Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Adoption Center/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Adoption Center

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Goals

The first goal has NOT been reached.

User:ErezR has discovered a lot of articles that were not listed as pokémon stubs. This has effectively pushed us back, and now it's crunch time. In order to make our goals now... well, you can see for yourself. Almafeta 23:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh man...*sigh*...but still, it's true we should do the best job possible. I'll try as hard as I can. Sinistro 23:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I put in the list only unexpanded articles I discovered in the 3rd Generation. There should be more in the other 2 Gens, so I'll list them as soon as possible. I don't mean to make it harder for you, but the expansion process should be as thorough as possible. I've checked and corrected almost all the Name Origins of the Pokemon according to what I know (which is quite a lot), and even corrected a few of you guys' works. If you need some help, I'll be here. Assign me to whatever article you'd like. --ErezR 23:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just finished going over all the articles. All the unexpanded ones are listed below. --ErezR 18:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm... You're aware some of these aren't stubs, right? Almafeta 19:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I added to the list what I thought needed an expansion, so I will expand all the articles I added. Is that fair enough? --ErezR 10:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PAC's current goal is to finish 50 stubs a month. To be more specific:

20 July: Have 150 stubs left.
20 August: Have 100 stubs left.
20 September: Have 50 stubs left.
20 October: Have no stubs left.

Statistics

As of 14 July 2005:

To reach the current goal, we need to expand 70 stubs in 16 days. That comes to an average of 4.38 stubs per day.
To reach the final goal, we need to expand 220 stubs in 109 days. That comes to an average of 2.02 stubs per day.
There are 391 species of Pokémon, and 220 stubs. That means that 43.7% of all Pokémon have full articles, and we have 56.3% left to do.

Proposed new goals

We've already done 50/month, as the original goals specified... now that so many old articles have been re-classified as stubs, realistically, we need to come up with new goals. I came up with the old goals, so considering the old 50/month standard:

Have 200 stubs left by the end of July.
Have 150 stubs left by the end of August.
Have 100 stubs left by the end of September.
Have 50 stubs left by the end of October.
Have no stubs left by the end of November.

Do these goals seem reasonable to everyone? Almafeta 06:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It does seem a long time to go, but 50 stubs a monh is not to be sneezed at, so I think our fellow Wikipedians can extend their patience for 40 more days, especially if we show them we keep at our purpose. Sinistro 16:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Goals Rewording

For better or worse, ErezR's finding of 70 or so new stubs came as something of a wake-up call for the project. I think we need to restate our goals so as to focus on a monthly quanity rather than an amorphous final goal, since the final number of stubs for expansion remains in flux as we are working on it.

Our goal could be stated as (a hypothetical example):

We have completed 30 of 50 articles. This month's goal is 60% complete. To complete our goal, we would need to expand another 20 articles in 15 days, an average of 1.5 articles per day. If we reach this month's goal, we will have 130 stubs remaining to expand in coming months.

Contributors, please let me know what you think of this. Keep in mind that how we word and quanitify our goals doesn't change what we're doing here (though it does have an impact on "morale") and regardless of where our stats and goals stand, this project is a phenominal success and you're all doing a wonderful job. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Current goal

If the pace from the last 24 hours keeps up, we'll have the current goal done tomorrow - according to the history, we've managed to finish 19 articles on the list in just a single day! Great job, people! --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just compared this list to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PAC. As you may have noted, I just re-added two articles to the list, Abra and Lanturn - both of these were removed before being de-stubbed.

The (kind of) good news is that this doesn't change the number of articles we finished in the 24 hour period, as both of these were removed several days ago. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about whether or not we should change the time limit for the current goal, seeing as how we currently only have to do 1 article per day to make it by the end of July. Unless anyone has any objections, I shall make the change in about 24 hours from now. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 00:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternative Applications format

I don't know about you, but I found the previous look of the Applications section a bit cluttered, like a busy noticeboard. I found it difficult to tell users apart, and often messages concerning the same user were found in two different places in the section instead of grouped together. I changed it a bit drastically so that every participant has his own space to post finished articles and future plans, hoping it looks cleaner that way. Do you find it helpful? Or do you prefer the old one? Alternative suggestions, if any, are also welcome.Sinistro 16:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I quite like it. It's much easier to get an overview of the applicants.

That said, I'm not too fond about "Leaves of absence" being on the same level as the applicants. Maybe we could make the user headings level 3, and add an "Applicants" header before them at level 2, keeping "Leaves of absence" at level 2. (Hope it makes sense :)) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks good in preview, so I'll change it accordingly. Come to think of it, I'll also copy Almafeta's announcement to the "Leaves of absence" and remove her requesting two more stubs from her "Applications" section.Sinistro 16:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of ==Applications==, ===Applicants===, ====...====, ===Leaves of absence===, ==Important notice...==, but this looks good too, so no complaint here. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

August goal

When we reorganised our goals in mid-late July, I combined July and August, as it seemed unfair to expect everyone to do a month's worth of work in 12 days (or whatever). Amazingly, we pulled it off, and with time to spare! You guys rock!

