Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Archiving

Noticed the page was getting longer that perfered and archived it. Feel free to restore anything needed. I kept FFA and "Things to do until Saturday". Alvin6226 talk 02:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time for another archive? It's been only a little over two weeks, and already this page is at 180 kilobytes long; The reason I'm bringing this up instead of waiting silently is that my dial-up-connection browser is actually struggling to fully open up this page. And to be frank, some sections are really cluttered. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Future Focus Articles

Next Pokémon Creature Article

They should both be good articles, it would be strange if one was good and the other wasn't. Minun (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just point out any problems with this article and I'll help you fix them. Minun (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just point out any problems in this article Minun (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Merge "Appearance" with intro, cleanup the videogames, prose TCG, expand anime. If you check Eevee, a Rapidash appears in the same manga chapter, it has the same plot has the Rapidash race. Yeah, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to do most of it, but there was a few parts I had trobule with. I hope my editing helps. Minun (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly interesting vandalism... Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverted, it's been sitting like that a week. The IP's been doing it to various articles, but he got reverted. But never warned. He is now the owner of a final warning, since I'm not in the charitable mood. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about the manga, but I would be happy to help with the TCG section. Minun (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, just point out any problems again. Minun (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that page had a rather small amount of content. I'm improving parts of it, but I need help on the sections focusing on Paras' role in the Pokémon things I'm not into(the anime, manga, and card game) --RandomOrca2 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think that should be our next focused article Minun (マイナン) 10:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It lacks everything, should be our next focused article Minun (マイナン) 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and reformatted the sections to meet the PCP standards. --Chuchunezumi 08:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
how's that, i did everything i could in reference to the game and anime, i don't much else about the rest of it, i'll see if i can add some media related stuff Zappernapper 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Chikorita with all the focus on starters i would think people would have mentioned this earlier. -Zappernapper 18:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Haunter lacks a "In the video games" section.
fixed the sections, but still needs a lot of rewriting. -Zappernapper 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Gengar needs a manga section, but i don't read them, can anyone else put something in? -Zappernapper 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Natu: Enough of a stub that it might have used the old Pokemon Adoption Center treatment twice. I'll give this my style of treatment shortly. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Natu has been pampered, more or less. Now someone should insert that Pokestart template to the top of the page. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Gyarados: The video games section gives me a headache! Uses many abbreviated obscure terms (to beginners) to describe game strategy in detail. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yanma Has almost no references, stubbish sections, and dind't even have pokestart until I added it...--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Update

Did an update of all the noted articles, so people can fix what's wrong without having to ask what's wrong. If you complete something, just strike it out. Highway Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Blaziken - Rewrite characteristics, cover May's Torchic-->Combusken-->Blaziken (all the info can be found in the prior articles). Copy video games prose from Combusken. Referencing all round, Highway Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Houndoom - remove original research on design, merge controversy and appearance into the introduction. Split the intro into 3 paragraphs. Remove POV game guide remarks from video games, describe its availbity, change the Biology section title. Expand anime section, add generic headers for TCG and anime. Change the TCG to prose, check Serebii for manga appearances. Highway Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Venonat - implement {{Pokestart}}, expand on Koga's (or his assisstant's) Venonant, and expand greatly on Tracey's. Again, check the manga for Venonat, and rewrite the TCG section. Remove original research from Biology, and add better descriptions of Venonat locations. Highway Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Treecko - Write content on Ash's Treecko-->Grovyle-->Sceptile, and Wally's Treecko-->Grovyle. Highway Daytrippers 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Shuppet - Implement {{Pokestart}}, move appearance description to intro, fix the name etymology. Add the sectional headers for anime and TCG, check Ivysaur for them. Check manga for Shuppet appearances, and check Psypoke's Deck Dex for TCG appearances. Reference the Pokédex, the locations bit at Psypokes, and check Max (Pokémon) for more about its anime appearance. Highway Daytrippers 07:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Next Miscellaneous Article

I reommend choosing Max as the next focus article. Thoughts? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Other Mishaps? This article might need some help. Alvin6226 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that's Max (Pokémon) (obviously). And come to think of it, even Poké Ball and Team Aqua and Team Magma need help. Thoughts?? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 07:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Max (Pokémon) needs the borrowed Pokémon section removed, and lots more cleanup, so it would thus be good as a miscellena next article--XenoNeon (converse) 11:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Make sure the ugly table of Pokémon is replaced with prose! Please! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The Pokémon character articls are now being taken care of by WP:PAC2, so we should be taking a non-character article. How about Poké Ball or Glitch City?? The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 07:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that Pokemon Ranger should be our next focus.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not do a speculative article if we can at all avoid it. Poké Ball needs a lot of love, Max (Pokémon) needs work despite the presence of WP:PAC2. and all of the glitches still need to be collapsed into a single article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
WHAT?! If the glitches are merged, we need to transwiki the original articles somewhere else. Okay, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia, but they're very informative for people who want to exploit the glitches. And they're much better than their Bulbapedia counterparts. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Even Pokémon trainer needs a lot of work. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) The aforementioned article just needs some heavyhanded deletion. The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, lets just all point out all the problems with the article, this way we can find out which is most important, and we can help fix the article. Minun (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
was anyone even aware of this scary thing? i'm not even sure it really deserves it's own page. I'm tempted to speedy delete it unless someone out there thinks they can turn it into something resebling an article. Zappernapper 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Things to do until Saturday

  • Pokémon is a disorganized, bloated mess. Still. It may be a good idea to follow the German WP's lead in structure.
  • Pokémon (video games) is about half bulleted lists by weight. It needs a massive rewrite and decrufting.
  • Pokémon (anime) is three-quarters bulleted lists by weight, and is entirely lacking in useful structure. It's one of the most influential anime series of the 1990s and this is all we can do for it?
  • Pokémon The Electric Tale of Pikachu! and Pokémon Adventures are little better than stubs. I know we have some fans of at least the latter, reading the Chuang Yi localization; can't we do better than this?
  • Category:Pokémon images is full of unsourced and orphaned images. Source the images you can, tag the ones you can't with {{subst:nsd}}
  • The Pokémon episode articles are disgraceful. The trivia, goofs, alternate names, and first appearances all need to go immediately and the plot summaries need to be summaries and not novelizations; eventually, these probably need to be boiled down and merged to a list.
  • The members of the Elite Four still aren't merged.
  • Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire is probably a couple hours with of prose polishing and source hunting away from good article status. (C'mon, it's the best-selling GBA game ever.) It'd be nice to have a GA that was a thing that exists in the real world.
  • Satoshi Tajiri, Game Freak, Genius Sonority, The Pokémon Company, and Ken Sugimori are stubs. Creatures Inc. is ONE LINE. That's disgraceful.
  • Pokémon Trading Card Game is a trainwreck, full of unwikified textdumps, scattered trivia with little context, big ugly bulleted lists, and little info to contextualize, explain, or describe the best-selling CCG for years and years.
  • Great work is being done at Poké Ball, but more input and more hands are needed.

There's plenty to do while we wait for verification of reports on Diamond and Pearl, and most of it is more important than writing a stub about Chimecho's new evolution, wouldn't you say? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging by this list it shows that Lucario and Manaphy both have pre-evolutions. Showing that they are not Legendary. Should we make note of this? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I guess, when we have a source better than a filb.de forum post. I'm just saying that there are both critical cleanup tasks to do and important topics that are sorely neglected, all of which are more important than rushing to cover the very latest factoids from the very latest game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
We might wait on that until Serebii finishes his overview of the games. Diamond and Pearl may be violating some of the traditions followed in past games. Seeing as, Dialga and Palkia are not at the end of the Pokédex like the previous legends were, it is very possible that Manaphy and Lucario are the first legends that have previous forms. The Hybrid 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Also, they have their own movies that do put them across as legends.
Manaphy is, Lucario isn't. The Hybrid

Cleaning up the episode articles

Speaking of which, I'm removing the trivia, alternate-language names, dub edits, goofs, continuity gaffes, extra images, and any other junk from the episode articles. This is leaving a trail of plot-summary-only stubs in my wake, unfortunately, but these articles are awful, and need some help immediately.

The next step is to see about structure for merging them. Anyone want to help? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the only articles that should be merged rather than deleted are the episodes where Ash gets a badge, one of the characters gets or evolves a Pokémon, or a character (re)joins or leaves the group. Maybe the banned episodes should stay. Of course, all of this needs to be discussed before any moves are made.
  • It would probably be best to merge them by season, seeing as a general article would be huge. Another possibility is to separate them by the major event(s) of the story, if the majority agrees with me about what should be merged. A list of banned episodes already exists with synopses, so that could work as a template, and save the trouble of creating that article with completely new summaries of the episodes. The Hybrid 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seasons are probably best, yeah. Just so you know, I'm planning on merging any article without any source of third-party commentary in reliable sources, regardless of how important it is in the anime. This neatly sidesteps arguing about whose favorite episode does or doesn't get merged; it's either important in the real world or it goes in the list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand. In my opinion, no episodes should get their own articles, and only the notable ones should be on the list. Aside from this, it may be too tempting for anons who have a lot of time on their hands to summarize every single episode on the lists, and if we have the Mantine episode summarized on the list(my favorite :), they have a good point in asking why the Puzzle of Pokémopolis and Pinkan island episodes cannot be as well. (If you look around you'll see I have had bad experiences with both of those places; I still have seizures from time-to-time.) A little bit of confrontation here may save a many confrontations in the future. The Hybrid 05:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
there's absolutely no reason we can't list a meaningless episode, giving it's name, japanese translation and number (air date if possible) like that which is already found at List of Pokémon episodes. Hybrid, feel free to read the topic #Rhapsody in_drew_deletion was not good.... to see the the previous, lengthy, discussion on this. AMIB, that sounds like a fine solution - so that will of course include articles of the banned, edited sort? Does Pokémon, I choose you! remain important enough to keep it's own page? If anything, even if there was no big buzz about that episode, it was the one which started the poke-anime craze. oh and does ne1 know y on the List they have the numbering for american episodes starting at 2?-Zappernapper 14:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is due to English version numbering being the order in which the episodes were aired on the WB and later CN. Later reruns in English restored the proper order. This was stated in the first sentence of the article. kelvSYC 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Banned" articles are probably best off in the banned articles list, since this list will probably be a lot terser. Pokémon, I Choose You! gets its own article if and only if someone can say something about it that isn't plot summary. It wasn't even the first episode aired in English. (That was Pokémon Emergency, I believe.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to play devil's advocate here. Series that are shorter such as Futurama or Family Guy (or even more convincingly, Xiaolin Showdown) have articles for individual episodes. It can be argued that Pokémon is more notable than any of these series, and so Pokémon deserves to have individual articles for episodes. Having said that, some of these concerns are valid - we don't really need to list all the Pokémon that appear in an episode - in Entei at Your Own Risk, the entirety of Ash's team is featured, but four out of the six team members didn't do anything other help Ash escape from being trapped in a container by ramming the door (and in the end, Noctowl didn't help them escape), and even still, Phanpy was only featured in the following scene (where it battled and was subdued). We don't need goofs in continuity due to the series being highly episodic. I've always had an aversion to trivia sections, but other useful stuff such as notable content edits could still remain in the article - even Pokémon Heroes had a substantial content edit. The problem with what I see is that Pokémon is a long series, and to create 500-odd articles will take a long time. While merging episodes may be a good idea in the short term, we'd eventually have to undo them as the series becomes longer. I suggest that important plot-moving episodes should be done first, then the disconnected episodic ones later. In particular, we should have summaries of, these episodes as soon as we can, due to their character-defining moments:

