Talk:Bulbasaur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bulbasaur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2006.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 29, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 26, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 11, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 16, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 11, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 20, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
Current Status: Featured article

Pokémon Portal

This article is part of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, which aims to improve the encyclopaedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

This article has been graded as a Exemplary level article, at the assessment page, of the Pokémon Collaborative Project.

This is a former selected article of the Portal:Pokémon.

This article is complete by the standards of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, but may still require further editing to achieve A-, or FA-class.

PCP To-do:

	This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

CVG Portal

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

This is a selected article of WikiProject Video games.

CVG To-do:

Archives Archive 01: Sept 2003 - May 2006

[edit] Shiny Bulbasaur

The Italian version of this page has an image of a shiny Bulbasaur. Could this image either go here or shiny Pokémon? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiny Pokémon is more relevant. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I just did a copy edit of the article, so please don't revert it without reading this. Generally, what I fixed was the pluralization of the article, Bulbasaur are a species, so from the intro until the end of the videogames should refer to Bulbasaur as a species (from anime downwards, it refers to individual Bulbasaur). Other things fixed are linking, I tried to cleanup the intro, it was a tip. Thank you for reading and harmonious editting, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. People say "tyrannosaurs" when they talk about species. Why doesn't the article use "Bulbasaurs?" --Kjoonlee 07:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the plural and the singular are the same thing, One Snorlax, Two Snorlax. Red Snorlax, Blue Snorlax. H ig hway ^Batman! 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why are the plural and the singular the same with Bulbasaur? "One tyrannosaur, two tyrannosaurs. Tall tyrannosaurs, small tyrannosaurs." --Kjoonlee 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And why do we need to refer to it as a species, when it's much simpler to just treat it as a common noun? "One dog, two dogs, red dogs, blue dogs." Treating it as a species just seems to be an artificial distinction. --Kjoonlee 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's like "fish" and "sheep", that is how the grammar works. We are treating it like a proper noun and a common noun, because we are referring to Pokémon called Bulbasaur, and the Bulbasaur. H ig hway ^Batman! 11:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And who thought of that? Is it supported by actual use? I think not. --Kjoonlee 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see the games, Nintendo, the anime, the manga and Satoshi Tajiri. It is supported by actual use. I suggest that you stop arguing now, you are not going to change the way we pluralize because you don't agree with the actual system. H ig hway ^Batman! 12:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a nasty way of saying things. I suggest you be nicer in the future. If it *is* supported by actual use, then I'll stop. --Kjoonlee 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you've been going on, and frankly, I've been dealing with scores of editors who think they have a PhD in Pokémon grammar. You just have to think about it, have you heard Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaurs"? Sorry. H ig hway ^Batman! 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and you have to understand this: probably all of those people have no experience with Pokémon . I know I don't.

Normal rules of English grammar, and similar words (such as tyrannosaur) suggest "Bulbasaurs" is the "acceptable" plural. If you don't want people changing it back, you might want to mention it in the article instead of including it in the talk pages. --Kjoonlee 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But one more thing: How many times did Ash or Brock say "Bulbasaur" when they met more than ~~two~~ one of them at the same time? --Kjoonlee 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall an episode set in a Bulbasaur ranch. I could be thinking of a different Pokémon, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you check it, to be sure, please? If the answer to my earlier question is either "zero," or "not available — they've only met single bulbasaur Pokémons," then I strongly disagree with the use of Bulbasaur as an uninflected plural. --Kjoonlee 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact the plural of Pokémon is Pokémon. I'm sure someone who feels more strongly about this than I do will be along to confirm or deny my claim about Bulbasaur, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bulbasaur's Mysterious Garden"? The episode that contained the mass evolution ritual, where dozens of Ivysaur and Bulbasaur evolved into their next forms together? I think it's no 51, not sure though. But they never said "Bulbasaurs" in it. H ig hway ^Batman! 13:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Episode guide here]. H ig hway ^Batman! 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Pokémon names are like this because a lot of the names (Pikachu, Ariados and so on) use names taken directly from Japanese, which has no plural (フシギダネ could mean Bulbasaur or Bulbasaurs). The in-game Pokédexes definitely don't use "Pokémons" or "Bulbasaurs"; Clefairy's entry reads "On every night of a full moon, groups of this POKéMON come out to play. When dawn arrives, the tired CLEFAIRY return to their quiet mountain retreats and go to sleep nestled up against each other". Not tired Clefairies; tired Clefairy. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaurs cannot be any different from tyrannosaurs. This is English, not Japanese. Evertype 10:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (And the plural of euro is euros, too.)

