in their own right. --M412k 01:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

categorise by type? or by species?
One possible categorisation idea is to have them listed by type (Electric, Bird, Bug, etc.) on core pages, rather than the [[Category: ]] sections that link to them at the moment. BUT the problem with this is that most if not all Pokemon are dual-type, and many can even learn attacks from multiple types other than their two core ones. So unless there is going to be a LOT of cross-linking, how will it be managed...? I really, really don't know. Master Thief Garrett 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alphabetically? If there's no characteristic of Pokemon that would make categorization easy, that might be the only way to go. android&harr;talk 04:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * hmmm... good thought, but you ideally want them together. Mareep evolves into Flaaffy, so with all the Electric-type ones together you could just scroll up/down to see the members of Mareep's evolutionary chain. Arranged by name, this would require you to click through to another page, which means more manual cross-referencing is required. Categorising by type would likely be a lot less work for contributors than an alphabetical arrangement would be. Both of these ideas have their advantages, as well as their drawbacks. Master Thief Garrett 04:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Another idea is to categorise by species (Mouse, Wool, Bird, Patient, Seed, etc.) but the problem is that there are problably 80+ category description types. Some of them are shared, but would that divide the list up too much? Master Thief Garrett 04:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there's too many species, and many are dual typed, I think the best solution is alphabetizing - but then it should be alphabetized by basic form, and all evolutions listed under the basic. Thus Flaaffy goes under Mareep, rather than under F. We can use colors (maybe) or intend-with-bullets * to indicate stage. Radiant_* 09:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Better to have a few dozen broad categories than many more dozens of individual stubs. I'm for anything that will result in a simple, concise package that avoids an overload of excessively short articles. -- 8^D BD2412gab 00:21, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Having looked around a few fan-run Pokedexes, they categorise Pokemon by their primary element type ONLY. Therefore, we could follow suit. Master Thief Garrett 00:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

new merged sections to be made too long by stat tables?
One other problem I see is with these tables. Now while they are very clear, very usable, and very complete, the problem is they take up a lot of space. So unless non-applicable columns are cut (like, say, Shiny, which ONLY applies to Gold/Silver/Crystal Pokemon) I think that what should have been a short merged list of non-noteworthy Pokemon will end up as pages and pages of stats. What is to be done about this? Master Thief Garrett 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We should move the stat tables out of Wikipedia entirely, into the Pokémon wikibook. --Carnildo 06:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OH! Of course! I hadn't thought of that. Yes that solves that issue...
 * --unless of course others disagree, if so please state your reasoning here, and quickly, before such changes are made to the content that it is "too late" to complain. Master Thief Garrett 06:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The essential problem with this is that there's info in the stat tables not stated in the text which might still be useful in the consolidated articles. Another solution is to create a new stat table template taking the same arguments which produces a compact inline horizontal table or even a templated paragraph (a la Rambot). Then just change the template name during merging. Use subst if desired to make the template go away after saving. Deco 06:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this for a table:


 * Carnildo 07:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, good, very very good. I prefer sidebars of course, since they're, well, at the side(!) and don't get in the way of the body text, but seeing as there's no body text for it to interrupt that would be a very good solution! Well done! Master Thief Garrett 08:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me give that a try...
 * Not bad eh? I do agree that most statistics aren't particularly encyclopedic (esp. since they differ between the card game and the computer game) but the table should be able to host species and type and related stuff, possibly using abbreviations for types. Radiant_* 09:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem: That table is wide enough as it is, but doesn't include metric measurements - those used in all non-English POKéMON games. Maybe leave out the species, as was suggested above? --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 04:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. Radiant_* 07:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it has been discussed in the Wikiproject's talk space that video game statistics (including height and weight) are not encyclopedic, and should be removed. kelvSYC 03:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Template
I recomend usage of templates, that way its uniformal. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)