  • Go West, Young Meowth
  • Pallet Party Panic
  • Gotta Catch Ya Later
  • A Poached Ego
  • All Things Bright and Beautifly

Articles on invididual episodes regardless of series are by definition not of a very high quality (compare any existing article with, say, the article on the latest episode of The Simpsons), unless it was the pilot, finale, jumping the shark moment, important plot point, or it created massive public attention, or anything of the like. It's the same argument as to why we keep articles on individual Pokémon - we just simply can't get it to anything remotely feature article quality (Bulbasaur notwithstanding), but just as each Pokémon is sufficiently notable within the context of something that is itself notable, articles on individual episodes are sufficiently notable within the context of something that is itself notable (recall that Pokémon is notable also for its lengthy run as well as its association with, well, Pokémon).

kelvSYC 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Simpsons and Futurama and Family Guy and Xiaolin Showdown have individual episode articles.

Now, try reading one. Here's one: North by North Quahog. Here's another example: Battle Pyramid! VS Regirock! when an anon was reverting my cleanup.

That's why I think we should steer away from that. They're useless piles of ever-more-detailed plot summary and lame trivial cruft. Plus, you're proposing a standard that is going to lead to never-ending arguments about what episodes are "character-defining," since any episode that features someone's favorite minor character is by definition going to be character-defining for that minor character.

We can't even keep all of the Pokémon articles clear of crap, despite a project having existed for years focusing on little more than just that. It's good work and it should continue, but getting in fights over hundreds and hundreds of episode articles (and for every episode there's a fan willing to fight for it and say it's important or character-defining or whatever standard we set) is a hopeless boondoggle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe that the dub edits, other languages, and extra images should go away. But the trivia and goofs should be okay. Just need to be cleanedup.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The trivia and goof emphatically aren't okay. They're random things spotted in the episodes by fans, the lamest kind of original research. If a fact is truly important, mention it in the brief plot summary. If it's not important, why are we including it in an encyclopedic overview? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :*laughs at "boondoggle"* i wonder who would say that Lights, Camerupt, Action! would be "character-defining".... neways, i think a point needs to be made that at least shows of series like Simpsons, Family Guy, and Soth Park consistently deal with issues that can be discussed in an encyclopedic fashion, additionally these shows tend to maintain a strong continuity so discussing the views they express and continuity errors makes sense. Pokemon cannot make this case no matter how hard anyone tries, especially of the later episodes. Futurama's kind of iffy due to the fact you could discuss the way each episode portrays a futuristic world a la Star Trek - making commentary on current affairs affecting the future (giant garbage ball threatens to decimate Earth), but they're pushing it, and Xiolin Showdown should not have a complete episode guide - we shouldn't follow bad examples. I still see no reason why we can't maintain simple tabular lists that summarize the stories like in my sandbox. btw i updated the episode page here for those of you who've already seen it. AMIB - the first episode's cultural impact is that it was the first episode, it was the first one i saw and was what got me interested in the first place - this is true of several other people i'm sure, and what began the fad (of course few fads i know of are listed in two seperate decades...). KelvSYC, there have actually been three (?) FA that were on individual pokemon, Pikachu and Torchic, not just Bulbasaur. The reason each species was granted its own article was because it was decided that encyclopedic content could be written on each one see WP:POKEMON for the nitty gritty - encyclopedic content cannot be written on each episode of pokemon, they're too episodic like AMIB said for conitunuity errors to be anything other than cruft, and very few of them deal with any cultural issues (most notably there are episodes that deal with environmental issues, and child-rearing options). To me the only ones worth giving special treatment to are those that were banned, if only to discuss the reasons they were banned in detail, and give references. For example with the Jynx episode, we could discuss who specifically had an issue with it, and what they said in any press releases. -Zappernapper 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
ummm.... btw, i don't think merging them will be an issue, there are already pages at List of Pokémon Original Series episodes, List of Pokémon Advanced Generation episodes, and even List of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl episodes. It looks like most of what we've been watning done has already been there, just a pain to try and find :) -Zappernapper 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
L,C,A! is character defining for...uh...Ask's Torkoal! (Personally, I don't think Family Guy or Futurama should have episode guides on Wikipedia either, but that's neither here nor there.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
i'm inclined to agree... they push it a little, save for the fact that family guy consistently tends to do something controversial. we need to start WikiTV.org for these people. -Zappernapper 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we get back to Pokémon, please.
  • To address the question that was posted after I logged off, the reason we cannot summarize every single episode is because the articles on the seasons would be HUGE, there is almost no way to organize those into good-sized articles.
  • The first episode is notable because it is the first episode.
  • We cannot have articles on every individual episode because Pokémon is far more prone to vandalism than any of the series mentioned; try to keep those 450+ articles free of vandalism with our little group of 50 people. That is why we don't have individual articles for every episode, we have a hard enogh time as it is.
  • If we follow my plan, which it sounds like we aren't, and it is a one paragraph summary for each notable episode, then the articles will still be rather large, but they will be managable. See first bullet-point for why to keep non-notable episodes out, aside from the non-notability.
  • I have no problem with listing episode TITLES; it is summarizing them that creates a problem. The Hybrid 00:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean important. It means "sufficiently noteworthy to have independent commentary in reliable sources", and "Pokémon, I Choose You!" just doesn't cut it, since the only commentary is on fansites (not exactly reliable) or plot synoses (not exactly useful commentary). If every episode has two-three sentences, we could easily split things up by season. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes my point for me. If the first episode of one of the most influential animes in American history isn't notable enough to summarize in an article, then why should other episodes less profound than that one be summarized as well. I did the math, if we have three sentences for every episode, plus another two line for episode dividers, that comes out to 475 lines in the article on the first season, plus the intro and the other sections. When you edit this page next, hit enter 475 times, that is a lot of space (I did it). Besides, are ANY Pokémon episodes outlined on non-fansites? By that logic, no episode is notable, but some are important. We are finally doing what has needed to be done for a long time; lets get it right. Rather than having three sentence summaries for every episode that maybe one person cares about as well as the important ones, lets have full, well written, eight sentence paragraphs for the important episodes and let Serebii handle the unimportant episodes. The Hybrid 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Two-three sentences = one-two lines. It really won't be as bad as it seems, really. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
...waitaminute, I just did that math. I was thinking US airing seasons, ~13 or so episodes, not Japanese-style series, which is where you're getting your 95 episodes an article. No, we will not be having synopses for 100 or so episodes in each article, that won't work. I was thinking of breaking it up smaller than that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu, I Choose You could also use its own article, as it is the first episode of the series. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And what do you plan to put in that article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
the name of the episode is actually Pokémon, I Choose You, but that's a comon misconception. and other sites exist which give synopsis of episodes, such as tv.com - but that's not the point. so you want something to put in a "Reaction" section? how about reviews from Amazon? lol it was put onto a DVD you know.... i'm done for today, will be logging on tomorrow.... g'night. -Zappernapper 01:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We have an article at Pokémon, I Choose You!. It's terrible.

There's just nothing to say about it. There's no critical reception, no controversy, just plain nothing in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ach!2 edit conflicts... Anyways, I think that we should just merge them by season, and have a "Main article" thingy for the major episodes (badge, evolution of Pokémon, or a character (re)joins or leaves the group), the kind of episodes that A Man in Black said. Alvin6226 talk 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! I don't want articles for those. Absolutely, positively, unequivically not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I guess that is my opinion then. But am also fine with the merge by seasons without seperate major episode articles, because my way would be a lot more work.. Alvin6226 talk 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Three questions will the images be back on the episode lists or will they be deleted, or will they be on the separate episode page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yugigx60 (talk • contribs).

Probably deleted, and there won't be separate episode pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


"::::No, no, no! I don't want articles for those. Absolutely, positively, unequivically not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

    • How says that you have the authority on what we can and can not do (pages).. We as contributors can do want we want (expect vandalizing) so if we want to do episode pages that have the (badge, evolution of Pokémon, or a character (re)joins or leaves the group).

Hey if you'll want to work on (badge, evolution of Pokémon, or a character (re)joins or leaves the group) pages you can. (72.177.68.38 13:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC))



    • Please keep the images, all (most)of the other anime episode lists have images:

So if other animeepisode pages have images, why can't the Pokemon series??


For:

  • Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments (1). Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles.
  • Screenshots of television shows which are released for promotional purposes are more likely to be fair use, especially low-resolution screenshots.
  • Many lists, including featured lists, currently use fair use images.
  • Most if not all images comply with the current fair use criteria, are tagged with relevant templates (such as {{DVDcover}} or {{tv-screenshot}}) and provide a rationale on their description page.

(72.177.68.38 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

That would be a long answer, but seeing as no episodes have their own articles anymore, the answer isn't important. 71.223.40.167 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudovote

As much as I detest voting (and none of this "support" and "oppose" header BS), it seems we have a lot of people who'd prefer foo but are happy to accept bar, so we need to either accept or shoot down a proposal.

I propose we merge the Pokémon episode articles to list articles that cover between a dozen and two-dozen episodes per article (with structure to be figured out when we figure it out), covering individual episodes in individual articles only when they have sufficient independent coverage in third-party reliable sources.