It does leave us with a dilemma about what to do with August's goal, though.

We could...

1). Go through August without a goal. In my opinion, not a good solution. Although the stats are not critical to our mission, it's pretty clear that they boost morale and productivity.

2). Have August (and the last 3 days of July) count toward September. We'd get way ahead of ourselves.

3). Split July and August back into 2 seperate months. This seems to be the best way to go. I've already reoganised the goals section on the main page for this.

So, that's where we are. If anybody has any objections, feel free to voice them. And great job this month! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Actually, I'd have done it myself, had we not finished today. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 12:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice work!

50 articles done in about a week. You guys are amazing. :) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What will we do about the rest of August when we've done 5 more? --Celestianpower ^talk 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, we'll add another 50 articles. The time limit will either stay put (so we plan to have done 100 articles during August), or we'll change it to be 30 days from now, or include the next month on top of that.

I personally believe we'll just add 50 articles and leave the time limit be. If we've been able to do 50 in one week, we should be able to do 50 more in about four weeks.

If we also complete those 50 in that week, I guess we'll schedule the remaining 65 articles for the rest of the month. But we'll worry about that when we get closer to that date. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I finished the 50th article this month, Dratini. :) --RealWingus 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Announcement: The PACFAQ!

Hiya folks! I've created a preliminary FAQ for this group at Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/FAQ or WP:PACFAQ. I'm linking to it here instead of the main page for now because I'd like to get some current members' feedback on it before making it "live" so to speak.

Feel free to edit or expand it, as you would any WP article. However, please don't add anything to the FAQ about how to expand articles... I'm making a seperate article, the PAC Tutorial, to cover that subject. Above all, let me know what you think, and feel free to suggest additional questions/sections. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a very good FAQ - it shows what we are aiming for and what drives us and is likely to draw new volunteers or supporters. I can't think of another question to add right now. I think I'll add something to the "top three editors" section. Even though it can be inspiring (and I am certainly flattered by the mention!) I want it to emphasize that nevertheless, even one or two quality expansions are a welcome addition to the project, so even if one does not feel he has enough time to dedicate himself to a level of 15+ articles, even one article would be valued. Sinistro 13:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point, and I agree totally with the added section. Thanks, Sinistro! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added to the WP:PACFAQ, and not knowing that you were making your own tutorial, I started Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Tutorial. I hope that it helps, and not hurts, your article... if it hurts, just get rid of mine. Almafeta 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No Pichu?

I have noticed that no one has created an article on Pichu, or even a short article (stub). So is anyone going to create it? - Nick C 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a Pichu article, but it was blanked by a vandal yesterday and mistakenly listed for speedy deletion. I have restored the pre-vandalism version: Pichu Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I mistakenly listed it for deletion, because it was listed as a 'new' page (which the vandal may have recreated or just deleted the content from the original) and which had been vandalised. Sorry about that. - Nick C 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Arevider-vos!

Unfortunately, after becoming an admin over at the Interlingua wikipedia (and the only active admin period), I'm going to have to cut out of constant. Simply put, translating a Wiki interface without documentation and maintaining an entire wiki against vandalism, as well as expanding it, is difficult!

I'll still destubbify an article now and then when I can. But I'm afraid I'll have to drop from #2 to just somewhere in the top 10.

Thank you for putting so much work into my old Poképrosal comment -- this is what this kind of thing is all about! Almafeta 03:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck with ia:. You've done a lot of great work here, and I'm sure you'll do the same there. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 03:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new post! Good luck with your new tasks and thanks for giving inspiration for the PAC. Sinistro 15:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Next goal=rest?

We're almost done with this goal - again. :p

Would anyone object if we combined the remaining 65 articles into one goal, secheduled to be completed at the end of the month? It would seem to make more sense than having 50 now, and then 15 afterwards. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this myself; we're probably going to make the goal easily until the end of the month, so I see no trouble with it.

Also, we need to contact the participants from whom we have not heard in a while, to verify they are still interested in expanding their assigned articles so that if not, we can take them over. Sinistro 12:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And with Cascoon, we've done it! I agree, let's have the complete 65 for the next goal. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just updated it. Change it if you dislike the words. --Celestianpower ^talk 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Gym Leaders Up For VfD

I just wanted to let you all know that A Man In Black (talk • contribs) has been nominating several Gym Leaders for VfD. These include Brawly, Chuck, and Bugsy. A Man In Black has also been redirecting character pages, like Maxie, to the Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire page, thus destroying the work on Maxie's page. Please vote in the VfDs to try to save them from deletion! Ryan 11:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Links to the related VfD debates...