And why not? English is full of exceptions. This is one of them, get over it. What will it take to convince you nay-sayers? You have the official anime, the games that this very subject originated from, and the creator, just accept that it is not Bulbasaurs. XXDucky21Xx 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portmanteau?

I can see how the word Bulbasaur would be a portmanteau if it were a combination of bulb and dinosaur, but if it's merely a fusion of the words bulb and sauros, how is this a genuine portmanteau? By the same logic, Dinosaur, derived from combining the words dinos ("terrible") and saura ("lizard"), is a portmanteau. Heck, almost every scientific word is a portmanteau by that definition. I think you've either got the name's etymology wrong, or this is a classic case of misapplying fun terminology like portmanteau through arbitrary overuse. -Silence, 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to state the obvious, but it's not a simple fusion of bulb and sauros or else it would be bulbsauros. --P3d0 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

u're arguing over semantics..... many words lose or gain letters when combined. that's like saying Abrosaurus is not a fusion of habros and sauros b/c it's not Habrossauros neway.... u'r prolly right Silence, but only half-way. What we should change is sauros not "portmanteau." Rather than misapply fun terminology, we misapplied fun Latin scientific-sounding naming conventions. It's been changed for now since no one seemed to care enough about it to voice a contrary opinion. -Zappernapper 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page Editing

I am a user who mostly uses wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I don't fully understand how it works and I only contribute through grammatical corrections! However, I was under the impression that Main Page Featured articles were locked, this is why it surprised me when I clicked on the bulbasaur link from the page page at about 01:20 on 28th July to find that the contents of the article had been deleted and all that was left was a hugely offensive message. I would just like to know how this happened - surely it is possible to avoid this kind of thing, as it could cause a hugely damaging media-storm! Madmatt52 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles most certainly aren't locked as a rule. As for a "media-storm" because of some transient vandalism, Wikipedia would long ago have sunk without trace if such things were possible. As you get to know Wikipedia more you'll learn that vandalism is a common problem that we just live with. Revert the page and get on with your life is my advice. 86.136.2.158 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of the little bastards

The front page currently says there are 401 pokemon while the article says 403. No idea which is correct. --72.224.4.179 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, 403 appears to be the correct number. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

now, there are 493 pokemon. good luck catching them all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.255.62 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Featured Article

You have got to be kidding me. --Mr. Blake 01:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is on the front page, then the quality of Wikipedia has REALLY declined...

I was so suprised too, I was like "bulbusaur!??".....

Any subject has a chance to become a featured article if it's written and well-sourced. I think it has passed the standards. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about time you changed the rules then because this is making the whole site look like a fucking joke! 86.136.2.158 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fine article that deserves its status. Your claim is an insult to the many editors who spent their time on it. --Merovingian - Talk 01:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, there is absolutely no way this article helps anybody at all. It's a waste of everyone's time and makes it look like Wikipedia caters to 13 year-olds addicted to anime. Were there no actual ENCYCLOPEDIA articles that could have been used? Omnislash 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That, in fact, is the glory of Wikipedia. By its very nature it caters to no one in particular (and anyone, in general), and therefore any subject, including Bulbasaur, is acceptable. --DanielNuyu 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of how well written it is, It's still a fucking joke. People are laughing at wikipedia right now.--Akaces23 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course people are laughing at Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia where anyone can sumbit any level of bullshit and no one could ever know. --Macarion 04:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. --Merovingian - Talk 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...or rather, Wikipedia appeals to everyone. It's as good a resource for main stream things like World War 2 as it is for niche things like specific pokemon. Whether or not people ought to look it up is one thing, but people do look it up, regardless (just look at this pages history). If they didn't do so at Wikipedia, they'd do so elsewhere. So why not have it at Wikipedia?

Anyway, pursuant to that, I think all articles ought to be treated equally when being considered for the frontpage featured article of the day. To parade Wikipedia around as a more main-stream encyclopedia is to ignore one of the things that really makes Wikipedia stand out, imho. TerraFrost 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't think there is something mildly stupid about the fact that this article is longer and more than 10 times as many sources as most articles about important events in world history? Go compare this page with the one for the Battle of Hastings, for example and then tell me that the fact that this article is somehow not only more detailed but also FRONT PAGE MATERIAL is a strength of Wikipedia. I am anxious to hear your stirring defense of Bulbasaur. Omnislash 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an article on The Guardian a while ago that suggested that 1% of people who visit a website actually contribute. If that 1% amounts to more edits for Bulbasaur then it does for the Battle of Hastings then that means, quite simply, that more people are interested in Bulbasaur than they are in the Battle of Hastings. It might not be fair and it might not be right, but whomever said life was either of those two things?

