Talk:Ash Ketchum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ash Ketchum article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Ash Ketchum was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 27, 2007
Archive
Archives
Current Talk Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Why?

Why were the minature descriptions of Ash's Pokemon removed? BaconBoy914 (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new refrence

Kids Next door recently spoof the original ash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.255.18 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gligar

Yay! Ash caught a Gligar, has someone made a page for it yet?! Big Johnno —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled reference

Could someone fix ref #16? I tried, and couldn't figure what was wrong with the title box. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two sections

I have removed two sections from this talk page that were already archived here. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gligar # 2

Well this is Ash's first Pokemon that is a ground/flying type also his first arrachnid Pokemon. Matthew Cantrell (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals

Why was the rivals section removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badges

Ash has more Sinnoh Badges than just two. In the Japanese manga he has 7.

The manga has nothing to do with the anime

Not to mention no Pokemon canon manga follows Ash —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Chicken Spoof

I removed the Robot Chicken spoof because its cruel to make fun of shows that Japanese take forever to make Matthew Cantrell (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ash's Pokemon

I think that it would be a good idea to re-add the list of the pokemon Ash has. I don't think that it needs the descriptions of each pokemon and what they've done, but just a list of his pokemon. I just wanted to check to make sure everybody else was ok with it.--67.174.128.249 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.220.218 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ash Ketchum in Codename: Kids Next Door

I have added a sentence that shows ash was in operation archive, is it in the wrong place? should I put it somewhere else? signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Ash's Pokemon be listed?

I think that Ash's Pokemon should be listed since many people go to Wikipedia to see which Pokemon Ash has. The Pokemon that Ash doesn't currently have with him may not be needed, but I think that there is plenty of room for the Pokemon he at least has on hand. Since there's been much dispute about this I thought that it would be good to get the other's opinions instead of edit warring. --67.174.128.249 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for posting this on the talk page instead of simply re-adding the Pokémon section. My belief is that Ash's Pokémon are just nonnotable and of limited interest. I am sure there are other fansites out there that display the Pokémon Ash has. And its not about how much room there is in the article (since there is a near infinite amount of space for as much text in an article as you need), but it is if that information is needed in the article, and I believe it is not. Artichoker (Discussion) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to say that listing every Pokemon that Ash has is taking up more space than necessary, but I guess that the Pokemon has with him would be notable, but I agree with Aritchoker that the entire collection is too much. So I think that only his active roster should be added.--71.115.66.40 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
How would even the Pokémon he has with him be notable? It just seems to be excessive details to me, and of limited interest. Not only would this list change every couple of episodes, but what "good" information does the reader get from Ash Ketchum by knowing the Pokémon he currently has with him. Artichoker (Discussion) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You obviously don't watch Pokemon if you think that the list would change every few episodes. Ash can go an entire season and have only one Pokemon evolve the only time. Also he very rarely ever switches his Pokemon out since he always wants to start out on a fresh new journey. Besides Artichocker, you're the only person who ever deletes them while there are others who re-add what you've deleted, therefore I think that his active roster needs to be re-added.--71.115.66.40 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You still do not address how you think these Pokémon are notable. And as for your frivolous claim that I am the only one deleting the content, I would like to redirect your attention to the following links: [1] and [2]. I would like to see a stronger argument before you go changing the article. Artichoker (Discussion) 03:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I can somewhat see why having his current Pokémon makes sense, even though it's kind of crufty. But people keep adding back in everything he ever had anywhere and it's pretty clear there's consensus to keep that out. I'll remove that portion. Useight (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There you have it, sounds like the majority rule is to simply list his active roster but leave out the Pokemon that Ash has with Professor Oak or has released or traded or whatever. Case closed so lets simply just leave it the way that I added onto the article.--71.115.66.40 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You still have not given me a valid argument as to why the Pokémon section should remain, therefore the case is not closed. Please give me a good reason. Artichoker (Discussion) 13:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Woah, no putting words in my mouth. I don't know about his current roster sticking around, but the previous rosters have got to go. Useight (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I did find "Remove material that may be of trivial or of only highly detailed interest to the general reader" at Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fictional_elements_as_part_of_a_larger_topic. Useight (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not know what you mean by "putting words" in your mouth, as my last response was directed at 71.115.66.40. I agree with you that the previous rosters have got to go, and I also believe that his current roster fits "Remove material that may be of trivial or of only highly detailed interest to the general reader." Artichoker (Discussion) 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment regarding "putting words in my mouth" was directed at 71.115.66.40, not you. Useight (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is always, you haven't made an argument, yet is saying that one person hasn't made an argument an argument? No it is not, therefore I can use your only objection that, no argument has really been made against it, other than your opinion.--67.174.128.249 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not my main argument. My main argument has already been stated many times (it is nonnotable and of limited interest.) You however, have once again failed to provide any reasoning as to why the Pokémon section should be added back. You simply continue to revert it back. Since you are doing this without constructively contributing to this discussion, your addition of the Pokémon section again and again can only be considered vandalism and will be reverted. You can contest this by stating some actual reasons as to why you think it should be kept. Artichoker (Discussion) 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Artichoker the consensus was that the current roster stays, SO LEAVE IT ALONE, even if you don't like it a consensus IS THE MAJORITY! And MAJORITY WINS!--67.174.128.249 (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm getting tired of this warring back and forth on the article. I'm about ready to semi-protect it. You guys need to settle this on the talk page. Useight (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to settle this on the talk page. 67.174.128.249, there was no consensus. I honestly don't know what you are talking about. However, you continually revert my edits and then place false warnings on my talk page, without contributing anything of value to this discussion. Useight, I agree with you semi-protecting this page. Artichoker (Discussion) 13:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea there was a consensus, when more people say it should be there than people say it shouldn't then it should be there, after all majority rules.--67.174.128.249 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No that is not a consensus, that is a vote, and we do not "vote" on Wikipedia. A consensus is an opinion reach by a group as a whole. Also, you probably don't even have the majority, it seems that only you and another person want the Pokemon section to be in. Please do not say things that are not true. Your arguements so far have consisted of "lots of people want the pokemon section added" and "your the only one reverting it". Not only are these statements mostly untrue, but they do not contribute to the discussion, and you still have yet to provide a reason. I have provided mine (it is nonnotable and of limited interest), yet you have given no rational reason as to why the section should remain. I am open to your opinions if you disagree with me, but not when they are unconstructive and give no real explanation. Artichoker (Discussion) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh nice argument there, saying that ours is just an opinion and yet your argument is that it's nonnotable, which is your opinion, and of little interest, your opinion as well. Please seriously just give us a valid argument, and it's more than just the two of us that have edited it.--67.174.128.249 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is just a little bit frustrating dealing with you. Yes, saying that it is nonnotable IS an opinion, I know. I have backed up my claims that the Pokemon section should be removed, you however, have not. You have yet to provide me with your reason as to why the section should stay. And please do not give me another one of those "because everyone wants it except you, Artichoker" things. That is both ignorant and invalid. Artichoker (Discussion) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, here's what I get from gathering the information: Artichoker's reason for removing: it's a non-notable, trivial detail of little interest