Yea or nay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea. Alvin6226 talk 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Question. Exactly how many episodes make up one season? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the particular season, see Serebii for the exact numbers of each series. Note, most ENGLISH airing series are ~13 episodes long, I forgot about that before. [2]
In any case, sorting by season would be simplest. It would be nauseating if we starting naming articles "List of Pokemon episodes 21-40". --Brandon Dilbeck 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That does sound bad; what do you propose? The Hybrid
My opinion has been stated many times, but just for the record, Nay. The Hybrid 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just read your respose to my comment above, I can live with that. Yea. NOTE: I still think that no episode should get its own article. The Hybrid 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That's basically the plan. The only episode that might have its own article would be Electric Soldier Porygon, but even that is covered, in depth, in other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If any episode were to get its own article that would definatly be the one. Wonderful, I'm sorry I delayed this so long because I misunderstood you; at least it is all sorted out now. The Hybrid 05:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No sweat. I just want to make sure that everyone's on the same page and is behind merging these, because a lot of anons (nevermind Ragnaroknike (talk • contribs)) aren't going to be happy about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm behind it 100%. The Hybrid
Yeah. -De Nam 11:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: shorter anime series have half-decent articles on individual episodes. Shorter live-action series have half-decent articles on individual episodes. Futurama, IIRC, was a case where individual episode articles were made, and then merged, then split again due to length. To say that it can't be done is to say that the people here would rather not contribute to such an endeavor - in which case anons and the like will come and make individual episode articles anyways, and which their quality will be noticeably worse than those of other Pokémon articles. It doesn't have to be feature-quality (and it rarely is), and it doesn't have to be good. All it needs to be is half-decent. kelvSYC 17:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
yay... yippee... hooray! just because other shows have fans who think wikipedia is an episode guide doesn't mean we should repaet those mistakes. few pokemon shows ever deal with anything controversial or individually make a statement that gets press coverage. each pokemon gets its own article because they are protrayed in enough meadium that discussion on each in a list would prove unwieldly, however the episodes are ONLY in the anime and do not extend anywhere else. You find a news article that talks about an episode and you can have your article. -Zappernapper 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure

This is my own idea for what Brandon mentioned about the article names. We could divide the articles by what badge Ash is going for at the time, and in Hoenn, durring the times that it calls for it, May's quest for the ribbons. We should probably divide the longer ones into two parts, like (just off the top of my head with any truth being complete luck) Pokémon Anime: Quest for Earth Badge A; and Pokémon Anime: Quest for Earth Badge B. Some renaming is probably in order, but that is my opinion, let me know how you all feel. The Hybrid 05:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd really rather use a real-world structure, rather than one based on the fictional events. The English-language broadcast seasons are an idea, if it's something we can figure out somehow (and if it was indeed a usual length; new episodes may have been running out of season). I really, really, really don't want to cut titles from whole cloth, to the point where I'd prefer Pokémon anime episodes 21-40. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dividing them by when Ash gets badges would cause uneven lists—Ash gets his first 3 badges in the first 15 or so episodes. Let's just divide them by season. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So, let's get cracking. Does anyone know when the NA broadcast seasons begin and end? It's abritrary, but it's something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing it from that point of view I have to agree, but we should let some other people who are asleep right now comment and post ideas seeing as this is a major change. Another thought, what are the AFD risks for these articles? The Hybrid 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The AFD risks are slim to none. There are sufficient people who don't want to see the precedent of an episode article being deleted (as that would lead to deconstruction of a ton of fannish projects) that any episode or episode list article is safe at AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for waiting, I'm just getting preparations ready and figuring out structure, not starting any work on the articles themselves yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The last episode to air in the US was #428 WEEKEND WARRIOR. The Hybrid

Um. So? We're worried about past seasons, in this case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll pay Serebii a vist, brb. The Hybrid

Serebii is useless; it's run by "Don't acknowledge the dub at all" sorts, unfortunately. It may be that much of our work is done for us: List of Pokémon Original Series episodes and the following articles already have about 80% of the work done. We need to ditch all the needless, load-slowing fair-use images, do brief synopses for each ep, and split it by season, but this should save a lot of work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can tell from Serebii's lists when they end, but if the work is done, great! The Hybrid

Sorry I can't stick around, but I must go to bed. I'll return tomorrow. The Hybrid 06:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this help in any way?? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
i actaully found that last night when i was trying to find something to put in a "Reaction/Impact" paragraph for Pokemon, I choose you. it uses the same split up that tv.com uses and a few other sites that don't use the consecutive numbering system. i think it would be a good guide for how to split up the articles. one other possibility is using serebii's model of grouping the episodes by region (Kanto, Orange Islands, Johto, Master Quest - Whirl Islands/Johto, Hoenn, Battle Frontier - Kanto, Shin'Ou), the only reason i'm suggestig this is that this is how the series airs in its native format and in the interests of having a global encyclopedia (not a western hemisphere one) it makes sense. as for episodes worthy of articles i think Beauty and the Beach along with the Safari Zone episode should be included because the former was severely cut due to James having breasts - the crossdressing has been a sore topic with religious groups and censors (noted on Pokémon (anime)'s refs), and the latter was specifically banned for its use of guns - causing severe continuity errors, even for Pokemon. Additionally, having a synopsis for Jynx's episodes would be useful for discussing it's controversy, readers are likely to want to know specifically how Jynx was characterisitically protrayed if it was accused of blackface and "improper relations" with Brock (as in The Ice Cave!). and yes i know The Ice Cave! is sad right now. -Zappernapper 17:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
We've discussed this before (see 2 sections up first, and then the section above this one), articles based off of the Series would be too long (475 lines for Kanto, plus Intro and other sections. When you respond next, hit enter 475 times to get an idea). We are not going to base it off of American telivised seasons, we are going to do Episodes 1-20, 21-40, ect. The banned episodes are going to be kept in the banned episodes article seeing as it summarizes them, and it adresses the reasons they were banned. We are not going to give ANY episode its own article, aside from MAYBE Electric Soldier Porygon.
  • Note to AMIB: I am good a critiquing ideas and improving them, but when it comes to planning the article creation itself, I really suck. Just tell me what to do and I'll do it; I'm just slowing you down. The Hybrid 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to dive in using the English-language seasons, as they were used for the first-run in most English-speaking countries (US, Canada, UK, and AU I know for certain). If we want to restructure, it won't be a lot of work. I'm going to make {{Pokepisode}}, a template for the list entries, then start restructuring the lists Ragnaroknike (talk • contribs) made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright. It sounds like some things have already been made, could you please link to them so I can see what has already been done, please? The Hybrid 01:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I, uh, haven't done anything yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you type made after Ragnaroknike's comment? The Hybrid
Wait, I get it, nevermind. I make myself feel like an idiot way to often. The Hybrid
I'm gonna shut up now. The Hybrid

Actual progress

  • {{Pokepisode}} is ready to go. I'm going to be implementing it in any article where we're currently using {{Digimon episode}}.
  • List of Pokémon Original Series episodes and List of Pokémon Advanced Generation episodes need prose cleanup, then they're ready to split into seasons, although it's missing the fourth season. I don't know what to do with the opening/closing theme info.
  • All of the old episode screenshots need to be tagged with {{subst:orfud}}.
  • All of the original series and AG series episodes will need to be merged up to their season list and redirected once the season lists are done.
  • I'm going to get started on the rest of the lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And now the AG list is done (or will be before you see this, probably). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be removing the theme music/intro/ending info from the big lists, since it's already at Pokémon theme songs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you include a link? Alvin6226 talk 02:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
From List of Pokémon episodes, sure. I'm going to redirect the "Lists of Pokémon Foo episodes" to List of Pokémon episodes once they've been split. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Pokémon special episodes is completely done, as far as splitting goes. If anyone wants to get started writing an intro, writing plot summaries, or merging episodes, that's one article that doesn't need any more structural work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. The Hybrid 04:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Finished. It needs some spice, but it gets the information across. The Hybrid
Why is "special", when more than half of those are Pokémon Chronicles episodes? You just went and ignored the dub after you said it was such an awful thing! XD Highway Daytrippers 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It would need reformatting to be the Pokémon Chronicles list; several episodes from the regular Japanese run that weren't aired for whatever reason (The Ice Cave, for example) ran as Chronicles eps. Right now, I have my hands full with the greasemonkey work complicated by Ragnaroknike (talk • contribs) and Bobobobowhatever reverting everything. Ryulong (talk • contribs) is helping with the formatting stuff, though.
If you see something that needs doing (like renaming that list and adding the English Chronicles eps) go right ahead. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Heads up: if it's in Category:Lists of Pokémon episodes, it's time to start working on the plot summary and merging standalone episode articles into it. I'm starting on the splits now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have an hour or so before I have to go to bed, I'll help as much as I can. The Hybrid 04:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We've got a bit gap in List of Pokémon Original Series episodes; a chunk of Johto Journeys and all of Johto League Champions is missing. I'm skipping ahead to Master Quest until the gap is filled in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll fill in the gap first, and then I'll take care of Master Quest. I may not respond right away anymore, I have to pay Serebii a visit, or ten. The Hybrid 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I mant JLC, not MC. I'll post the eisode #s and titles on my talk page, I'll let you know when I'm done, then click my red THE. The Hybrid
Add them to List of Pokémon Original Series episodes, using {{Pokepisode}}. It's not a big deal if some info is missing, but name, airdates for the first and last episodes in both Japan and the US, and ep numbers are critical. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright. The Hybrid

Something's come up, I'll have to finish this tomorow. I am 75% done, but I have to go now. See ya. The Hybrid 05:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Split is done

All of the episode lists are more or less split. Since Hybrid went to bed and the original series list was incomplete, I used the somewhat less in-depth table from List of Pokémon episodes as a placeholder.

What's left to do:

There's a lot of work to do, but completion is within our grasp. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My brother is in the hospital, I am going to be gone for a long time, sorry. The Hybrid 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not let it be like this: we split them up, but create a page for every section.

Awful page-width-breaking table removed

Why do we need lists for the Japanese series? They're redundant with the other lists, and too huge to easily work with, to boot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That table's too wide! It forces my browser to scroll horizontally even when the window is maximized! Yuck! It inappropriate to have it so big; is this the one we're planning to put into the articles? If I knew more about tables, I'd fix it myself. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Images on episode pages

Apparently the removal of images from the episode list pages has stirred up a swarm of hornets. Let's talk about it some more, then.

These huge lists just can't reasonably have images. This is the most egregious possible abuse of the fair-use criteria, leading to hundreds and hundreds of images being used for "identification," most of them random frames taken from the episode. (For example, the image for Pokémon Emergency, which has lots of unique scenes, was just a random picture of Meowth that could have come from any episode.)

The case has been made that images are useful for identification. They can be, but a free alternative does exist for identification: brief encyclopedic prose describing the episode.

The case has been made that other lists, some of them featured, use images. This is no excuse; those lists should probably also abolish images, but this discussion isn't about those lists.