Feel free to call it a problem with Wikipedia. I'd rather call it a problem with society, in general. It's for this same problem, imho, that people who watch the news would rather hear about the latest celebrity scandal than they would about something more relevant.

Also, I might add that the article on the Battle of Hastings mainly suffers because it covers something that is old. When something is current it is covered in such detail that it makes this Bulbasaur article look like nothing. Consider Category:2003_Iraq_conflict. Fifteen subcategories. Does that mean the 2003 Iraq conflict is one subcategory shy from being as important and as influential as that which Category:World_War_I documents? No. It means that old events are simply harder to write about then current events are. And Bulbasaur, like it or not, is more current than the Battle of Hastings. TerraFrost 04:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon on Wikipedia

I like the idea of having Pokemon featured on the main page on Wikipedia. Do you think more video game/video game characters could be featured in the future?

Perfect Dark was Wikipedia's featured article on May 12, 2006. This is not the first video game article to be featured, but one in a line of many. 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget about Final Fantasy X that was featured recently. 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's awesome! H2P 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's disturbing! :) Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here really cares that you think Bulbasaur is "disturbing". Jerk.

I care, and I agree with him. I really hope you aren't older than 13 for liking Bulbasaur for Christ's sake. Troubleshooter 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You folks need to buy yourselves a sense of humor. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm 23 and married with my own house.... both me and my wife enjoy pokemon a lot, but I don't like Bulbasaur... I like Umbreon *raspberry* -Zappernapper 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 403 Pokemon?

To the best of my knowledge, there are only 386 pokemon, rather than 403. Either this article or the wikipedia page on pokemon is wrong. - Mr Awesomeness 03:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say one of the 403 known species of Pokemon? Pokemon is a man made thing, people know how many there are currently... --CrazyCasey 02:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It says there are 403 Pokémon because with the continuing information being released about Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, there is constant information relating to new Pokémon that is released to the public, and so far there have been 17 new Pokémon, sixteen of which have been named. For example, see Bonsly, Lucario, and Munchlax. Ryūlóng 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find the "403 known species" comment a bit odd, not because I dispute the number but because it implies that there 'exist' spicies of pokemon that no one knows about. Since Pokemon are fictional creatures they surely only 'exist' in that they have been invented by the shows creators, pokemon that are not known about even by the shows creators surely can't exist! That said I understand the point that the sentence is trying to make which is that within the fictional pokemon univerce there is a (fictional) posibility that more pokemon may be discovered.--JK the unwise 07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But since there are going to be more Pokemon in Diamond and Pearl, that we, "we" being Wikipedia and its Wikipedians, really don't know about yet, the comment is valid. Plus, they give the "species of Pokemon we don't know about yet" line in the game and anime, too. Mostly to give them wiggle room to make up more species as they come about.

Think about it. In Pokemon, we really don't see much in the way of other animals, except for some fish and insects(like the worm Pidgeotto was seen eating in the second episode before Ash tried to catch it), other than Pokemon. Considering the sheer number of species' there are worldwide on Earth, we("we" being Game Freak and Nintendo) likely haven't even scratched the surface of the "true" theoretical variety of Pokemon in the four or five areas we've seen in the games/anime. SAMAS 12:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying you're an employee of Game Freak/Nintendo? WikiSlasher 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can humans claim to know of the existance of every species of creature that currently exists or existed at some point in time? Of course not. Pokemon is a fictional series, and new creatures have been created for every generation, or as would be said in that fictional universe, new species have been discovered. MelicansMatkin 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's 493 now! good luck finding them all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.255.62 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Featured article?