 * Yes, templates would of course be used to avoid any problems. However as said I slightly prefer the horizontal example above, so we don't get pages and pages of stat charts and nothing else. Master Thief Garrett 12:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Easier done than said ;), However I was wondering why? --Cool Cat My Talk 05:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With the difference between Pokémon up to 151 (Mew) and the later Pokémon (with the Special stat), and the Hoenn numbers, we're talking about several different templates. However, we could build them if we really want to. User142 09:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? The goal here is to get the "game guide" information on individual Pokémon out of Wikipedia and into the Pokémon Wikibook. --Carnildo 18:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's already at Pokémon, well before all the infoboxes at Wikipedia were done. kelvSYC 03:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I see most "pokemon" being nothing more than a stub after information is placed to the table, maybe a description of the creature may comrimise the actual article or history. It may be best to have the text and the template after instead of a side bar. Propbably there isnt enough to say about these creatures more than a stub. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we not alowed to use images by the way? --Cool Cat My Talk 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right that they will be eternal stubs. I would think the template should go below. The template should NOT incorporate the image, that should go to the right of the description, which will be struggling to be more than a few lines as it is.


 * I don't really know about the copyright of Pokemon character representations, but I assume they fall under Fair Use. Regardless, if the images are already uploaded then feel free to use them!!! If they turn out to be violations someone will have the image deleted. That's not your problem at all. Images are supposed to be uploaded with one of various Fair Use rights systems. Other users assume good faith on the part of the that uploader, that they fulfilled the restrictions correctly, and use the image straight away. It is only if *you* upload a violatory image yourself that you will recieve any sort of blame for its use. So don't worry! If it's here, make use of it! Master Thief Garrett 07:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The images arguably fall under 'fair use'. I think they don't fit well with the tables though because of sheer size. Let's see... we could just use a sample number of images (which makes the 'fair use' even fairer). Or we could make each pokemon's name in the table a link to its image on /commons. Or we could add a separate page which is the pokemon image gallery, which is a matrix of images with proper names underneath. Radiant_* 09:28, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * IIRC, they seemed to have been on VFD on numerous occasions... kelvSYC 03:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, that's one idea, but if someone casually comes looking up a Pokemon they've just read about they would surely want to actually SEE it not just read stats that mean nothing to an outsider. A separate gallery would require yet more click-thrus. Anyway there are lots of high-profile fansites using images all over and I don't see Nintendo shutting them down like they did the Zelda and Mario fan remake projects... Master Thief Garrett 11:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, good point. But most Pokeimages aren't that large... we could make the table rows a bit higher and allow room for a small pic. Radiant_* 11:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The fair use assumption for these characters is most tenuous. Nothing horrific will happen as long as we have OCILLA, and we could strengthen the case for fair use by using low resolution images, using them for noncommercial purposes, and if they contribute significantly to the article, but keep in mind that they will almost certainly be omitted from redistributions in electronic and print form. Deco 09:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Commons cannot have any copyrighted images. I think an image size thumb should be sufficent. Number of images is not how one determines fair usage. There is Star Trek, we should be perhaps paid for advertising. I do not personaly care either way, I was asking that so that I can modify the template to have an image or not by default. We would need a proper naming sceme if that would be the case, (like Template:flag2) --Cool Cat My Talk 02:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

...
Here is a flatter version:

I like this one better than the current "pseudo-template" in use for most of the Pokémon. If I can find my copy of the Complete Kanto-Johto Reference, I'll start working on some of the Pokémon stubs 001-251. --Brian Ryans 15:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

...

 * Ad-like? Indeed it is, I almost expect to see "buy now from Amazon.com" links beside those video listings! Anyway, as for the image, I'd say you should definitely have an image as the default. As I said above, if a non-Pokefan comes across it they want to know what it looks like.
 * I'd maybe put Shiny under General. It isn't really biological as sometimes traded Pokemon mysteriously gain Shiny-ness. Plus it would make the list more even and thus shorter. Perhaps the physical elements should be side by side, "Height/Weight"? That would also make it shorter. Master Thief Garrett 03:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your last edit to it somehow made it different. Now I've got a horizontal scrollbar... Master Thief Garrett 03:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It normaly takes about 10 edits to make it look good. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 03:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not a poke fan so I am merely working on a table. Correct anything if you like ;) --Cool Cat My Talk 04:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I can't be bothered handling this code (I'm more used to HTML) but here's an example I bunged together. Master Thief Garrett 04:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