Thanks so much for informing us, Ryan. I've placed links to these debates on the main PAC page as well. I urge all our members and friends to vote and let your voices be heard! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

- He's just merged them into one big article, disregarding pokemon info with no discussion or consensus. I've reverted. --Celestianpower ^talk 12:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Before setting off alarm bells about "deleting info" and "destroying work," why not ask me what I'm doing?
Maxie (Pokémon) had one single editor and a list of GameFAQs-style info, and I turned it into a redirect to Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire as part of a (now abandoned) plan to flesh out Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire's story and characters in that article. The Maxie article had zero encyclopedic information (Just a game name, an affiliation, and a GameFAQs stat list), so I wasn't going to merge it, just replace it to a redirect to an article that placed the character in context. I've still got a half-written chunk of the R&S rewrite in a .txt file; I'll polish and post it when I'm not distracted.
As for the merges, why not take a look at what List of Johto Gym Leaders looks like right now? (Link is the version current as of this note, for your convenience.) I'm not destroying info, unless dropping the specific levels is a loss in your eyes. Instead, I'm merging minor, mostly-neglected substubs into an immediately useful list, to simplify linking, updating, and reference.
In the meantime, while people dither about whether a list is appropriate or not, I haven't rereverted Celestianpower's reverts of my merges, as an edit war wastes the time of everyone involved. I've just gone on making the lists more useful than a bunch of substubs. Feel free to debate about the usefulness of lists versus individual articles in the meantime. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

To keep this page from bloating and distracting from usual business as well as keep the dialogue from being fragmented across a half-dozen pages, let's continue this discussion at Talk:List of Johto Gym Leaders. The mergeto tags I will be adding to the gym leader articles in question will be pointing there, and that talk page already has links to all of the fragmentary debates. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion discussion, moved from main page

IMPORTANT NOTICE! POKEMON ARTICLES UP FOR DELETION!

One of our valued members has informed us that several Pokemon gym leaders have recently been listed for DELETION by A Man In Black. This is an emergency situation. We urge all our members and friends to participate in these discussions and vote. This is a time for the PAC to stand up and truly make a difference!

The votes in question are...

The same user then decided he should merge them into one big article and in the process get rid of information about their pokemon in the different games. I've reverted on the grounds thast no consensus had been reached. We have to do something about this! --Celestianpower ^talk 12:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Do note, first, that I delisted them from VFD after it was pointed out that they're recurring characters in the manga, a fact I wasn't aware of and something Google searching didn't tell me. They never even made it to the VFD main page.

These are not, as written, useful articles. They aren't heavily linked, they aren't fleshed out, right now they don't establish notability at all, and PAC has about 150 or so Pokémon to plow through before getting to them. I'm not convinced that some of them can be brought up to full article status, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Until then, merging them into lists make reference easier, make it easy to link them, make it easier to find the info with search, and makes it easier to see what still needs to be done.

(In response to the alarmism about "getting rid of information," yes, I deleted GameFAQs-style lists of stats, just as movelists and stats have been deleted from the Pokémon stubs.)

Ideally, I'd like to see List of Johto Gym Leaders and List of Hoenn Gym Leaders as a list of one- or two-paragraph summaries of the characters, with See Also links for the characters who have enough personality and backstory to justify an article.

So, you're merging characters into lists to encourage them to be moved out again? Almafeta 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm merging them in order to give context and because I feel they're minor characters per WP:FICT. I'm happy to see the articles fleshed out into full-fledged articles, but, until then, merged lists are more useful.

Again, Talk:List of Johto Gym Leaders is probably the best place to discuss this, since all of the mergeto tags point there and to keep the discussion from sprawling across a half-dozen pages. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Until then, unlinked two-sentence stubs are exceedingly unlikely to be of use to anyone. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Additional info added 13:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You should note that these articles are not going to just stay untouched there forever -- with people like Sinistro and RealWingus backing us up, we can 'plow through' about 100 articles a month, and that's about how many there are left.

But these articles aren't useful to anyone, right? Wrong. Even these stub articles will be of use to us -- by showing us what has come before, and how to organize improvements. Each Gym Leader has a fleshed-out history, thanks to their appearances in the manga and video games, and these articles will provide starts

The lists you are creating should be created as categories, perhaps. (Category:Johto Gym Leaders, and Category:Hoenn Gym Leaders, perhaps, which are both part of Category:Pokémon characters?) Almafeta 13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand what I did, and what I'm doing. Before getting up in arms about deleting info, please read Falkner (Pokémon) (which has been reverted to its original state) and List of Johto Gym Leaders#Falkner (which is the post-merge, post-edit version). I'm making usable lists that can be spun off into articles, but are actually useful to the reader until then.