Geez how are these featured articles chosen?! Bulbasaur of all things?! NSD Student 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)NSD Student

Quiet. Bulbasaur is a god among Pokemon. --Captain Cornflake 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, strange. Oh, and someone put "FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG" right in the midde of the artice, in the intro. Took it out.EAB 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do it, but I can't stand pokémon.They are strange but like I said, I didn't do it.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles are based on the article's writing and style, not specifically based on whether the article is about something extremely notable or likable to all. --Will Mak 050389 05:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the Talk pages of articles are for discussion on improving the article, not for discussing the content of the article and (in this case) complaining that this particular article is now featured. Ryūlóng 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that talk pages should be restricted to one goal. It is through the freedom of creativity that people thrive, and as such, I think as long as a discussion is going on about the damn green plant thing, it deserves to be going on.--ttogreh 06:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. One could argue that by us questioning whether this article has merit for being "Featured" status is as much as important as making the article factually accurate.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryūlóng is mistaken. The Talk page is indeed the place to discuss whether an article is of Featured Article quality. In my opinion, this one isn't. The sections are long and unstructured, and have a number of grammatical errors (particularly comma splices). I think we blew it on this one. I would have opposed it if I had been paying attention. (NOT because the topic is silly, but because this is most definitely not an example of our best work.) --P3d0 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for a Featured article review. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic Vandalizing

Who the hell is Jamie? This moron did something that corrupted the portal to the Bulbasaur article! Something about Bulbasaur being "fucking gay" or some crap like that. Whoever you are, "Jamie" or whatever", you are an IDIOT! Fix the portal!

He was probobly pissed that a Pokemon was the featured article. How is Wikipedia gonna convince the world that it's a legitimite source/Greatest Achievment of Mankind if we have friggen Bulbasaur on our front page?

In case you haven't noticed, it isn't all over the page and it isn't the background either. I also didn't know people cared that much about the feature article, much less even read it. Besides, I thought wikipedia has already set itself as a reliable source of information. Just cause it isn't some dead guy/an old builduing doesn't mean it should be take off.

It isn't the only video game article that was a featured article. Can someone please fix the Bulbasaur article? Some immature moron changed all the "Bulbasaur"s into "ballsasaur". Idiot...

What the hells the problem with it being featured? Seriously. I really don't get it. Do people care about their precious encyclopedia that much? Oh wait, it ISN'T theirs.....EAB 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think we should get the page locked; its too much hassle and its not fair on the people who have to watch this page every two minutes just so some asshole can have some fun... (Daydreams21 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

I know some of the people that are idiotic vandals, and that's a great description of them. Vandals pay more attention to the front screen than other people, because they feel it their moral duty to let everybody know what is, in their opinion, rubbish.--The last sheikah 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad for the people who worked really hard to make this article what it is: great. No, great is and understatement. Brilliant is more like it. I feel so bad right now. All that work and people can't even stop to THINK about appreciating it. All you vandals, go the hell away! You aren't helping to make Wikipedia a reliable source of information! You are only hurting yourselves and for that, I laugh at you. HAHAHA!

"THE ONLY PLACE YOU NERDS WILL SEE ONE OF THESE IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!"

heh, WHAT an assumption. Sh*t, I'm using long words, only geeks use long words. Iim goin to fall for a rough trick namd Jim.EAB 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone can count to five without using their hands doesn't mean that they're geeks. By the way, ever heard of spellcheck, loser? You can't even capitalize; I wonder what you CAN do...

[edit] More vandalising, yayyy...

This time, people thought it would be funny/gross, to put a picture of a vagina on the page.

How immature, evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? -- Megalomania

I wonder...were the other featured articles about games vandalised also?EAB 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone actually put a picture of a vagina here? Ugh... the vandalizing is so bad that the article is now sprotected. My God, how some people can be so idiotic I will never know... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

evidently the work of a 12 year old who hasn't been getting enough of the good stuff, eh? Swish. Pokemon articles get vandalised more, becuase they're so unpopular with charvers and the like. They want everyone to know they don't like uncool stuff.--The last sheikah 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon is cool, though. The vandals probably think that they did something biblical by ruining the article, but let's be serious. You morons aren't doing anything helpful. Go the hell away and stay the hell away. Wikipedia has enough vandals and we certainly don't need anymore. Besides, Bulbasaur's my favorite Grass starter!

Pokemon is cool, though.Depends on your definition of cool. It definately isn't popular with the average teenager.--The last sheikah 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm not the average teenager then! Yay! :)--Cherimu is beautiful! 07:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, you might be. See, most teenagers around here (Brooklyn), at my age (15) like Pokemon. Not in the "ooh saw that episode last night lets trade cards" kinda way. More of a nostalgic kinda way. See, as kids, we traded cards, saw the show, etc. It's like Pee Wee's Playhouse, ask an 18 year old if it's a good show and they might say yes, just cause they grew up on it. See, I grew up on this stuff, and so did everybody else, and it was popular when I was a child, so if you had the cards, you're considered to be among the poular ones. The true geeks are those kids that play with Yu-Gi-Oh cards (a show that wil never match up to Pokemon). Oh, and no, they aren't "geeks" or "nerds". They're quite the opposite.