The edit warring on this subject has mostly been carried out by one user using several socks, but several more-reasonable editors have expressed concerns, so I wanted to address them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed. Fair use does not permit using images as decoration on a list. The list is not made more functional by an image when well-written text is already there, nor does the text comment on the episode in a way that requires the image for comment or reference purposes. Plus, the transcluded images make the page horribly slow for dialup users. Other TV show articles with episode lists should also remove them (as was recently done at List of Lost episodes. Two wrongs don't make a right. Thatcher131 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


  • The images on the episode lists improve the article, and the images can idenitfy the key points of the episode, the summary can do that too, but some people like to see whats going on in the episode. I will personally write summaries based storngly on the images. (Yugigx60 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Pokestart applied

Aron, Lairon, Aggron, and Meditite now have proper introductions with Template:Pokestart. This is something we need to work on. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image removal

OrphanBot is removing our main images again. Shuckle is the most recent victim. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Blissey and Aron (Pokémon) have been hit. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Tatetopusu. Damn, it works fast! -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a bot, after all. Those images are all unsourced. Source them or they need to be deleted. They really need fair-use rationales, as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do image sourcing. Is there anyone that can? Togepi and Trapinch are also gone. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 09:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You need to figure out where the image came from originally. If you can't, then it should be deleted, and replaced with an image when you find a new one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a template for this, {{pli}}! Just blank the page, add {{subst:pli|Name of Pokémon|National dex number}}, save, and voila! Highway Daytrippers 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did Togepi, Trapinch, Shuckle, Aron and Blissey. To look at all of the image that have sources and fair use rationales, please see Category:Pokémon lead images. If anyone wants a job, you can go through all 400! ;) Highway Daytrippers 11:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Use-mention distinction

In the introduction, when we explain what words a Pokémon's name is made of, we ought to put those words in "quotation marks", or preferably, italics. See the article on use-mention distinction for more explantion. Basically, since we're referring to the word itself and not their meanings, we're supposed to italicize them. I've just seen this used incorrectly in a few Pokémon articles. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Torchic and Charizard in line with that? I'm not quite sure what you're describing, but I do something similar. Highway Daytrippers 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've noticed a trend of seeing them emboldened. Sableye was one Pokémon I randomly searched for, and it had those words in bold. Emboldening the words aren't really the right way to mention the words; bold is used more for making text stand out. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Eevee's evolutions

Is there a source for the names of Eevee's new evolutions? They are currently named Leafia and Glacia. I know that "Glacia" won't work because it's the name of an Elite Four member of Hoenn (of course, it's not her Japanese name). I'm very skepticle, and the fact remains that there are already articles created with these names. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokebeach hacked the ROM, no one's actually caught them yet, as far as I know. I noticed the Glacia problem too, and I was thinking we could move Glacia (Pokémon) to Glacia (Elite Four), until they get merged. Who is merging them, I'd do it, but I don't know what admin tools are required for the job. Highway Daytrippers 08:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No admin tools whatsoever. Just click the move link at the top of the page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
To merge the Elite Four? I was meaning about the list, you'd need tools to merge all the articles into one. The histories anyway. Highway Daytrippers 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm RfDing that page, which is now a redirect. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to merge the histories; doing that would SUCK and it's totally unnecessary. Just copy the content into the list and redirect the original article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, adminship really is no big deal. ;) Highway Daytrippers 08:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the reliability of these names as well. They have been disseminated throughout the internet already but no one has actually posted up an in-game screencap of the pokédex entry or even a battle scene in which the name is clearly visible. Until they have been confirmed, I'm still quite wary on the use of the names. Also, I'm not too certain if speculative US/English names and evolution pathways should be included on the newly created pages. I've posted a post in the discussion on the Leafia article to bring this to attention of the contributing members. -- DarkS Umbreon 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be in Japanese, so how would you know? Serebii's confirmed them, so I did a lot of the work on List of Elite Four members, what do people think? Highway Daytrippers 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've seen the screencaps by Serebii now, and yes, those are the Japanese names given to the two Eevee evolutions. I'm in the process of translating the pokédex entries now, but since my Japanese is very limited and without the use of kanji in the dex entries, it'll be a bit more difficult for me to actually get the correct meaning across. -- DarkS Umbreon 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen them too. Hopefully they will follow the previous pattern and give them the -eon suffix when they translate the games. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 23:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I spent today extracting the image of グレイシア from Coronis' camera image of the Pokédex entry; enlarged and cleaned it up as well as re-did the colouring. I've updated the Glacia article to include my pic. Let's see it spread throughout the net now. :D -- DarkS Umbreon 09:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Leafia? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, Glacia was returned to screen cap. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the image, the image was inappropriate for an enclyopedia article, and probably a breach of copyright. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it have been a breach of copyright if it was the official image (seeing as we already use Sugimori art for the other articles) just blown up and cleaned up for viewing purposes? Also I've stubbed it as with the pokeimage tag, disclaiming all ownership. I don't know. But nevertheless, I have done up the Leafia sprite as well in case we do wish to have them there until the official Sugimori art surfaces. -- DarkS Umbreon 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Coronis took the image, he has ownership, as well as Nintendo, and Ken Sugimori. It's like saying that what you've done to the image is certified by Coronis, and the others, when it isn't. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When does it stop being "Good Faith"?

This person AnnabelleHickman (talk • contribs) is constantly putting false information on various Pokémon articles. Being misinformed is one thing, but it seems like this user is purposely trying to sabotage the hard work of everyone involved with this WikiProject. I don't know if there is really anything that can be done, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention here. So far, I think every Pokémon edit the user created has been reverted. Even after being warned on their talk page. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall viewing this user's activity a week ago. The problem is that most of these edits look like they're at least ignorant or misguided changes, and not clear-cut vandalism. I can see why she might think that Mewtwo could evolve from Mew. The least we can do is keep our eyes on her contributions. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
They seem to be a good contributor, they're reverting vandalism, but kinda creating more problems. Other times they are causing it, so they're in the balance. Is Togepi a Basic Pokémon? Highway Daytrippers 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We may need to reconsider that because Togepi's line has a new evolution. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It comes out an egg! Always an egg. Can it breed? Highway Daytrippers 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Togepi is considered a "baby" (it cannot breed). Togekiss is most likely a Stage 1. However, I don't think that Togetic is ever encountered in the wild. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokénum template.

The template still says 488 but there are 493 Pokémon in the National list. Should this be changed? I think that only Admins can do it, though. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why was it locked on 488?? Instead of locking it on numbers that are potentially wrong, it was locked on a number that's very likely to be wrong.
Are we sure there's 493? Surely by now, someone in Japan's rushed through the game and gotten all the Pokémon—isn't there anything online that shows a completed Pokédex? --Brandon Dilbeck 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We don't even need someone to have a complete pokedex, just one with Manafi in it, to show us the last number. -Amarkov babble 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
How do we know that Manafi's the last Pokémon in the Pokédex? Ugh, I'm starting to hate this Pokenum template. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Serebii. The ones at the bottom of the list next to the question marks are alternate versions of numbers 412 and 413. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that Manafi wouldn't be, Mr. base 120 would be. Unfortunately, we can't get him, as nobody knows HOW. -Amarkov babble 01:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There are 3 more Pokémon that follow Manafī. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have a source for that, then we should get it and get the template changed, now shouldn't we? -Amarkov babble 01:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I just sourced it above. In my statement before my last one. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 01:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it's only the numbering in the game's code. As far as I know, that rarely, if ever, has corresponded to dex number. For instance, Rhyhorn being number 1 in RBY coding, and Chimecho being last in the RS coding. It was so funny when people who thought that Chimecho was last in the national dex for months actually got a national dex from Colosseum. -Amarkov babble 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've always wondered why some listings I've seen would have Chimecho after Deoxys. But I always knew that it wasn't the last one. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon episode pages

Like most shows on wikipedia there are seprete pages for the episodes. So I think its stupid. So what do you think of all the links I provided... Are all they fancruft to????

Emphatically so. Those individual episode articles are terrible. In the rare occasion where there's so much that has been said in reliable sources about an episode (Abyssinia, Henry is a good example) we can surely have an article, but that's not true for all of the Pokémon episodes save possibly "Electric Soldier Porygon", which is already covered at length in two different articles (Banned episodes of Pokémon and Criticism of Pokémon). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are merging the Pokemon episodes which sounds like a great idea, but may we keep some episodes for example the finale episodes for example End of a Journey, Yet Beginning of a Journey and the first episodes Pokémon, I Choose You!, Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!, Get the Show on the Road.

Why? Why do we need images in addition to plot summaries to identify those images? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If there isn't notability, meaning reliable secondary sources, the articles are not allowed to exist. They may be important to many Pokémon fans, but the notability just isn't there. The Hybrid 06:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The same thing has been used to justify the existence of individual episode articles of some of the series (that it is important to the understanding of a notable series) in the list above. No one would argue that articles on individual episodes of The Simpsons, Star Trek, Doctor Who, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be removed because of the lack of notability. Pokémon is the longest running English-adapted anime series (this according to Pokémon (anime)), and so it deserves to receive similar treatment and get individual episode articles. kelvSYC 20:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I get what you are saying, that point has been brought up many times; the one thing that people seem to forget is that there are more than 475 Pokémon episodes. Even if we only did the DUBed ones that have already aired, there will soon be more than 450. There are ~60 PCP members, we are barely able to keep the articles we already have free of vandelism, we can not handle 400 more to patrol. The Hybrid 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, those series do have articles for individual episodes. And each of those articles sucks donkey butt. I don't think we should be encouraging these crufty, unencyclopedic fanpage episode guides, and, hopefully, this project can set a good example other projects can follow. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

More merger

Meteor Falls into Fallarbor Town Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. The Hybrid 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't really care about the Cerulean Cave merger anymore. The Hybrid

Glacia restructure

I came up with a plan to restructure the Glacia/Glacia (Pokémon) mess.

A new disambiguation page will reside at Glacia, the former's page at the current Elite Four page...the Elite Four member's page will reside at Glacia (Elite Four). We have nowhere else to go with this.

Before: (article name/content/new content) Glacia/PKMN/dab Glacia (Pokémon)/E4/PKMN Glacia (Elite Four)/none/E4

This'll require an admin for part of it. When WP:TVS needed to move KUWB to KUCW to match new calls, KUCW needed to move to KMCB first and the redirect had to go. Actually, one of their members (Firsfron) is an admin, so that might have been fixed. The E4 article needs to move first, then the old home of that article will go under CSD G6, then the PKMN article can move and the redirect will be edited to become a dab. --Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we have all the Elite Four into one article somewhere? Alvin6226 talk 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this will even be important in a few months. Nintendo will probably rename Glacia for the American release... --Brandon Dilbeck 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, they will make it end in -eon. Same with the grass type evolution. The Hybrid 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
All the Elite 4 are merged at List of Elite Four members anyway. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 07:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Closed up. I am RfDing the old Elite Four article turned into a redirect. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Shin'ou's TTV presents the Improvement Campaign

I have found an idea to clean out our disastrous stub city: Category:Pokémon stubs. I will do certain articles, excluding articles that are related to Diamond and Pearl, slated for a merge, deemed unexpandable and need special attention, voice actors for the anime or manga-related articles (those are not considered in the Improvement Campaign), or in any AfD nomination.