The fact that all of them aren't quite to that state is largely a product of responding to people on a half-dozen talk pages instead of actually working on them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a particular problem with the list as it currently stands. A Man In Black has clearly acted in good faith, responding to our queries in a civil and reasonable manner and delisting the articles in question as soon as we gave him the appropriate feedback. His edits were motivated by the articles lacking information, which is an understandable reason, as well as a motive for us to touch them up if and when we can.

Now, I'm not familiar with the manga, so I don't know just how much information can be gathered about a Gym Leader; but if a more knowledgeable editor than me knows for a fact that a Gym Leader article can become more than, say, a couple of paragraphs, I say go for it and give him or her justice. Otherwise, I'd prefer lists of Gym Leaders by region, since they look good as a group, rather than a series of five-line articles.

For the record, I'm not much for Gym Leader articles including their Pokémon rosters, in the video games, levels and all; just a sample of the species they use is enough, I think. In fact, IIRC, Giovanni used to be a rather decent article on the character, until someone replaced it with mostly his Pokémon line-ups. I've been meaning to rectify this but I haven't got round to it yet... Sinistro 14:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pages to clean up after species.

After cleaning up stubs on the individual pokémon, why not move on to other stubs related to the Pokéverses?

More than just creating a numbered list, we'd also have some problems to work on... for example, there's no consistency among the pokémon movie articles now. Additionally, when to consider a character minor (such as Duplica, who only appears in one episode of the TV show) and when to consider major (such as gym leaders, who appear in virtually every multimedia form that Pokémon are produced in).

Well, how about it? Who wants to make this the new Wiki-? Almafeta 13:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's almost inevitable, as we're getting pretty close to running out of individual pokemon to expand. I'd also like to turn at least one Pokemon article into a Featured article someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Alright... Should we start making a list of articles to destubbify? Almafeta 01:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes - Including the gym leaders below! --Celestianpower ^talk 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'll step out of expanding Pokémon species articles, then, and look through pokéstubs (and already finished pokéarticles) to find what we can do to make Wikipedia's Pokécoverage better. Almafeta 18:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now, the individual game articles are a mess. Most of them even have {{cleanup}} tags on them. Might be worth working on those WP:COTW-style before expanding into new topics. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the other species articles need some work. Once everything is de-stubbified, some clean-up will still be needed on those that were not part of this. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:39, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in a Pokémon-specific cleanup tag, possibly with an attendant category? I whipped up a draft at User:A Man In Black/Poke-cleanup. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Go ahead and create that one... we have a poké-stub template, and a poké-section stub template, a poké-cleanup template would naturally go with these. Almafeta 05:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  - We have a Pokeman section stub template? What's it called? I know a ton of articles in need of it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

First off, why don't we look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex and get started cleaning up their morbund articles? I was going to get started cleaning up the Pokénav link boxes, but the articles need love badly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Alternate Pokémon infobox

Speaking of infoboxes, I tried my hand at redesigning the Pokémon infobox; a test infobox can be seen here. I made it slimmer, took out the raw game stats (as that seems like needless bloat, better suited to GameFAQs or a Wikibook), and moved the links to the Lists by Pokédex number up to the top.
This one isn't ready for prime time, yet, though; I was hoping to add a section like "First appearances of this Pokémon" or "Notable trainers of this Pokémon" something like that, to help crosslink the series, game, and character articles. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do this (or ideas how to improve this infobox, for that matter)? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks better. Comments:

I suppose the stats can be ommited; I liked them as a measure of comparison between the Pokémon, but they do seem rather specialist data. I think most of the information provided by the stats can be given descriptively in the article anyway (as in "Snorlax has a lot of Hit Points...")
Linking the words National/Johto/Hoenn to the respective listing systems is an idea I have been using in the articles I have been expanding and naturally, I find it very good. It is informative to the reader and gives those lists a reason to exist.
- I would also, however, like to rid the Pokemon before and after the article Pokemon of their Pokedex numbers (look in my expanded articles for an example). Those can be inferred from the middle Pokemon's number anyway (just add/subtract 1!) and this way we won't have an ugly (#26) taking up a whole line.
Since the Height/Weight box takes two lines, it would look nicer if Height took the first line and Weight the second, instead of having one follow the other (How would that be done? <br> maybe?) Sinistro 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It just seems like the stats belong on the Wikibook instead of here on Wikipedia. Part of me says we could lose the Abilities, gender distribution, and maybe the shiny color section, but I don't want to be too controversial.
That said, I incorporated Sinistro's suggestions, including deleting the superfluous numbers and putting a <br> tag in the Height/Weight box.
Any other suggestions? Any ideas for a section that crosslinks to characters/games/anime/manga? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am vehemently against taking out the stats, although I haven't had the time to really compare the two things, since that's the neatest way to mention those things (and I do think that the stats are relevant).