[edit] sprotected

I have sprotected the article. Currently there were about 3 vandals per minute, and the article was more often vandalized than not. I agree in principle with Raul that main page articles should not be protected, but i would go for an exception in this case. I have no problem with the article being unprotected in an hour or so to see if the vandal(s) have left. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Using Geography as a guide, I'm guessing people are bandalising as soon as they see it, in the morning... at the moment, it's round about the right time in Europe, and soon it will be morning in the middle of the atlantic, so there'll be a low point then, then a massive boom as America wakes up. Or I could just be being paranoid.--The last sheikah 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. You aren't being paranoid. If anything, you could be an oracle. ^.^ I just hope that all that hard work put into the article won't be for nothing... --Cherimu is beautiful! 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That is one scary History log. I doubt we'll be getting another Pokémon on the front page after this. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right... hopefully, you are wrong. (Sorry if that sounded rude!)

If (when?) it gets unprotected, it might be worth it to report blatant vandals straight to WP:AIV at the same time they are given {{blatantvandal}} warning. Admins may not block as it's out of process after first warning, but if they do vandalize a second time before an admin investigates, blocking will probably be immediate. Just a thought.--Kchase T 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

...It seems to have been unsprotected. EDIT: No, it's back.--The last sheikah 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNN and Pokemon?

Why is CNN mentioned in the lead section? What does CNN have to do with Pokemon? Are they leading experts on Pokemon or something? Seems like they've been used as an "authoritative source" to justify the statement in the lead section - really, CNN should only be mentioned in the reference attached to this statment. Carcharoth 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In-text citations of this sort are good style. News reporters are supposed to be somewhat experts on anything they talk about. 66.41.66.213 13:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth. I find the mention of CNN and Time to be awkward. It should simply say something like "Bulbasaur is considered one of the more popular and iconic Pokemon" and add a citation at the end that directs to the CNN and Time articles. Grammatically, the sentence is also awkward. Is there a special reason why the CNN/Time sentence is phrased that way? Punctured Bicycle 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"News reporters are supposed to be somewhat experts on anything they talk about" - <falls off chair and rolls about on the floor laughing - gets up and wipes tears of laughter from eyes> - are you serious?? Carcharoth 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

man, you should've been there when this "article" was up for FA like three or four times. This issue was brought up each time but was shot down by the fans. 149.142.103.63 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

I've quickly scanned through the article, and the lead section is OK, and there are a few interesting tidbits scattered throughout the article, but in the main, after the lead section, the article is heavily detailed and probably only of interest to Pokemon fans. Sounds like its been written by fans for fans. Not much here of interest to the reader of a general encyclopedia. Sorry. Carcharoth 11:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To explain this a bit more. The detail I refer to is excessive. Some detail is OK, but not this level of detail. If this level of detail is desired, then a lot more explanation is needed. Currently, to understand much of what this page is talking about, I have to follow the links and read several other articles, and I will probably encounter the same problem there. Essentially, what I am saying is that this article does not cater for those who arrive knowing nothing about Bulbosaur or Pokemon. There should be a warning that the casual reader needs to read the Pokemon article first, as much information that would be useful here, is there instead. Carcharoth 11:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's deliberately written for everyone. If someone mentions "Bulbasaur" to you now - you know what they're on about roughly, don't you? A green dinosaur-like Pokémon?

This other issue is a bit of a double-edged sword, I'm afraid. On the one hand, one could include reams of stuff not-relevant to Bulbasaur directly, massively upping the article's length, but making it totally understandable to the lay reader or not include any at all, having an article totally inaccessible to lay readers. Both sides have followings. We've tried to compromise here, by including bits in parenthesis and little introductions to sections. If you have any particular advice about a particular bit that you don't understand though, please say so. Thanks! —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I could have found out that Bulbasaur was a green dinosaur-like Pokemon without reading the Wikipedia article. I expected more, I'm afraid.