All pokemon pages should be named as: Pokedex:pokemon name. This way we will evade any posible conflicts. Redirects are also recommended. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely. Shouldn't there be a "é" in it though? Anyway, I think the images should be named "Pokemon:name" or "Pokedex:name" so the images don't get "lost" and they're all grouped as much as possible (when you look at the Special:Images page, etc.) Master Thief Garrett 05:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you can't use colons in file names on UNIX systems, and you definetively can't on Windows (which most people use). Therefore, that naming scheme would be impossible to implement for images.
 * The standard is to use name (Pokémon) (see Mew), assuming you want name to be the (potential) disambiguation page. (There are instances where you don't.) Pokedex:name would only be suited for Wikibooks, where this is a standard way of indicating topic.
 * Don't forget what WP:D states, though: "Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." Unless there really is anything to confuse, you should be leaving article names as-is - for example, Pikachu should stay at Pikachu, since there's nothing to confuse it with. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Unix file systems allow any character except the forward slash "/" and the null character (character #0) to be used in a filename. That said, putting unusual characters into filenames on Wikipedia is generally a bad idea, as web browsers frequently don't handle them properly. --Carnildo 22:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I said : because of course  is the way it's done here. But can the template engine handle it? I mean, if someone searches for Pikachu will the current page work, or will we have to make a new redirect from there to Pikachu (Pokemon)? I mean, can the naming structure mutate, or does it HAVE to be  (Pokemon) ? Master Thief Garrett 00:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The structure is per definition mutating, since indicates disambiguation. WP:D says we should leave article names as-is unless there is need for disambiguation - that is, articles should be at Pikachu, Hitmonlee, etc., rather than Pikachu (Pokémon), Hitmonlee (Pokémon), etc., so long as we don't have anything else by that name to write about - and even then, the disambiguation page might be better placed at Pikachu (disambiguation), depending on what the other thing is.
 * When moving a page, a redirect will automatically be left behind. That way, Pikachu will automatically go to Pikachu (Pokémon) after the move, without us having to do anything else. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, the new version looks great! Master Thief Garrett 05:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Gah, the headers refuse to line up. I think I'll write it in HTML and see if these HTML>Wiki converters can do a better job... Master Thief Garrett 08:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Did some more more fiddling, the headers now line up. Sort of. Better than they used to anyway... still testing to see how this can be optimised for lower screen sizes... Master Thief Garrett 09:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Works well under IE but slightly differently under Firefox. Works perfectly in 800x600 on both, will have to alter some things to make 640x480 works. It almost fits, but not quite. Might have to abbreviate something... Master Thief Garrett 00:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If anyone needs any info for the infoboxes, possibly to expand them, you can get pretty much everything from here: http://eevee.racso.com/, in case you needed to know. Or anything. I hope this is the right place to mention it. RickGriffin 03:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming Convention example: Pokédex:Pikachu, Image:Pokédex:Pikachu. Also Pikachu should redirect to Pokédex:Pikachu, etc. we can "move" pages from Pikachu to Pokédex:Pikachu, would create redirects for us. It is imperative that it be : as ignores all material before :, while that can be fixed by simply adding a new dataitem it defeats the point of an infobox. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose use of any colons at all. The Pokédex: prefix is an indication of disambiguation, (which is usually done using on Wikipedia) which is not needed for most POKéMON. You don't expect an article like HTTP to be at Protocol:HTTP (or HTTP (protocol) for that matter), do you? Additionally, I'm not sure the Image namespace is as flexible as you want it.
 * For grouping, this is done through categories, not prefixes. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I explained it is necesary for technical reasons. I cannot put slashes in images. Collons are fine because reprots everything after last colon.  will print the ugnly material inside (pokemnon or whatever) and will make a mess. You will make my, programmer/template designers, job expodentialy eassy if you use colons. Else I am not sure how do do this without several extra inputs. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly which inputs would you need? If it's for the images, couldn't you hardcode a prefix and suffix into the template? --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem. The page currently says "Missing image Poképrosal.png". It's cutting off the "Wikipedia:" already, so can't we use this with the Pokemon pages as we've got them right now? If I put this on Pikachu, it would look for Pikachu.png, right? Why does there have to be a naming convention? As long as the image name matches the page name, it always gets the right picture linked to it, right? We might have to depose a few of the inadequate pictures already holding those core namespaces, but other than that it should work... shouldn't it? Master Thief Garrett 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as all this "Pokédex" stuff goes, shouldn't it be going into the Wikibooks Pokémon game guide, leaving only the basics on Wikipedia? --Carnildo 18:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