We start with Crystal (Pokémon). In the queue are Genius Sonority, Ken Sugimori, Monster Brain, Pokemon Trading Figure Game (first needs a special character move), Pokémon breeding, Ruby (Pokémon), Sootopolis City, and Verdanturf Town. We're not aiming for GA, most of these are off-beat articles that don't need to be GA. We just want to get these out of stub country. These are pretty hard articles to improve, but it's a challenge we will fight.

This is also an "alternate focus", so our other two foci are not affected. Articles I put in here are off beat and run the gamut from the manga to the games, anime to other media.

The start, though, lies not in the starter article, but four into the queue, where I will be moving that article. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Togepi's evolutionary stage

It's been bouncing back and forth recently—is Togepi a Baby or Stage-1 Pokémon? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean baby or basic. I think that the fact that it hatches from an egg and cannot breed clasifies it as a baby. All baby Pokémon share these traits. The only other Pokémon that do not breed are Nidorina, Nidoqueen, the Unown and Legendary Pokémon (none of these hatch from an egg). And all Basic Pokémon that hatch from an egg can still breed with others. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This still isn't resolved. There's still a bit of an edit war going on with both Togepi and Togetic. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've hacked {{Pokémon species}} so it won't show the stage field in those Pokémon articles until someone comes up with some sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's likely that we will have no choice but to keep them like that permanently, since it seems so unlikely that there ever will be actual sources to ultimately decide one stage over another for Togepi, Togetic, and Togekiss (which incidentally is number 468, so you can hack that article too). If I was forced to come up with another solution, though, however silly, I might have Togepi listed as both a Baby and Basic Pokemon, Togetic as both Basic and Stage 1, and Togekiss as both stage 1 and stage 2. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 06:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that solution's a little too silly, and is more likely to confuse readers. "How can it be two!??" Like what A Man In Bl♟ck said, I'm afraid we really won't be able to know for a while, but hopefully, the new D&P games can steer us in some direction. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, thought so. ;D But waitaminute: As far as I can tell, the card game is the only part of the franchise that uses the baby/basic/stage1/stage2 classification setup; it's only because of the card game that we classified all the Pokemon's evolutionary stages like this in the first place. No such system exists in the video games or anime or manga. To all those things, Pokemon families simply consist of three stages at a time, so perhaps we are best off reclassifying all the Pokemon by three stages only. We should redo the infobox for each Pokemon so that Oddish's Evolutionary Stage is listed as "First", Gloom's is "Second", and Vileplume and Bellossom's are both "Third". Likewise, Chimecho should be "Second" while it's pre-evo is "First", even though back in the third generation Chimecho would have been "First". But isn't Chimecho's stats comparable to any other "Second"-stage Pokemon like Ivysaur? And there's indication that Togekiss' statistics are equivalent to the other "Third"-stage Pokemon like Charizard. We might be more accurate to the video games if we ditch the card-game system for this system. But I'd like to hear other's thoughts about this. :) Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 17:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. We'll just have to watch out for the card game fanatics that try to change it back. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a lot of original research! Is it really our jobs as editors to devise a new system for all Pokémon to be organized by? Highway Grammar Enforcer! 17:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... This isn't devising a new system, it's deciding which existing system to use. -Amarkov babble 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
One, Two, and Three are original theories and interpretation of a published system. It's OR, in one way or another. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we not even list them by stage, then? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted in Togepi's talk page that we should put Basic because that's what its playing card says, and it sounds that the playing card game is where we got the idea to list them as "Baby", "Basic", "Stage 1", and "Stage 2". --Brandon Dilbeck 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack, we have this debate occurring in four different places that I know of!! Here, here, here, and somewhat here. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep it the way it is, it's the only official means of logging evolution levels, and it's in-universe. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone saw the comment that was here previously, ignore it...--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The debate has now moved to "how do efficiently list our Pokémon in evolutionary stages". Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the card games can make up it's mind either. Look at these two cards here and here. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
They do that all the time. You can get Stage-2 Charizard and Basic Pokémon Charizard, it's all about the style of play. I think Togepi was initially made into a Basic card because of its early prevelance in the anime, while still being an Baby Pokémon. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
So, if we're keeping it the way the card game does it, will we ever be able to give the Togepi family the proper classifications then? Hopefully we can and then the debate will end. If not, then let me elaborate on why my previous proposal may actually not be OR (though I can certainly understand how it can look like it): It is verifiable that Bulbasaur, Mewtwo, Snorunt, Elekid, and Togepi are all the first evolutionary stages of their respective families because they have no pre-evolutions (and whether they have evolutions or not is irrelevant). So, inputting "First" in Snorunt's Evolutionary Stage cell of the infobox is meant to tell the reader that the Pokemon does not evolve from anything, but may evolve into something depending on what the "Evolves To" cell says. Likewise, it is verifiable that Charizard, Nidoking, and Ampharos have two evolutionary stages before them, so being listed as "third" serves as proof of that. It's not really meant to be an originally named classification system unique to Wikipedia, I think. I do advocate finding a way to keep the Card Game system regardless, though. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
We can't keep it as the card game does it for everything. Not to mention that the card game isn't entirely consistent, we don't have cards for the fourth gen yet. -03:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I have come up with a strong argument on why we should keep the Card Game classification system and Togepi counts as a Basic Pokemon within this system. As Highway the Cello said, this is the only official system of logging evolution stages, and it's in-universe, which is probably what Wikipedia policy wants. The card game gave us this system in the first place, and since Togepi is listed as Basic in the card game, Togepi is basic everywhere else. And since my previous proposal has elements of Original Research within it, that supports that we should just keep the system we have and Togepi counts as Basic under that system. If we accept it this way, though, we will have to ignore how the card game takes various liberties in designing its cards sometimes, such as Tyrogue previously being Baby but nowadays being a Basic Pokemon (though it can evolve through Poke-power into the other Basic Pokemon the Hitmons, in a sense keeping Tyrogue Babyish nonetheless) and the video games disallowing Togepi to breed, like other babies. That's probably tangible evidence that Togepi should count as a Baby, but there is a greater physical quantity of tangible evidence that Togepi is Basic, and the fact that there's physically more evidence for Case Basic than for Case Baby may be the deciding factor as to Togepi becoming a Basic Pokemon.
Now, after that argument, if this debate continues and becomes really hopeless, we could always try a vote... gulp! Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You touched on the problem with that. If we have two different cards, one which claims baby and one which claims basic, which one is right? And what about pokemon that don't have cards? -Amarkov babble 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention cards like Omanyte and Anorith which evolve from Fossil trainer cards instead of being considered what may seem like Basic Pokemon in their cases. What I use there is how Togepi and Tyrogue started out in the card game as Basic and Baby, respectively, and then over time Tyrogue was printed as a Basic Pokemon for the sake of adding new rules and gameplay twists to the card game. Notice how Togepi was never classified as a Baby Pokemon in the card game, though. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems a bit convoluted, and it still doesn't explain what we are supposed to do for pokemon that don't have cards. -Amarkov babble 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Togepi solution

Behold, then, my final suggestion concerning all this, and I think this is the way that will be supported by a clear consensus: We're able to classify all the other Pokemon properly using the Baby-Basic-Stage1-Stage2 system, but Togepi, Togetic, Togekiss, Riolu, and Lucario are ambiguous cases. To take care of these Pokemon: Just remove the Evolutionary Stage cell from their respective infoboxes the way A Man In Black hacked the Pokemon Infobox a while back. It's not like we're losing a lot of information here; people will still see what each of those Pokemon evolve from and/or to by looking at the other cells. This will kinda remove any edit wars from those articles while keeping all the other Pokemon unscathed and the in-universe card-game classification intact and working for all of them. Doesn't this seem like a simple solution? Thoughts, please. ^_^ Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That does seem like a good solution, although I still prefer simple basic/stage 1/stage 2 classification. -Amarkov babble 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good solution. Simple, but good.Floramage

What if we removed the current Stage element from the infoboxes, replacing it with a Pokémon's entire evolutionary line? For instance, Golem's infobox would list Geodude, Graveler, and Golem; this would allow the reader to easily infer that Golem is the third Pokémon in the line. It would also provide immediate links to each of the Pokémon in the evolutionary line. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm increasingly unhappy with how much in-universe info is crammed into the infobox. That said, I could make it work, if it's what people want. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, aren't infoboxes meant to give in-universe info so that it won't appear in the rest of the article and bloat it up? As for the fully-listed Pokemon evolution trees in the infobox idea that Brandon Dilbeck (never knew that was the last name of that Frontier Brain!) proposes, I'm for whatever works best for the project and has reasonable consensus behind it. That's the wat the serebii.net Pokedex pages do it, and we kinda have an example of an entire family in one article's infobox in the Eevee article. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me, too. -Amarkov babble 01:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I got a working template along those lines at User:Amarkov/pokeinfoboxwork. If we decide to use it, good, although we'd have to go through and change every page. I think I could get around that, at the cost of having the template be really ugly. And if we don't change it, I got some template coding practice. Yay. -Amarkov babble 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems I can't get around it without keeping stage classifications in. It takes me about five full lines of parser functions to stop the problem for middle stages in 3-stage evolutions and pokemon that have no evolution chain, the inconvenience of which overshadows by far saving work on maybe 100 creature articles. (Unless we like an unreadable template?) Nothing can be done about the rest, even in theory. So it looks like if we do this, someone has to go edit every creature article. -Amarkov babble 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking it could look something like this. Simplicity would probably be best; listing how Pokémon evolve might be tricky because it sometimes varies between games—Espeon uses the Sun Ribbon in Mystery Dungeon, but through happiness at daytime in other games; this sort of info could be more easily handled in the body of the article, but I don't think anyone was wanting to add "how" to the infoboxes anyway. Note that the box in the example is actually smaller than the combined sizes of the Stage, Evolves From, and Evolves To boxes. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like mine, except my evolution chain box lists them horizontally instead of vertically. I agree that adding in the method of evolution would be too hard. -Amarkov babble 04:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Something nice about this is that for Pokémon with later additions made to evolutionary lines, such as Pikachu (as with Pichu) and Togepi (Togekiss), all of the Pokémon are kept in line in the infoboxes—it's like an alternative to heading to the list of Pokémon by stage to see a Pokémon's entire evolutionary line. It might be worth thinking about how to handle Pokémon that don't evolve (like Tauros—would we just leave the word Tauros by itself in the box, or perhaps merely note that it "Does not evolve"? And Pokémon with multiple evolutions, such as Slowpoke, might also require some tricky arrangement. Like with Hitmonlee—would we incorporate Hitmonchan in the chain? Maybe we could handle that with indentation, like this. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of branching the chain, but unlike my idea, that actually works for Eevee. That seems best. -Amarkov babble 04:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Branching? How so? How would you have branched the Pokémon? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Have some switch for whether or not there is a branch, and then put one evo on one side and one on the other. But it doesn't wokr well. -Amarkov babble 04:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, with a bit of added ugliness, I got a working template. I had to replace the old parameters with lowestevo, middleevo, and highestevo, branchmiddleevo, and branchhighestevo, so the name of the pokemon will have to be entered twice, and we'll have to put in the new parameters before switching, if we decide to. Except on the Eeveelutions, where I just hacked in the right thing to avoid dealing with six more parameters. -Amarkov babble 14:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a really, really inelegant hack. I think I can probably simplify it a lot, plus keep backwards-compatibility with the current params. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to try. I couldn't get anything working, although I am relatively new at template coding. -Amarkov babble 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone else have input? -Amarkov babble 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see an example of the working template you got. Think you could show what Wurmple might look like? --Brandon Dilbeck 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Amarkov/wurmple has what you want. -Amarkov babble 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the original infobox as well as my not-yet-complete hack to that scratch page. Feel free to comment on any of the various versions, if anyone has any ideas. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's worth thinking about the more complex evolutions—that's why I chose Wurmple, whose two evolutions continue to evolve. Another icky evolution line is that of Eevee, who can now evolve into one of SEVEN Pokémon. With Amarkov's coding, it would be eight lines long (including Eevee) in order to stay with the pattern of listing each on its own line. Would AMIB's look something like this?