I would also not want to take out the before-after links. You couldn't 'just infer' it; knowing a number of a pokémon in one of the pokédexes doesn't give you its name.

We were referring to the before/after Pokemon's Pokedex numbers, not their names: as in Arbok - Pikachu (#25) - Raichu instead of Arbok (#24) - Pikachu - Raichu (#26). Sinistro 07:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against adding animé info to the infoboxes, but if you moved too much out of the descriptions to the side boxes, you'd be right back to where we were when all the mass pokémon article deletion attempts began (which caused the creation created the PAC in the first place). Almafeta 05:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Almafeta, keep the base stats. They serve as a gauge of that POKéMON's potential power, and describing that in plain Englsih causes inaccuracy.

I'm against using pronouncination in that format. Though I can see its use, it does no good if it's not in IPA or something, as dialects may prevent proper prononucination.

Ugh - I really dislike IPA. I have never been able to figure out a word's pronunciation using it, and I suspect I'm not the only one. How about we have a recording of a person pronouncing the word instead? I've seen it done in other Wikipedia articles. Sinistro 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not fond of IPA either (probably because I don't know how to read it), but it *is* more accurate.

Sound recordings seem like a pretty good idea, definitely something to consider. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're using two lines for height and weight, I don't see any reason to merge the two cells into one. That said, I don't want to see that wordwrapping, either.

Abilities, Shiny color and Gender distribution should stay. Though it may be an idea if we changed Shiny Color to instead be an image of the Shiny sprite for the POKéMON. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 07:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at User:A Man In Black/Pokeinfobox to see what SInestro was talking about with deleting the superfluous numbers; now there's only a number next to the name of the Pokemon in question, rather than next to the names of the Pokemon before and after. No infomation was lost, as long as you can add and subtract, of course.
If someone could do the pronounciations in IPA, that'd be great.
The reason I was considering cutting the stats is because they're absolutely meaningless to anyone who hasn't played the Game Boy games. The card game doesn't reference these stats, the anime doesn't reference these stats, to my knowledge the manga doesn't reference these stats (cue three people yelling at me for getting something wrong about the manga again), and the ancilliary games don't reference these stats.
I think the original Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex had the right idea. (Take a look at their infobox.) Nothing we can do can match the detail of, say, b:Wikibooks_Pokédex:Pikachu. Why not just link their good work for the narrow subset of people who are interested in the raw numbers? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I like it. Could we make it into a template? The see also link would be automatically generated and it wopuld be made sgnificantly smaller on the pokemon page itself, allowing easier editting. See User:Celestianpower/pikachu and User:Celestianpower/pokeinfobox. Feel free to edit them as you see fit.

Note that not all POKéMON appear in the Johto Dex and the Hoenn Dex. That means we'll need several templates, or one flexible enough to allow for any case. --Pidgeot

(t) (c) (e) 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be very difficult. So do we want to go ahead with a template then? --Celestianpower ^hab 16:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Run with it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Base stats are used (to some extent) on the cards. For example, Chansey cards will always have 120 HP, since its HP base stat is so high.

Plus, the Game Boy games are what spawned all those other things, so I believe their information have a little more merit than the rest. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

A link to the Wikibook gives all of this info, plus removes the temptation to duplicate other encyclopedic info (lists of TCG appearances, movelists, breeding groups, etc.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your point? We'd still have duplication in that we list height, weight, type and species. That stuff is also at Wikibooks.

Duplication is not necessarily a bad thing with things that are static like these (they change every 3 years at worst). Base stats serve a valid purpose in unambiguously explaining a POKéMONs potential strength, relative to other POKéMON. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Height, weight, type, and species are all comprehensible to a lay reader, or explicated with links. (Personally, I think we could lose type and species, too, frankly, but I'm pretty exclusionist.) Blocks of unexplicated game stats are not comprehensible to a lay reader, or even a significant portion of readers who are already familiar with the basics of the subject. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Base stats could also be explained with links - it just isn't at the current moment. Therefore, your argument seems flawed to me.