...

 * No, the Jean-Luc Picard would belong to same category. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on what Jean-Luc Picard has to do with only having POKéDEX details in Wikibooks. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a database of Star Trek characters, various other anime etc. Why is there a problem with this animes characters? --Cool Cat My Talk 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

...
Bottom of the page must have a link box linking to the entier contents of pokedex. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's obvious! But should it be a template so people just type or whatnot, or does it have to be a copy-'n'-paste? Master Thief Garrett 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Templates I say, one template having all pokedex entries. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks?
I see there has been some talk of moving all the content to wikibooks. I proposed somthing like this a while back. I will say it again in the hopes that it gains some traction this time. We port these article (all of them but the most notable) over to wikibooks. Start a new wikibook (or merge it with the old one which currently has limited scope) dedicated to pokemon. Then we redirect all pokemon to the main pokemon article (or the list of pokemon). It's like starting an encyclopedia dedicated to pokemon. If the book is only about the pokemon univerese (as opposed to a universe within the real universe) then every pokemon species is notable enough to have a page. A solution? Maybe we can do this with other subjects (Simpsons episodes? or Star Trek battles?) I think this a better sollution to creating a new namespace or whatever you want to call "Pokedex:" BrokenSegue 01:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats inheritely pushing human knowlege to other wiki projects unnecesarily. You want to push all fictional content out of wikipedia? I think and bluntly say that usage of a namespace is best. Be a uniter not a divider, unite human knowlege :D --Cool Cat My Talk 21:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider myself an organizer. By moving the articles and discusion of articles on individual Pokémon to a Pokémon wikibook, it collects all the information in one place, rather than diluting it in the other half-million encyclopedia articles.  That makes it easier for potential contributers to find. --Carnildo 21:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Do I want to "push all fictional content out of wikipedia"? No. Of course not. I want to put huge lists of repeated information to a more concentrated and useful place. There are things which are very specialized which would do better elsewhere. The content still exsists on a wiki so I don't see why this is a threat to content. A namespace is meant for a class of information. Images, Articles or Wikipedia (Some other wikis have a source namespace for specific source information [poor man's wikisource]). A pokemon namespace seems silly. It is a specfic subject not a class of data. Moving the content to wikibooks makes more sense (do you want to make a cookbook namespace?). BrokenSegue 21:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In a sense, then, Wikibooks would be like the EB Macropaedia. RickGriffin 21:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What's EB Macropaedia? I can't find anything about it online? BrokenSegue 01:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica is organized into two sections. The first dozen or so volumes, called the "Micropedia", are relatively short articles on a wide range of subjects.  The maximum depth any of them goes into is similar to that of the top-level article on World War II.  The next dozen and a half volumes, called the "Macropedia", are extremely detailed coverage of a small number of subjects -- think Category:World War II and all subcategories. --Carnildo 04:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine the book as an encyclopedia of pokemon. In that way every pokemon and charcter would be notable (as all the species are notable here). BrokenSegue 14:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Recall that Wikibooks is a source of instructional material - it's not a Macropaedia of any kind (Wikibooks is not Wikipedia), and treating it as such would likely have the modules involved put up on VFD there, and as an admin there, I'd have no hesitation in deleting it. kelvSYC 03:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Then let's change the purpose and definition of wikibooks. This link is Broken 21:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this sort of organization is a good idea in many ways, but will never happen for political reasons &mdash; threatening to move someone's content to Wikibooks is as good as threatening to delete it, with Wikibooks as relatively unpopular as it is. Deco 23:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully if we began to integrate Wikibooks with Wikipedia, Wikibooks will be become more popular and thus less objectionable for moving material. I agree however, politics ruins everything. BrokenSegue 01:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is Wikibooks unpopular? I thought the whole idea was that you could ramble on and on with FAQ-ish details such as would never fit an article? So why's it unpopular?
 * Or perhaps we need it moved here into a "Wikibooks:" namespace... Master Thief Garrett 04:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For the same reason Wiktionary, Wikisource, and a bunch of tiny Wikipedias are unpopular. They came along later, they have less contributors, they don't have high Alexa and Google ranks, they're not in the papers, and they didn't get Slashdotted twice. But hey, everything grows in time. I don't think moving Wikibooks into Wikipedia would work though - the benefit of Wikipedia's flat structure is that it's great for internal linking and creating a sophisticated web of related concepts, while Wikibooks has a strong hierarchy. Deco 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is Pokémon limited in scope? Recall that Pokémon was designed from the ground up to be part of Game Guides and Strategy - adding stuff that is irrelevant to the game would pervert its original intention.  Furthermore, if you plan on dumping anime info to Wikibooks, why would you need instructional material on a TV series such as this? kelvSYC 03:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Pokémon:" namespace
Do you have ANY idea why I request a namespace? --Cool Cat My Talk 15:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, not entirely. You said that it was needed so that "we will evade any posible conflicts." I have gathered that this naming system will somehow make the templates and images more functional (in combining them all into one page). I don't see why such a move is ncessary. The content in the tables is trivial and should be in the current wikibooks project. Any other content could be ported over to wikibooks. If I have missunderstood your motives I'll gladly change my position on the matter.  BrokenSegue 15:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I do, but it's a bad choice IMO, since it's a highly non-standard way of doing things. Also, it's not very intuitive to uninitiated users - once POKéMON Diamond/Pearl are released, there will be people creating new pages without knowing about the virtual namespace. And it would look out of place on disambiguation pages (using Mew as an example):