Eevee - Jolteon/Flareon/Vaporeon/Espeon/Umbreon/Leafia/Glacia

I'm just bringing up some evolution lines worth noting. Does anyone else wish to point out any other odd ones we'd need to consider? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wurmple is the most complex case I'm planning on implementing. Eevee is just going to have an override pointing to a section of the article. There's no sense cramming such a weird case into an infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my hack isn't done and won't be getting done tonight. I'm burned out for tonight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked mine so it uses the same parameter names, meaning we can start adding the new parameters in to articles without branched evos. -Amarkov babble 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

ACK. DON'T DO THAT YET. Let's get the template working first. It'll keep for a day or two while work goes on in scratch pads. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, patience, grasshopper. There is two things we ought to do before implementing this. First, we ought to give time to see what others in the PCP think about these changes. Second, we ought to see about naming the things—what are they called, the things that are currently labelled "branchevolvestoto"—maybe a more intuitive name could be used? But no rush. There's certainly no hurry. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Meep. *is sorry* -Amarkov babble 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We still don't know what parameters we need and for what role. Then, we need to figure out non-lame names (my names suck). Then we need to figure out appearance. THEN we need to see if people like this at all. Still a lot of work to do yet. Right now we're still at the template hacking in sandboxes stage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really picture anything more complicated than Wurmple's evolution. I'd give it till Friday by the earliest to see what others think. This is something rather major, and will impact every species page and may require edits on all of them. And I just thought of something. What about Pokémon that don't evolve at all? Ideas for that? --Brandon Dilbeck 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (getting tired; ought to go to bed soon)
There's not much more complicated than Wurmple's evolution, but it's much easier to make it work for Wurmple than for its evolutions. No idea what to do for pokemon that don't evolve, though. -Amarkov babble 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a simple "Does not evolve" would be suitable. Don't ask me to code it, though. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it just say "Does not evolve", or should it include the name, too? -Amarkov babble 01:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it'd be obvious enough without the Pokémon's name, but whatever floats your boat... --Brandon Dilbeck 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Without the name is shorter, so I don't have an issue with that. -Amarkov babble 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So where do we stand on this right now? Do we wish to implement this? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Electric/Computer Soldier Porygon

I thought this would be the right place to say that in the articles Pokémon and especially Banned episodes of Pokémon, the English name of the seizure episode (でんのうせんしポリゴン, Dennō Senshi Porigon) keeps going back and forth between Electric Soldier Porygon and Computer Soldier Porygon. I'm pretty sure we don't need this edit war so can we have some definitive answer to end this once and for all? --WikiSlasher 04:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard of it as "Electric Soldier Porygon", but of course, I'm no expert on the subject. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Serebii calls it Electric Soldier Porygon. I am 99% sure that is its most commonly used name in America, and seeing as Serebii lives in the UK... The Hybrid 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides the Rōmaji being a little off: it should be "Den'no Senshi Porigon", most words having to do with electricity begin with "den". The Japanese do not have their own word for computer, they borrow the English word and spell it as コンピューター (pronounced konpyūtā). -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I ripped the Rōmaji from the article Banned episodes of Pokémon. And we can't forget Serebii (talk • contribs) is one person. Sorry to Serebii if he didn't make that account. --WikiSlasher 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it anyway. I can back up the Den thing, the Dengeki Pikachu manga, translates to the US version, "Electric Pikachu". Anyhoo, Highway Daytrippers 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Serebii, as in the owner and webmaster of Serebii.net, not a user. Anyway, the article is already called Electric Soldier Porygon, so I think it would be best to just stick with that name. [3] The Hybrid 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


電脳（でんのう, den'nou）literally means 'electric brain', but it refers to a physical 'compute'. Then, 戦士（せんし, senshi) can mean soldier or warrior. Also "Dengeki Pikachu", means literally "Electric Shock Pikachu" Shaojian 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sweet, so does that mean Computer Soldier Porygon is the correct translation, or do both of them work? The Hybrid 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In my experience in translating, there never is just one correct translation, but "Computer Soldier Porygon" does work. 'Electric Soldier' wouldn't be the clearest translation, as it's not describing Porygon, but instead the environment he's in, ie an electric brain > computer. Thusly, Computer Soldier, is closer to the description of him being a "soldier" of a computer. Shaojian 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Electric Soldier Porygon vastly more common than Computer? "Correctness" doesn't trump common usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way it would probably be better to just redirect Computer Soldier Porygon to the existing article, if it isn't already, and just not worry about which one is the correct translation. The Hybrid 01:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
But isn't wikipedia's goal to provide correct, accurate information, not so much, the popular ones or the "common" types of info? Shaojian 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In the case of names, common usage determines what's correct. Wikipedia isn't the place to push uncommon usage over common usage, just as it's not the place to push minority points of view. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Is Computer the correct translation? The Hybrid
Den'nou does mean computer yes. It's the traditional Japanese word, formed from two Chinese characters. In chinese, they make out the word "Computer" too. Shaojian 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, what does everyone think we should do, go with the correct translation, or the popular one? The Hybrid 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that, what would be the best thing to do? The Hybrid

I think we should name the article correctly, then create a redirect from ESP, and then copy this discussion on to the talk page of the article. My nephew wants his computer back, I gtg. Sorry. The Hybrid 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense, that way, people have both versions, but the "literal" or non-confusing one, will be the title of the article. I say this, because one slight mistranslation will have people talking about why it was named so-and-so etc. Shaojian 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JP is useless, as it handles using Japanese script and Romanization. (We're not naming the article Dennou Senshi Porygon, I think everyone agrees on that.) WP:TV-NC is likewise useless, as it only handles disambiguation. Given that, it just falls to WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things; common trumps "correct". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC#Use common names of persons and things doesn't necessarily apply when directly translating from another language though. Whichever. As long as disambiguity is explained in the talk page of the article at least. Shaojian
Well, it's going to begin ""Electric Soldier Porygon" (%#^#$ Dennou Senshi Porygon?) (also translated as "Computer Soldier Porygon") is an episode blah blah passe rsbyw eream azedb ytheu nusua lamou ntsof blood...." so that's not an issue. Both names should be acknowledged, certainly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Blood"???... Anyway, this seems like a reasonable decision that should satisfy everyone. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Watchmen. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
On second glance I see what that "gibberish" really says. You're very dark, Man in Black. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah ahaha, I cans eewh atitm eansno w...--WikiSlasher 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
From someone who edits Pro wrestling articles, that is a VERY loose guideline. I've ran into articles about wrestlers who have gone by the same ring name for 15 years, but we cannot get the article to share their popular name. Examples: Mark Calaway, this wrestler has gone by the ring name of The Undertaker for 15 years, but we cannot get the article moved. Glen Jacobs has wrestled under the name Kane for 8 years, and he goes by Kane in real life, but we cannot get the article moved. We cannot get them moved because in the interest of an accurate encyclopedia, the articles have the person's real name, even though that is not their most popular name. Accuracy trumps popularity, as annoying as it may be. The way we handle this is through simple redirects; Wikipedia retains its accuracy, and the popularity factor is dealt with. The Hybrid 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of "popular with whom?" in that case. Those articles are as much, if not more, about the people than the characters they play in many cases (or in the ideal case). This is a dissimilar case; there's no appeal to encyclopedic style (using real names over stage names), just a matter of choosing between the popular name and a name deemed more correct by a passerby. (No offense intended to Shaojian, but his opinion isn't a citable source.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but episode titles are different than names of real people. In this instance, it's a difference in translation. Both of which are somewhat accurate. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 04:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point AMIB, and yes, both translations are somewhat accurate. It would probably be best to go with the more accurate one, however. Shaojian may not be citable, but he speaks Japanese and we don't, so he is definatly in a better position to judge than we are. A simple redirect, a good intro, and pasting this conversation onto the talk page (all of which will need to be done either way) would fix any confusion. I guess that this all comes down to accuracy vs. popularity, maybe we should hold a pseudovote like we did before, or am I jumping the gun on that. The Hybrid 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Shaojian's original research outweighs common usage, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I admit, I hadn't thought of it as original research. I do feel that accuracy is more important for the title of an article than the common usage, seeing as a redirect would fix the problems that would cause, but it appears that I am outgunned. Unless Shaojian can come up with something that I can't, I guess we will be doing it your way. Oh well. The Hybrid 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's bound to create confusion if it's changed to "Computer Soldier". -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Redirects and this conversation on the talk page..., but I've already given up. P.S. I loved how Yoshi became my cursor on your Myspace ;) The Hybrid
"Computer" is in fact re-directed to "Electric". Do we copy-paste this conversation then? On a side note: I was wondering if any users here had visited my MySpace. The Yoshi cursor is one of my favorite things I discovered.  :D -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 05:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should paste this conversation on the talk page so that other people who know this acn see why it is called Electric rather than Computer. The Hybrid 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and pasted it, seeing as it has probably been decided anyway. If anything else important comes up, I'll repaste the newer conversation.