We already have an article on STAB, so why not have an article called Base Stat (or alternatively, Base Stat (Pokémon or Pokémon Base Stat)? --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't take out the stats section, and even less if they were to be replaced for "Notable trainers of this Pokémon"; I think this is even more irrelevant for most of the Pokémon than their stats. Leptictidium

I have now implemented my new template in the Pikachu article. What do people think? --Celestianpower ^hab 20:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think highly of it. Almafeta 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you don't like? If it's the ommission of stats then that can just be added. By the Way, I've added it also to Scyther also for comparison purposes. I won't do any more until a consensus to do this is reached. BTW, A Man inBlack said go ahead so I did but only provisionally. I'll revert it if its not what we want. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reguarding STAB, I really think we should have one article about the game boy Pokémon battle system, including STAB and a few other pokéstubs -- this is one instance where STAB would be best understood in context.Almafeta 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I already merged STAB into Pokémon damage formula earlier today. Personally I think the whole deal belongs on b:Pokemon, but STAB was of absolutely no use with no context.

Incidentally, I'm thinking Notable Trainers was probably a bad idea. I think First Appearances (with Game, Anime, Manga, and Card Game) would probably be a better idea. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as a side note: If you think all the content of the pages should be moved to Wikibooks, a projected dedicated to making Wikipedia's coverage of Pokémon better is probably not a good place for you to be... Almafeta 11:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Alfameta, please don't make personal attacks and be civil. I actually agree that just raw stats on their own don't mean all that much to the majority of people. I don't really understand myself. I mean, in the games, the stats change as the pokémon gains levels and is given tablets (protein ...etc...) so when are these stats taken? --Celestianpower ^hab 11:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

They are used for calculating the actual stats. The formulae are

S t a t = (((B a s e S t a t * 2 + I V + E V / 4) * L e v e l) / 100 + 5) * P e r s o n a l i t y

and

H P = (((B a s e S t a t * 2 + I V + E V / 4) * L e v e l) / 100) + L e v e l + 10

. ^{(see Trainer's Guide)}

IV (Individual Value) is determined upon capture, and EV (Effort Value or Stat Exp.) is gained by battling or through vitamins. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just fairly exclusionist. I personally think that Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily be a repository of all the Pokémon-related knowledge in the world; I just think that Pokémon is an encyclopedic topic and most of the related articles are in disgraceful condition. Let's take advantage of the fact that Wikipedia allows for easy crosslinking into Wikibooks (and the fact that we already have an excellent Pokémon Wikibook in the form of b:Pokémon.

I'm aware WP:PAC was formed to defend the stubs of the individual Pokémon, and, heck, I'm glad to be proven wrong after being the first to vote to merge those stubs. It's just that, with the completion of that project, PAC needs to inherit the work of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav in expanding the worthy articles and merging, transwiking, or, yes, deleting the cruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Scyther has been changed to be a test of Pidgeot's pecentile rank stat box, and I'm in the process of rewriting Kyogre, including a switch to the new infobox (and probably the only mention yet of Jewish philosophy in a Pokémon article}. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Current test articles of the new infobox are Pikachu, Jynx (Pokémon), and Kyogre. You can see (or use!) the infobox at Template:pokeinfobox, and an explanation of how to use it is at Template:pokeinfoboxexplained (which is a template so it can go onto how-to and talk pages as necessary.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon TCG

Heya... recently, I've been playing the Pokémon TCG game for the GB. (My first time I played it, I beat it, in 2 hours 23 minutes, in one sitting... so there wasn't much replay value for a few years.)

Anyhow, the GB game includes some special 'promo' cards unique to the game boy game, some of which has Pokédex information that's not included in another game that I can see. However, the game was made by Hudson, not Nintendo.

My question: Is information from cards in the Pokémon TCG video game considered canon? Almafeta 06:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the game was co-developed by Nintendo, so it would be canon. Of course, I don't have my game available right now, but I'll check ASAP.

That said, since we're more concerned about expanding them to a non-stub level, we don't really need the info from those cards yet. All of those POKéMON have 10 entries as it is (if I count correctly), so there should be plenty to write about. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 07:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd consider it canon. Let's face it, Pokemon is messed up. If you look at the game pokedex entries for Jigglypuff, it often says that it mesmerizes opponents with its eyes as part of its sleep song. However, in the show it often puts people to sleep who can't possibly be looking at its eyes (all the way across town in its debut episode). Canon appears to contradict itself all over the place, and the best thing to do is just serve it up hot and let the reader decide what to believe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, technically, the DEX says Jigglypuff uses its eyes to make sure it has your attention, and then sings to make you fall asleep. So if you're paying any attention to the song (most people probably would be, since they're not used to hearing it), you'll fall asleep. That also explains why the trainers don't fall asleep in a battle - they're paying attention to the battle, not the song. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright and the Pokédex entries