The word mew can have several meanings: (...) (...)
 * A Pokémon of that name.
 * A band from Denmark of that name.


 * I think the very least you could do to argue for the namespace idea is tell us why it's so much easier to make your template with a virtual namespace, rather than using the extra inputs, how many extra inputs would be needed, as well as which ones.
 * I'm pretty open to ideas, but unless you can give good arguments for why this is a better solution, I see no reason to break standard policy and do pre-emptive disambiguation. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 18:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We can only have a uniformal database with a namespace for data elements such as mew. The template asumes page name to be the name of the creature and also atempts to load the image that carries.  returns the currenct articles page name.


 * As you can see  does not display "Wikipedia:" but Poképrosal ignoring : and everything before it. Thats why namespace is better than / or --Cool Cat My Talk 06:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The database stores the namespace seperately from the article. So in the database, this article is actually called "Poképrosal", and has its namespace value set to whatever value maps to Wikipedia. With a virtual namespace, however, it would be stored as part of the name - try going to Pokemon:Mew and write, then preview. You'll get Pokemon:Mew, since that's what the article name field contains (or rather, would contain) in the database.
 * In other words, unless you can get an ACTUAL namespace created (which I consider extremely doubtful), your Pokemon:* articles would require exactly the same as * (Pokémon) would. This gives even less reason to use a virtual namespace. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 06:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * inventing a new namespace is VERY MESSY. It means a new policy, look at the Portal:Cricket debate...
 * I agree that the new pages being made is a problem if we change naming formats... that would just make them be worthless redirects...
 * ...let's put it another way, do you want to rename 384+ Pokemon to "Pokemon:" or "Pokemon/" or whatnot? I know it's probably possible to configure a bot to do that, but even so, need we create that many redirects, and for what?
 * OK, rather than argue about that, let's decide another thing first: the images.
 * How big can images be to actually be detailed, and yet still be thought of as fair use?
 * How should the images be named, or should they be merely named after the Pokemon itself?
 * Personally I think that new naming images (ONLY new ones) "Pokedex_Name" or "Pokedex-Name" or similar *might* help. There is currently no naming format and there's probably already a "Pikachu.jpg" and other "namehere" images that aren't necessarily going to be suitable for pokedex purposes, and moving/renaming them gets messy.
 * If we at least decide that first some work can be done. Then at least the lists can be organised.
 * Similarly, are we moving the stat tables in whole or in part to WikiBooks, and if so what moves and what stays? I think actually getting on with altering the content we have now is more important than arguing about how to name it. Master Thief Garrett 07:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