OK so am I right in saying that Electric Soldier Porygon is the more common name and Computer Soldier Porygon is the more accurate name? Everyone agrees on this right? --WikiSlasher 08:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell. The Hybrid 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

4th Gen Romanization

Ok so in the past week, there have been many new articles about the new Pokemon etc. But many of them are not consistant. Ie, some of them have the original Japanese romanization, and others have romanizations people found from different websites that are not "sources" for their "official" romanizations. Can't we just keep the names like they are for now (romanizated through the hepburn method), and then later on rename them as their official romanizations get released?Shaojian 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


The problem is, we're not making them. Highway Daytrippers 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And many of the pages that were Romanizations are now re-directs. It's not so easy to move those back to where they once were. Unless you copy and paste and re-direct some more. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 06:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been noticing redundant information.

For instance, in Wailord's article, pokedex numbers are listed both in the infobox and the main text. Is there a reason for this, or should I remove it? -Amarkov babble 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is there to summarise information in the article, so there's no reason why the main text can't say it too. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 14:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that we shouldn't be putting the Pokédex numbers in the main body of the articles unless it's important ("Bulbasaur is first in the Pokédex"). A Pokémon's number really doesn't say much about it, and with four games, there are some Pokémon with four different Dex numbers:

Fakémon is #058 in the National Pokédex, #120 in the Johto Dex, #103 in the Hoenn Dex, and #87 in the Shinou Dex.

I don't think that sentence is very attractive—it's just a big mouthful of information that I would personally skim over. The infobox is there to list a Pokémon's Pokédex numbers. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Brandon on this one. I always look to the infobox for the numbers, not scroll around the article to find a short list of them in the main body. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you feel it's better without them, then remove them. They are articles, free to be edited at will. I just don't feel we should prescribe in this regard. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

All users have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objections, the agreed resolutions above will be made policy and detailed here. Objectors will be given a 48 hour window to make their case before the mediation is finalised. Highway Daytrippers 11:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been an objection. The discussion will continue until a consensus is reached. If you wish to join in the discussion, please do. Your ideas will be much appreciated. The Hybrid 04:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

STAB

Is it standard for the abbreviation to be used in Pokémon articles? I saw it in Milotic and mistook it for some slang term. I think that "same type attack bonus" should be written out, as to be more easily understood by a general audience. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

According to policy, we shouldn't have any abbreviations on articles, so just change it. More overall, it would be best re-worded to something less fan orientated, for general readers. Good eye though, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*rolls eyes*

Can an admin move Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (DS) back to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, someone moved to "avoid confusion with the bootleg. Personally, I believe that a note that said -

"For the bootleg game, Pokémon Diamond, see Telefang."

I see no point in moving the entire article since there never was a bootleg Pearl. Thoughts? Highway Grammar Enforcer! 07:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Celestianpower háblame 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P:P/FAA

The Portal:Pokémon selected article has been updated, you can suggest new articles, here. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a Pokémon portal. What are portals for, anyway? --Brandon Dilbeck 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No one knows, and we're not supposed to ask. ;) Kidding, portals are like navigation points for subjects, which present strong articles, core topics, navigation points and newly released information that can't be logged into individual articles until they are expanded. Essentially, Portals are for both editors and readers, and should be updated, by the overseeing WikiProject (hinthint - us) Highway Grammar Enforcer! 19:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Which isn't ever done, except for the selected article. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I used to, but it took nearly an hour every day to keep all the areas, with the images, updated weekly. There's so much archiving, tagging, selecting, cleaning, notifying, I gave up when the images got removed, because they it wasn't attractive anymore. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I tried updating the news for a bit, result being that it kept getting out-of-date everytime I took a wikibreak. Anyway, I ultimately removed the News and DYK sections from the Portal, and no one seems to have noticed at all. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you re-add them? Highway Grammar Enforcer! 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think so. But who's gonna update them?? --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Me. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Get to work. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

Just a heads up; Nidorina page has been vandalised, I'd revert but I'd probably cause the site to explode (haven't reverted before >.<) RBlowes 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Ciao! -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 07:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
And we have the nukes on line 1, we're going to wait for Jimbo to revert, and then make it explode. ;) Highway Grammar Enforcer! 07:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Reverting is easy, and harmless if you mess up, because if you somehow mess it up, you or somebody else can revert your revert! --Brandon Dilbeck 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The same IP vandalized Dunsparce. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Elite Four members

I've merged the Kanto, Johto and Hoenn gym leaders, so can someone delete these templates?

  • {{Kanto Elite Four}}
  • {{Johto Elite Four}}
  • {{Hoenn Elite Four}}

Cheers, Highway Grammar Enforcer! 08:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Header names and levels

In my view, the "in the" parts of the headers on Pokémon articles are pretty redundant. They're also not very descriptive. What they want to say is "Function/Role/Importance/Mention in the", but that's too long. So, I have, as an experiment, and to show what it looks like, and being bold, have changed this problem in "Bulbasaur". Can we please discuss this here, befre just reverting back. It may also be worth noting that others said the same on the Bulbasaur FAC, but were ignored. Also, I think Pokémon articles are the only ones with these redundant prepositions. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just say no one's ever complained about this in any of mine. They're too busy mentioning other issues. </bitter bitch> It seems an interest idea, I don't think the main level header is doing it any favours, and I don't see the point of leaving a bit at the bottom out. I'm beginning to not see the point of having to have 500 articles all to the same style, but whatever. Thanks for bringing this up. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I rather like this idea, and had recently been thinking myself that many of the headings were redundant sounding. I feel that we don't really need to make them subheadings, though, because the over-encompassing heading "Importance and role" has nothing under it, but just jumps right into the first subheading; we might as well just jump right into "Video games"; it's obvious that we'll be talking about a Pokémon's importance or its role; there isn't much else to really talk about anyway. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like what we have now... Highway Grammar Enforcer! 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but without the redundant preposition and article "In the". --Brandon Dilbeck 17:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the main header is otherwise, it would be saying that Bulbasaur is a video game/anime...etc, which it is not. If anyone can think of any better wording then fine, but I think it's necessary for this style to work.
As to the last bit on Bulbasaur, that's because it sounds silly "Importance and role in other media". It doesn't have a role or importance in those, just an appearance or reference (for what of the right word). However, I'm willing to compromise on this one. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the whole heading of "Importance and role" should be changed, simply because while every Pokémon has a role in the games, it's not so much in the anime. Also, not every Pokémon are of equal importance, which would most likely spark arguments. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Importance and role" should be changed to something much more concise. If anyone has any ideas, it'll save me from having to come up with any examples. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pocket Monster stages.

Because it couldn't be confirmed whether Togepi was a Baby or Basic Pokémon, it was removed from its infobox. However, are we going to do the same for the rest of them? And if so, what of the List of Pokémon by Stage, and these new categories that seemed to have sprung up. "Category:Baby Pokémon", "Category:Basic Pokémon", "Category:Stage 1 Pokémon" and "Category:Stage 2 Pokémon"? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 20:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could just remove stage classification altogether. But I really think we should just not have a baby classification. Now that the baby forms of pokemon are catchable in the wild, what rationale is there for calling them babies? Especially since I believe they can breed now, too. -Amarkov babble 20:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not sure if Babies can breed (that sounds kinda wrong), I think it should really be an all or nothing. And these new categories are just going to bring up old arguments down the road. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 20:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, they still can't breed. But now that they're catchable in the wild, I think it would make more sense to call them basics and then say that they are unbreedable. -Amarkov babble 20:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, can we get these categories deleted? We already have a list, they're just repeating info and we should kill them before they are finished. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Baby Pokémon CfD is up now. -Amarkov babble 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with Misty

In the Misty article, for the past few days, one or two people with the IP addresses 134.139.21.29 (t·c), 134.139.24.226 (t·c), and 4.232.171.39 (t·c) have repeatedly been adding to the article that Misty is athiest, going by the "evidence" that she doesn't appear to practice any religion in the anime. I'm looking for some help here. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection to end a content dispute won't be looked on too kindly... -Amarkov babble 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to call it vandalism, but it's certainly nonsense. That said, there's a half-dozen edits over the course of a few days, there, and it's long been on my watchlist. If the anon tries to make an edit war of it, I'll sprotect, but for now normal editing can deal with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. No, I wasn't looking for protection, just for some backup in the discussion page. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable 4th gen source