The lay reader versus fan/expert is always a problem, but I have seen far too many articles leaving out basic stuff that can be found by following a link, but should really be put in the article. As an example, for biographical articles about people, at what point do you give someone's birth/death dates, or their nationality, rather than relying on someone to click through to the article. There is a good example here - the inventor of Pokemon, Satoshi Tajiri, is mentioned in the article, but the article doesn't say that he was Japanese and was born in 1965 - stuff which might be relevant to this article (sadly, the article on the artist for Bulbasaur does not even have a birth date). This article fails to make clear that Pokemon is Japanese, or at least originated there - you have to click through to the Pokemon article to find this out, or at least infer it from the numerous Japanese references (eg. the bit about the Japansese names). The article also fails to give the historical context of Bulbasaur within Pokemon history - the Pokemon article says that it started at least by 1995, and since Bulbasaur's debut date is given as 1996, it would seem relevant to know that Bulbasaur was one of the first Pokemon. There is a fleeting reference to "original series", but this is not made clear. Also, it would be nice to say how many Pokemon existed before Bulbasaur, and how many have been invented since.

And the general problems of lay reader versus fan reader have been discussed at WP:WAF (a guideline for writing about fiction). Carcharoth 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes, you need to know what Pokémon are like for a full understanding of Bulbasaur. This is similar to the way in which you need to know what humans are like and what Germany is to get a full understanding of Adolf Hitler. Following links and reading other articles is an entirely appropriate response to knowing nothing about an entire topic area. GreenReaper 15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on context. Here, there is definite need to introduce the Japanese origin of Pokemon, and to put the date (ie. 1990s) further up the lead section. These are basic "where?", and "when?" questions that people should be able to find the answer to in this article, rather than clicking through. I came here because I was interested in the number of people who were defending against the "why is Pokemon on the front page" people, by saying that this was a "well-written article", so I'm not going to apologise for pointing out some basic deficiencies quite separate from the 'suitability' issues (I think the variance in styles is detrimental to Wikipedia, though the diversity in content is a strength). Carcharoth 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (16:18, 28 July 2006) (edit) (grammar nazi strikes)

I believe bulbasaur is the plural form as well as singular, I'm not sure that edit was needed. --Impulse 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

How is this a quality encyclopedia read, good enough and notable enough to show on the main page. This isn't good PR.

Ah well! We try to promote quality rather than content.--Oldak Quill 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ah well! We try to promote quality rather than content." Hehehe... that's so true. --Cherimu is beautiful! 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer

Someone has added very inappropriate pictures to this article. May I request that they be removed immediately?

Never mind. It's been fixed already. Thank you.

67.188.172.165 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. That image showed up on the front page. Xioyux 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me, but that picture that was added,it was a Wikipedia image from another article. Why would such an image be assosiated with Wikipedia at all? I am just assuming that it was from another article because when I passed my cursor over it, its adress apeared on my screen, a Wikipedian image. Are such graphics nessisary? Or for that matter, articles of such a nature? AmateurThinker 20:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Images like these are used on the Penis article, though in much smaller form. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was very inappropriate indeed — but a quite clever find (they vandalised the stupid {{pokenum}} template, which appears in the first paragraph). I take it that this shows the dangers of Pokemon-cruft... — mark ✎ 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nasty. I removed the image. Please check that I didn't remove anything else. Ooops this may be a second spam incident another inappropriate image was added to the links section--86.48.1.176 20:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good I awarded Barnstars to both Users who reverted they deserve it. Man that was Nasty! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the picture is still there... And no matter how far back the revisions you look at are, it always shows the new one with the penis...Pokemega32 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have erased the picture for the time being. At least this provides a temporary fix.Hektor 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Maywither modified 1bulbasaur.jpg to a picture of a penis, from I believe the penis article. Reverted. User's talk and contri pages show multiple acts of vandalism through. Perhapes someone should do Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation Cronium 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article of the Day

Congrats, Bulbasaur!

Damn straight lol! (I do not actively play pokemon anymore, yet i still have very fond memories, bulbasaur being one of them =) ) (Daydreams21 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC))

How the hell is Bulbasaur the article of the day? User:xxx 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is Bulbasaur NOT the article of the day? Good for you, Bulbasaur!

Frankly, I find it funny that so many people can be that insecure in their masculinity. It's a fun game and certainly deep and complex enough that adults can enjoy it, too. --Capibara 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur on Featured Article Review

I didn't notice it mentioned specifically before, but this article is currently up on FARC. --SevereTireDamage 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Redundancy

I don't know how this article got featured while being so bloated with information not directly related to Bulbasaur. Maybe if this was a text encyclopedia and Bulbasaur was the only pokemon article or something, but this is ridiculous. All the info explaining generalities about Pokemon should be (and I think is) talked about elsewhere, in other articles. In addition, WP is not a gaming guide, so info on strategy is very, very iffy. Blueaster 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've killed off all the strategy info, at least. I have no idea how it got there without me noticing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/l/Talk%7EBulbasaur_5097.html"