...

 * Creating a new namespace is a can of worms. People interested in doing so should start a discussion on that in general (not just on Pokemon in particular), from the Village Pump.
 * Stats (e.g. at:20, def:30) are prime source material and thus belong in Wikibooks rather than Wikipedia.
 * So I'd say we keep Stage, Number, Evolves from/to, Species, Type, Abilities and Signature attack. Makes for a neat table, no?
 * Merge by something, I believe species was the idea from above.
 * Given the amount of images, they should probably be thumbnails and simply the creature on white background.
 * HTH, Radiant_* 14:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

merge by type ultimatum!
It seems we're spending weeks arguing over naming formats. I am sick of waiting, I want some action.

Now I had already suggested merging by Type1 and giving a list of links to Type2 members, so what I propose is to re-use existing (redirect) pages like Grass Pokémon and move all the Pokemon there, and then at the bottom give links to the Pokemon that have that as their secondary type (if any).

I'm not going to mess with the special tables and will for now leave the tables as-is (in case significant changes are made to the template code) so it'll just be a cut-n-paste.

Sound OK? Yes? No? Either way, if I don't hear back about this soon I'm gonna be bold and do it anyway... so speak up if you will! Master Thief Garrett 05:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. --Carnildo 06:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then! Can anyone think of any ones that should NOT be merged with their kind? Pikachu of course, but are there other extremely notable ones? Master Thief Garrett 06:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As someone who only has a general idea of what Pokémon is about, I can't think of any. My brother, who is a rational Pokémon fan (contradiction in terms, I know), can't think of any.  Just in case there are some besides Pikachu, I'd suggest that any article with enough text to extend beyond the end of the table shouldn't be merged. --Carnildo 07:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with that, article length seems a good criterion. Mew comes to mind, and probably that cat thingy that Team Rocket always has with them. Radiant_* 07:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur that any sufficiently long article should not be merged, unless you can make it shorter without losing essential content (a Pokemon shouldn't earn its own article on account of meaningless rambling alone.) Deco 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with merging the articles. I'm planning to significantly change the infobox insofar as which fields should be included (for example, omitting base stats, which belong in the Wikibook and - with the release of Diamond and Pearl looming - could change!). Since no dynamic action appears to be taken as regards to this project - my proposals, etc. go unanswered and uncommented - I'll simply take the action required without approval from any other member. Revert if you wish; I'm only trying to make the Project a little easier to manage. If only more people would concentrate on expanding articles! CNash 09:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to comment on your proposals, only I am not sure where you've proposed them. I've checked the PokeStubs article and Wikiproject, and this page, and the only thing I've found is that you propose to revive and get more people interested in the WikiPokoject. So did you?
 * What is basically at stake here, is that several people object to stubs, and prefer them merged. Also, personally I think you cannot describe Bellsprout without also describing Victreebel. That seems to be the consensus here. Of course, if you want to change any of the stubs into a good article, by all means do so! Remember that merges can be broken out if/when more information is added. Radiant_* 09:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I too missed these proposals, I guess they got "lost in the mail" what with all the namespace talk.
 * So you want a page for each and every Pokemon? Well, while one could easily take the Pokedex description and write something based on that, wouldn't that just be more fancruft waffle? I mean, is it really worthwhile to non-fan readers to have huge tracts about each obscure Pokemon?
 * Also, 99% of Pokemon fall under the WP:FICT rule about minor characters.
 * Before reading this I'd already merged some starters as a test, into Grass Pokémon and Fire Pokémon respectively. I think it's quite tidy that way. Charizard breaks the page length rule, but I'm sure I smell at *least* a little waffle in there. In retrospect his anime appearance perhaps makes him just noteworthy enough, but ah well...