Pokebeach.com and it's resident Diamond and Pearl Pokedex seems to be a great source which we can use to fill up the new Pokemon creature articles with information about statistical strength (not actual statistics, instead saying that this Pokemon has a lot of special attack and such) and Pokedex flavor text (which can be rewritten into more standard prose, of course). They were able to extract all this information from the ROM, so it's most likely that this qualifies as a verifiable source which can be used to improve the pages. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 16:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Serebii also has one too. ([4]) Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes two sites. People have probably looked at these already and used them to fill up the pages, but it seems like a good idea to make it a bit of an official announcement right here. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as everyone is in agreement. Some people still disregard them as simply fan pages. -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Either one alone, I might disregard as not reliable enough for an encyclopedia. But two different sources with the same thing seems to be a good reason to use them. -Amarkov babble 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust those for any evaluative claims, just for things that are directly copied verbatim from the games. Game stats and Pokédex descriptions? Sure. Translations and info on (for example) evolution or how to get certain Pokémon? They've been wrong before, and they're not exactly reviewed by anyone but the author for errors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Since these sites will have the statistics, one will be able to look at Elekible's stats and ability and write down that "Elekible has more attack power but slightly less speed than its previous evolution Electabuzz, but Elekible's Electric Engine ability increases it's speed if struck by an Electric attack." This sort of info, as well as rewritten prose of the flavor text, are what we are able to verifiably write into each new Pokemon as of now, so there should be a somewhat concentrated effort to do so for all 107 new Pokemon and promote all of them to stub status. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that sort of analysis is major original research, but I get what you mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sort of analysis exists in some form or another in every last one of the Pokemon creature articles, such as Pikachu, where there was text the last time I checked saying that the light ball doubles Pikachu's special attack if held by Pikachu. I'm not sure if this should be considered original research, as that is verifiable; otherwise, the entire project is original research, in a sense. (I will admit though that saying that the light ball makes Pikachu "useful in competitive play" is OR, though, and that I remember seeing in the article.) Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well. Yes. We probably shouldn't be doing it, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, my point is that while we wait for 4th gen anime, manga, trading cards, and other properties to be produced in Japan and then localized stateside, we currently have fansites that report solidly on game data, and pretty much all the other users editing Pokemon articles will refer to these sites and their Pokedexes and input their info into the articles. I think this inflow of information is quite tangible, though there certainly will be speculation edits that need to be reverted, but since game data like statistics and abilities are already available and retrieved from the ROM source itself, users are currently able to report on this and come up with articles somewhat like the 300+ current-gen articles we already have. That said, I'm pretty sure all of this will be revised/corrected/solidified once the games are actually released in English for us to play; in other words, my point is sort of a heads-up that users will look at these sites and put in pretty solid-looking info in the articles while we're waiting, and they'll complain if this info is reverted. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess my point is that we shouldn't be relaxing standards just because we'll have marginally better sources at some point in the future, but that's undermined by the fact that even Bulbasaur has one reference to Time and then a ton of references to fansites, game guides, and the games/anime themselves. *sigh* I shouldn't be fighting people over this in any article, but so many of these articles are nearly impossible to reference well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's the truth, and we will have to wait for the english versions of the games to have fully referenced articles like our GA creature articles. It's just that for the moment, though, we are able to reference to a degree statistics, abilities, and flavor text, and many users will probably do it just like that to input gameplay write-ups. Keep in mind that I won't be going out of my way to input this currently Japanese info, however. The rest of us users who frequent this page as authority-figures (I ain't trying to blow my own horn with that!) will just wait until the English versions are released before getting to work. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll just have to wait until the games come out. That way, we have accurate flavor text and we'll even know the English names of the fourth-generation Pokémon (I highly doubt Glacia's name will remain Glacia. As of yet, all of Eevee's evolutions have the suffix -eon at the end of their names.) Anyways, waiting seems like the best choice at the moment so we avoid any of this original research I keep hearing about. ----Floramage! 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects heavily depend on primary sources, and some don't. We happen to heavily depend on primary sources (e.g. the games themselves). Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AUGH. This encyclopedia should not be relying heavily on primary sources. Writing original interpretation based on direct observation of the subject is original research. That's not what we do here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? I fail to see what part of it is interpretation... Almost sounds like you're making the case that all 600-or-so Pokemon articles are OR and therefore should all be deleted. I always thought that there's three types of edits: verified encyclopedic info, Original Research, and vandalism. I'm only trying to promote the first edit type here; maybe you should link to the policy you're basing this view on and explain how it concerns WP:PCP in more detail, because right now I'm not quite following this. (I always trust you know what you're talking about, by the way.) :( Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 02:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Verified" is a continuum, not a binary state. Right now, the Pokémon articles are verified, but they're at the worst end of the continuum; they're verified based on primary sources and fansites. (This is as opposed to independent, edited publications, or, ideally, peer-reviewed publications. Hoping for the latter is a bit much, of course, though.) This is bad sourcing. Better than none, but bad sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Okay... Guess that means that our Wikiproject is a form of guilty pleasure of sorts. It makes sense, what you're saying; i guess it means that we really should keep away from the new Pokemon articles until the games' english release, at which point the articles will only be minorly more fitting of Wikipedia's policies, but that would be necessary nontheless. (I'm starting to feel foolish for having started this header in the first place.) I always thought being verifiable and notable made a subject wiki-worthy, though this additional requirement I'm finding out here is honestly a lot for me to absorb for the moment. I'll try to adhere to it...
By the way, out of curiosity, what's your thoughts on our FAs Bulbasaur and Torchic? I assume that they include the same sort of info I was talking about earlier, and if they do, how did they get FA status, then? I'd like to hear the opinions of Highway and other high-profile editors as well, if possible. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 03:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. To be honest, and bearing in mind that I have great respect for the work everyone's done on those article especially given difficulties inherent in the subject matter, I think some very real objections about style and sourcing were overlooked in the flood of useless Pokémon hate on FAC. Those articles still have some issues with distinguishing fact and fiction and sourcing to poor sources or direct observation. I've kept my mouth shut on this mostly because I haven't the foggiest idea how to resolve the tone issues without scrapping chunks of the article and I have no idea where better sources would come from. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well anyway, I agree with a lot of what has been said here, about citing information from Serebii etc. These websites are in themselves, fansites, so a lot of the information they get could be considered "original research" in a sense, as they are just fans getting the information and providing it to people. Then people use that to contribute to wikipedia. To me, if something hasn't been posted on Nintendo or if the actual game does not have that information, then it's not "official". A lot of the translation Serebii makes isn't necessarily correct either; some of it seems like they are trying to give their own take on how Nintendo will translate things....Sticking with the literal would work until it's been announced. Shaojian 02:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Shin'ou towns/cities

I'm going to start using some Bulbapedia information to create stubs for some of the towns and cities in Shin'ou we don't have. We have it all up to Kurogane, but from there, the game locations template shows red. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon and description

Someone has started up an article about Pokemon and description. I was originally going to just nominate if for deletion, but since I don't really know much about the topic, I thought I'd check here and let you decide how to handle it. --Alan Au 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I speedily redirected it to List of Pokémon. It's Yet Another Useless List. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please change name

Please change the name to Pokemon WikiProject, or something similar, as PCP is a drug.--Atomic-Super-SuitWhat Have I Done?! 22:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh. It's not a big deal, and the name is practically tradition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Tradition?--Atomic-Super-SuitWhat Have I Done?! 01:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. We've had a weird name for quite a while now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
D/P can be interpreted in a bad way, too. Doesn't stop people from using it. -Amarkov babble 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
We've discussed this in the past, but this doesn't mean the topic's off limits; we basically didn't reach a consensus to change the name. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Em... if you want people to change names, then I'd start with the WP:COC shortcut first. ;) Highway Grammar Enforcer! 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Language.

Blastoise in language <-- Is this for real?? -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not. Seeing as I live in San Jose, I'm pretty sure I would know about that. -Amarkov babble 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
San Jose? That's very near where I edit in San Carlos, CA, and over here Pokemon in language is used by roughly two people: Me and myself. I either Pikachu in the shower or kick someone's Arseus so that it turns black and blue (which would be the Dark and Water element, respectively, I guess). I have archived that edit in my Keepers subpage, a little humor project of mine that documents intriguing Pokemon vandalism I come across. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You have this vandalism from the Misty article in that page, right? Or is it not intriguing enough? -Amarkov babble 04:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah! Thanks for the submission, I'm adding it to there. And actually, that makes me think that I should have that subpage's talk page open for anyone to submit an especially eye-raising edit they have found on this site's Pokemon pages. Of course, I wouldn't appreciate it if the submitters were the ones who created the vandalism... Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 06:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fire Blast

It's a Pokemon related proposed deletion, so I figured it couldn't hurt to note it here. Whose stupid idea was that article? -Amarkov babble 04:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arseus knows whose it was. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That article is so not Blastoise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ought to be Delcattyed at once. --The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Too Much Jargon

I've been going through many of the Pokémon pages, and I find way, way too much jargon for an encyclopedia! Things like "sweeper", "tank", "HP Grass" and more are just littering the "In the games" sections. This is not acceptable to me. I do very well know the meanings of these, but others may not. Considering that sweeper can mean a DEFENSIVE position in football (soccer) it might really confuse people. We can only do one of two things: Reword every Pokémon page to avoid saying these things (replace "sweeper" with something like "swift physical attacker" or such, and tank with "defensive Pokémon"...) or add wikilinks to their usage in the Pokémon series. I don't really see the point of having a "List of terms commonly used by the online Pokémon community" for reference, so can we all work together to get those jargon words out of here? Is anyone else bothered by it the way I am? -JC 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this many times before. I don't think that it should even be noted than certain Pokémon are used in competitive play, and I especially don't think that it should be listed HOW they are used. The only sites that can be used as references for this are fan sites, and those facts are not notable to anyone outside of the hardcore Pokémon fandom. All o it is completely unencyclopedic. THL 08:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly acceptable to say if a Pokémon is well-suited for something in particular, such as Aerodactyl making an excellent physical attacker due to having an extremely high Speed and above-average Attack - it's almost a summary of the information on its statistics, only putting the right spin on it instead of just giving its rankings stat-wise or something.
For references, there are many published guides for Pokémon that suggest some Pokémon over others, so there's no lack of actual hard reference material (even though what fans find effective is usually far better than what the guide-writers think may be effective).
My point is, it just doesn't have to be full of jargon. If someone is reading randomly about their favorite Pokémon to see if there's anything interesting about its abilities, for example, having at least a brief mention of what a Pokémon is well-suited for would be fine. Using words like "sweeper" , however, is only going to be useful to those who are already a part of a Pokémon community online. *shrugs* -JC 09:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
But Aerodactyl is a terrible attacker, due to terrible defenses and a lousy movepool with no Earthquake.
How do we resolve disputes such as these without terribly waffly prose? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I agree that we should refrain from using terms like stab, sweeper, tank, ect. I am someone who has had problems with these things in the past, as when I first started on WP as an anon I wasn't a part of an online Pokécommunity. I couldn't figure out what any of these things meant. These things need to be taken out ASAP. Cheers. THL 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is incredibly off subject, but what happened with Willy on Wheels? I've been looking for weeks, and I can't find a record of anything. What happened? THL 10:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Willy? probably went out of fashion. As for the jargon, I'd recommend keeping it, but adding explanations. Something like, "Blissey is widely considered a tank, or highly defensive Pokémon." cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, the defense stats have nothing to do with attacking, for starters (the obvious attack stats are important, and speed is necessary offensively as well)... and second of all, he can learn Earthquake :P So his movepool isn't all that limited. In situations where it could be argued either way, I can see this possibly being a problem, but really... :) Besides, if we take out everything about what they're useful for, it'd be making each entry more like a stub... -JC 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm somewhat content to just get stuff like stab out. It’s fine to comment on the species having a high Special Attack, but does Tyranitar really need the BOAH set on his page? That is nothing but cruft, no matter how useful it may be to us. THL 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pokemon articles up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon game mechanics
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types
Add your input as needed :) — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at stupid articles.

There was Fire Blast from before, and now I found this article on Skarmbliss. This is soo stupid. -Amarkov babble 13:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I really hope there are no others this bad. -Amarkov babble 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

With us finding Fire Blast and Skarmbliss articles within a day's time, I'm thinking we should put an extra section on top of this page where people report stupid pages, right below the section where we list Pokemon articles that need work. Mmm? Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 00:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... is that really necessary? After all, I was deliberately searching for stupid articles. -Amarkov babble 00:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Creators

Fire Blast: User:Fire Blast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (only edits to Fire Blast and Charmander)
Blisskarm: User:Rafael Maia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (2 Sandbox edits (related to article, as shown in this diff) and 2 Blisskarm edits)

Looks like something from new users that we are now going through AfD with. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. -Amarkov babble 00:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EPok%C3%A9mon_Collaborative_Project_Archive_7_fbd7.html"