Something brought up in an unsigned comment on Talk:Pikachu... (I made that comment. --RealWingus)

Aren't the verbatim transcripts of the Pokédex entries copyvios, in addition to being an indiscriminate collection of information, like lists or repositories of loosely associated topics? This seems like an easy enough thing to fix with regards to both problems, just by rephrasing and rewriting the Pokedex entries and incorporating them into the body of the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is considered fair use to quote one or two sentences from a book. I am of the opinion that the same applies here. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's arguable that the pokédex entries here can be fair use. And when it's 'arguable', it's safest to not include it until you're sure. That's why I've been putting paraphrased entries (sans redundancy) under the "biology" section of each artile I've expanded. Almafeta 15:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

(And I'm not responding to Pidgeot here, we posted at almost the same time... ^^;) Almafeta 15:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If the thousands of copyrighted screen caps, artworks, and cover scans of books/cds/software/movies/etc are considered fair use, I see absolutely no reason that a brief sentence from a game wouldn't be considered fair use as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not as much a matter of copyright for me as a matter of style. Even if it is OK for us to repeat the Pokedex entries, I think it is much more appealing for the reader to see a cohesive piece of text that weaves the information provided from the Pokedex entries, rather than a bunch of ten short sentences that often overlap and repeat each other. Besides, there's no challenge in just copying and pasting data; it's the presentation where we should make a difference from other sources of information! In fact, I would dearly like to convert all "Pokedex" sections in Pokemon articles to "Biology" sections if I was certain I wouldn't offend anyone in the process. Do you think that would be OK? Sinistro 16:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Whenever I look at WP:PR or WP:FAC, they suggest that Trivia lists be deleted, with reasons similar to these. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! Prose IMO is always better than just a list. On another note (and I'll probably get laughed at for this), is it an idea to create a Pokémon WikiPortal? There's now 3 different projects (WP:PAC, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex) all trying to essentially do the same thing: Improve Pokémon coverage on Wikipedia. Many people will think it's just "fancruft" but there's a pornography wikiportal, a chess wikiportal and even a Middle-earth wikiportal and I think Middle-earth is just as important as Middle-earth in terms of culture and what there is to write. If this is a bad idea then just shoot me and I'll shut up. --Celestianpower ^hab 16:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of a portal, BUT keep in mind that both Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex seem to be pretty much abandoned/inactive at present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note that Pokénav is a subproject of Pokédex, and those two projects have been idle for months. And, for what it's worth, Pokémon is an encyclopedic subject, but doesn't have the cultural or literary impact of Middle Earth, at least, in English-speaking nations.

That said, maybe it's time to turn WP:PAC into a proper WikiProject, and taking on some of the tasks (such as making a WikiPortal) of same. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Since Scyther is the whipping boy lately, I put a {{poke-cleanup}} tag with a commented-out note not to remove it until the Pokédex quotes have been paraphrased (and the introduction has been rewritten, since I'm stumped with that). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added some text about what to do to the template itself. Also, I'm unclear, does your last post say that a WikiPortal is a good idea? --Celestianpower ^hab 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be happy to start one up if that's what we want. --Celestianpower ^hab 16:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A WikiPortal would be a good idea, but at the same time there's a lot of articles that need some love before or at the same time as taking on any new projects, that's all. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ack! I've reverted, as {{poke-cleanup}} is on a variey of articles, not all of them about individual Pokémon species.

It might be a good idea to make a version of {{poke-cleanup}} with a reason parameter, though. In the meantime, I was using commented-out comments. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We should make a "What to do if..." page and link the template there probably. --Celestianpower ^hab 16:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, that numbered list and the PACFAQ seem like they'd be a good start for a Pokémon Style Guide. Someone should start a draft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done. See here. --Celestianpower ^hab 17:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to check Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Next, where I have already made a proposal that could easily turn into a WikiPortal. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:19, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Next step: Cleanup

Since almost all of the stubs have been expanded to articles, it's time to take a look at the articles and start getting them up to encyclopedic, cleaned-up shape. (This is setting aside the issue of expanding articles about Pokémon subjects that are not themselves Pokémon species.)

Some random thoughts...