 * No information is actually being lost in this process, so why have disparate pages? Master Thief Garrett 10:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's important to note that the information should NOT be fan speculation; the information I add to my articles is taken directly from the pokédex entries on that pokémon. Anyway, I have since been bold and affected changes to the infobox, as well as started to write a few more articles. Funny you should mention Bellsprout et al - I've just finished writing Weepinbell and Victreebel's articles. CNash 11:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Garrett -> looks like a definite improvement. I've changed the infoboxes a bit on Grass Pokeys, please tell me what you think of it. Radiant_* 11:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * You've just done a little nitpicking, and it looks fine! I wouldn't do too much on the infoboxes if I were you, as that can be done at a later date when the template is done. Otherwise you're basically doing them twice over. Master Thief Garrett 12:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nash -> sounds good. More info = more Pedia :) Radiant_* 11:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * A problem is determining the notability of the Pokémon. Here is a list of Pokémon that are highly notable IMO:
 * Bulbasaur
 * Charmander
 * Charizard
 * Squirtle
 * Blastoise
 * Pikachu
 * Raichu
 * Clefairy
 * Jigglypuff
 * Meowth
 * Ditto
 * Eevee
 * Vaporeon
 * Jolteon
 * Flareon
 * Umbreon
 * Espeon
 * Togepi
 * Mewtwo
 * Mew
 * Celebi
 * Lugia
 * Ho-oh Andros 1337 02:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Notable in what way? Most people who've had little or no exposure to Pokémon, like myself, would only recognize Pikachu and a few others out of that list. (I must admit I recognize Squirtle, Charmander, and Jigglypuff, though I can't explain why.) None of these except Pikachu are culturally or otherwise significant outside of the context of the Pokémon universe. Also, most of those articles are lengthy – this proposal is mainly about stub articles, where there's little or no content beyond the game stats. android&harr;talk 03:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC) At the very least, we should have articles on POKéMON that play a very major role in the games, the anime series or the movies, or possess a very unique attribute (Eevee evolves into any of 5 different POKéMON, all on the list, Ditto can breed with any breedable POKéMON). With the only possible exception being Blastoise, all of those on Andros' list fulfill that criteria. I'd also choose Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Entei, Unown, Jirachi and Deoxys - and possibly extend it to have articles on all legendary POKéMON.
 * I'm afraid that, despite being somewhat of a gaming geek, I haven't heard of over half the Pokemon on Andros's list. But anyway, yes, lengthy articles should not be merged into lists. Radiant_* 08:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, if there's an article on a POKéMON, we should try to have articles on all of its evolutions. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have information to improve an article beyond sub-status, by all means do so! Merging isn't necessarily permanent - you can break an article out if there's enough information. It's not about the "honor" of having a separate article, it's about the accessibility of the information. I would find it plausible to merge Eevee's five possible evolutions to the bottom of Eevee, for instance.
 * For instance, Garrett has merged Charmander/Charmeleon/Charizard. I found that a useful article because it makes it easy to compare the two, don't you agree? Radiant_* 14:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, in my view, properly merged articles can substitute for seperate articles, so I'm not saying that this shouldn't necessarily be the case. I'm just saying that it's more important to have some additional information on those. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 14:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. More info = better wiki. However, I am personally unable to provide additional info on Pokemon since that just isn't among my areas of expertise. So I'm hoping to help the wiki by contributing to organizing information. Radiant_* 14:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's always good to have someone helping who doesn't know a **** about the subject, just to keep the objectivity correctly focussed :) Master Thief Garrett 06:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge all of the list above. The notion that any of those (except mabye for Pikachu which might be considered a very minor cultural icon) is remotely encyclopedic must seem ludicrous to anyone outside the Pokemon community. Martg76 12:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Heck, it seems ludicrous to me, and I'm *inside* the Pokemon community. Master Thief Garrett 14:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As for being a "minor" cultural icon, the other day I read that children can recognise Ronald McDonald easily, second only in recognisability to Santa... and I'd bet that Pikachu would pull in a close third! Master Thief Garrett 07:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends. What sort of numbers is Joe Camel getting these days? --Carnildo 17:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In Japan, Pikachu is more well-known than Mickey Mouse, so if Pikachu is "only" a minor cultural icon, then the same applies to Mickey Mouse. Still, you'd never argue against having an article on him, would you? --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 07:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * First, no one is suggesting that Pikachu does not deserve his own article. In fact, Radiant and I have explicitly stated that he does. Second, I find it hard to believe that Pikachu is more well-known in Japan than Mickey. Perhaps among the younger generations, but among the population as a whole? Do you have a source?
 * I'm afraid I no longer know where to find that source (it was a long time ago that I read it), but I do know it was a very reputable source (at least in my experiences with them), and that it covered the population as a whole. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The only reason to keep any of this Pokécruft as a separate article for each character, would be if people would want to look for the character's name without knowing that it is a Pokemon. That may well happen with a few well-known names such as Pikachu. Or perhaps, if the name is also an ordinary language word or name not connected with Pokemons, for example Mew (the cat noise; seagull; etc). I read somewhere that there is a separate Wiki for Pokemons :: that is the best place for Pokemon information. Anthony Appleyard 22:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what redirects are for, Anthony. Radiant_* 11:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, though, redirects can't take you to a specific part of an article - if it were to do that, you'd have to use HTTP redirection while keeping a map of where you've been to avoid loops (this would require only one redirection, meaning you have to load everything before the page loads). This means that going to the section of one of the "later" POKéMON will take a longer time, since you need to load more data (which can be a LOT for some types, and easily become a struggle for 56Kers), and find the appropriate entry in the TOC. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, nobody needs a "policy consensus" to merge articles. Just do it if you want to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice theory. In practice, for a major merge like this, if you don't have sufficient support, the Pokéfanatics will revert any and all attempts. --Carnildo 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus must be made if this is to go through. WP:FICT is only a semi-policy - that is, a guideline - and thus something that cannot be enforced on this high a number of articles with no consensus whatsoever. A poll should be created soon. Actually, I'd start it now, expect I feel polls should always be started by those in favor of the new idea. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Poll Open or Closed?
Is the poll open or closed, as it states on Poképrosal/Poll The poll will continue for one week from 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC), but it hasn't been closed yet. Hiding 09:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've marked it as closed, it's time has elapsed. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to challenge the Poképrosal idea
I am against Poképrosal. Poképrosal is controversial. It has alienated me from the Pokémon franchise. Notability policy concerning fiction is a semi-policy, or guideline. The notability of the Pokémon is unclear and overlooked. It is once said that the WP:FICT guidelines do not actually apply to Pokémon. Pokémon is Nintendo's second best-selling franchise. The majority who supported Poképrosal got it all wrong and overlooked the situation. The foreign language Wikipedias still have separate articles of each individual Pokémon, and this Poképrosal only applied to English Wikipedia. That is nonsense right there. I have seen enough of the controversial policy activity at Wikipedia as it is. Even Mewtwo and Lucario got merged into the Poképrosal list, although they played very major roles in the media they appeared in. I do not really like TTN, for that user is too strict in applying the policies. There could also be a userbox saying "This user is against Poképrosal." I am strongly against merging articles on individual Pokémon who appeared in the Super Smash Bros. series as playable characters to be merged into lists. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive of the old Pokepages
Did anyone ever archive the old Pokemon pages? I looked around and I couldn't seem to find them, and the wikibooks link no longer exists. KimiNewt (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to see the old Pokemon pages such as Geodude, then go to their normal link, then at the top of the List you got redirected to, click the link that says "Redirected from Geodude" and then go to history, and pick the latest non-redirect version. --Blake (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)