The infobox may need revising. This is discussed above.
Trivia/Pokédex lists need to be incorporated into the body of the article.
Likewise, quote lists (which I've seen in a couple articles) belong on Wikiquote.
The introductions are often woefully incomprehensible to a reader who isn't already familiar with Pokémon.
Some of the articles still have cutesy color tags. These need to be removed.
Remove egg groups, TM/HM compatability, other things considered too technical.
~~Change the pronunciations to IPA style~~

Anyone notice any other standing issues? Feel free to add your own thoughts to the list above. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Too often, I see lists of TM/HM compatability and egg groups. How on earth is a lay reader supposed to know what those are? --Celestianpower ^hab 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree in regards to TM/HM compatability, but egg groups might be useful. It's quite simple to explain, and could easily just go into the infobox. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The egg groups might be relevant, since they seem to be the 'genus' to the individual species. I'd say egg move lists, move tutor lists, TM/HM compatability lists, and trainer lists are all too in-depth. Almafeta 20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, we could probably get a bot to clean out all the color tags... Almafeta 20:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Moving over to a new template infobox will do the job for us, since the old infobox is a raw table cut and pasted into each article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I went from Treecko to Deoxys (National Pokédex order) and removed all the cutesy colours in the infoboxes. --RealWingus 04:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting something. I added the switchover to the IPA pronunciation, which is long overdue. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You could probably do away with that line entirely. I mean, how often will someone actually use it? Keeping it at its current 'english-esque' system won't be helpful, but changing to IPA will just be just as unhelpful and will require Unicode support. Almafeta 20:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. I'll do that. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal launched!

Right, I went ahead and did it! I have now created the Pokémon Wikiportal. Find it here. Please expand it and do what you like to it and nominate collaborations of the Week. --Celestianpower ^hab 18:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sweet! :D --RealWingus 03:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Reclaiming Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex

Wikiproject Pokédex is moribund, and half of the people on the roll call list haven't edited in months. Likewise, the Pokédex's Wikipedia: namespace pages are stale.
Since WP:PAC has begun to expand away from simply expanding the Pokémon species stubs, I propose that the Wikiproject page be reclaimed and updated, with new style info and current projects, which would serve the dual purposes of overtly reviving that project and turning this from an ad-hoc VFD rescue effort to a proper WikiProject. Is there any significant objection to doing this?
In the meantime, note that I've invited the non-fled users from the Pokédex roll call to come and contribute to WP:PAC. I'm not sure why nobody's done that before, unless they have and I didn't notice. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sonic Mew has created Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Are we going to use this (its not a proper wikiproject) or reclaim the Wikiproject pokedex? --Celestianpower ^hab 15:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Taking over the old Wikiproject, as far as I can tell, just involves going over there and updating the page and linking the in-progress tasks from that page. It's not like there's a formal process or anything, and I doubt anyone will object to cleaning out, updating, and crosslinking that page. It hasn't been touched in months. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my guideline for these things: Don't make a change you don't need to. PAC is doing just fine as is... if we start trying to build a Poképortal, reclaim WP:Pokédex, et multiple cetera, we'll just start to divide those of us who have just really begun to come together. We'll also start dividing our attentions, which won't help make good articles. I'd rather just stay here, and change our goals once we have all the pokémon species articles done. (Celestianpower has a very good list at Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Adoption Center/Next...) Almafeta 19:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a good point.

Maybe the best idea is just to dismantle the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex pages and add links to our own resources. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it is that we have 3 options:

To stay here.
To move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex
To move to the new Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaboration Project

No, I believe so long as we only do one of these, we'll be fine. Resources/people will stay together in one place and I think it is basically a matter of name. I believe that we should take up the WP:PCP because its similar to what we have here but seeing as we are no longer adopting pokémon, a pokémon adoption centre seems silly. The issue with reconstituting the WikiProject is thus: What are we going to do with the things that are there already? Archive them? I also thinkl that a WikiProject is just too formal. At the moment, I think that we have 7 dedicated users to our cause (without trying to put words into peoples mouths and in no particular order):

Almafeta
A Man In Black
Pidgeot
Starblind
Me
Sinistro
RealWingus

As we have seen by the response to this "project", we can see that it doesn't need to be a WikiProject to be well-attended (and also 200+ stubs in 2 months isn't bad ;)!) Whatever happens, I think it unlikely that these users will stop pokébuting so it isn't all that important really. BTW, If you und4erstood what I was just saying, you're a better man (or woman) than I am. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Also, Alfameta, the WikiPortal isn't necessarily to do with improvement of articles but navigation. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Pokébuting? *laughs* We are such unabashed dorks.

Like Celestianpower said, I'm talking about reclaiming the pages and marking them as depreciated and fixing the links or moving operations over there, not splitting this project. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved some bloat, but didn't want to stifle discussion

I moved both of the discussions about merging the Gym Leader stubs to archive as this page was getting pretty large, but I don't want to be stifling discussion. I still invite everyone to Talk:List of Johto Gym Leaders to discuss (not) merging the Gym Leader stubs into lists, especially since right now it's just Celestianpower, a passer-by, and me who've commented. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EPok%C3%A9mon_Adoption_Center_Archive2_b5a9.html"

Category: Wikipedia talk archives