IPs reason for re-adding: summed up by this edit

Editors who have added the information: Soccerguy1039 (who is dangerously close to getting blocked for 3RR), 67.174.128.249, 124.187.48.49, 72.49.71.43, 68.9.176.110

Editors who have removed the information: Artichoker, Wisdom89, WhisperToMe

Is this information correct? Useight (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this information is dead on. Thank you. Now IPs, you can see that I was not that only one who reverted your edits, as you have claimed time and time again.
Also, I would revert Soccerguy1039 edit to the article, however, I am afraid that I would violate 3RR. Artichoker (Discussion) 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

Okay, I have semi-protected the page for 5 days. You guys need to get a consensus on this matter. Have a straw-poll, quote policy, get some more opinions, something. Just figure this out here on the talk page, for the sake of the article. Useight (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the page protection was necessary to prevent this edit warring. I will continue to discuss this rationally on the talk page as long as people have questions or suggestions. Artichoker (Discussion) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fully-protected

Useight has fully protected the article, so we can discuss the controversial content without edit warring. So let us calmly come to a consensus. What I DO NOT WANT, is for the edit wars to begin again immediately after the protection has expired. Let us instead discuss this and gather consensus. And thank you, Useight. I believe this protection was needed to prevent the warring. Artichoker (Discussion) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and fully-protected the page so only admins can edit it, as per the policy at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes. My only other option was issuing several temporary blocks, and I ultimately decided that full protection was better since the warring would likely continue after the blocks ended, and being blocked doesn't give anybody a chance to discuss consensus. I have commented out the content that is currently disputed. It can still be seen by clicking "Edit this page" and scrolling down to that section, however it is not currently visible on the actual page. This dispute will be settled on this talk page, not on the article. Come to a consensus, as defined here, not a vote, not a majority, but actually look at policy and then determine what is best for the article. Useight (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For an outside comment, let me explain how a dispute about notability is supposed to go. The side asserting that the information is notable is supposed to provide evidence that it is notable, and the opposing side is supposed to critique and challenge the evidence to make sure the evidence is valid. If the evidence proves to be valid, the information is inserted into the article. If no valid evidence can be presented, then it is not. The side asserting that the information is not notable has no responsibilities other than challenging the evidence presented by the opposition. Saying something is not notable is a negative assertion (as the statement contains not), and proving a negative is impossible. Therefore, asking them to prove it is not a valid request, and the burden of proof lies with the side making the positive assertion: the assertion that it is notable. Now, having an article fully protected is a fairly big deal. As a result I ask all participants to fall in line and fulfill their responsibilities in this dispute as quickly and efficiently as possible. For relevant links, see the notability policy and what constitutes a reliable source to establish notability. If you have any questions about a source, I assume that you can ask at WikiProject Pokemon where the participants in the project will be able to judge a Pokemon related source better than anyone else. If this hasn't been done already, I would also recommend alerting the aforementioned project to this dispute so this discussion can have more participants. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I also said it was trivial and of limited interest, and that is possible to prove. Artichoker (Discussion) 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't see where your argument for that point is. Could you perhaps restate it? I will do my best to mediate this dispute. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is simply an always-changing list of what Pokemon Ash currently has in the anime. I don't believe the reader gets any valuable information about the character Ash Ketchum out of that. Artichoker (Discussion) 02:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, to state it's always changing is a bit of a stretch, but I see where you're coming from as it isn't set in stone by any means. However, the argument that it is not valuable information is the most important part of your statement, and ties back to the notability issue. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that my argument is not significant? (This is in no way accusatory, it is an honest question.) I mean I could say by "valuable" I meant that it was trivial, but wouldn't that tie back to my "limited interest" statement?
I guess what I'm saying is that it's trivial and of limited interest because it does not contribute enough to the article about the character Ash. I mean it tells what Pokemon he currently has: so what? Artichoker (Discussion) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your argument that it is trivial and of limited interest is a long way of saying the material is not encyclopedic. Whether or not material is encyclopedic is determined by its notability, or lack there of. You were making the same argument twice, but didn't realize it. At least, that's the way I see it. I'm open to being proven wrong; I may be taking your comments the wrong way. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I see now, and agree that I was making the same argument twice. But was my initial argument about the section being trival lacking or completely wrong? Artichoker (Discussion) 02:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that it isn't relevant to the article, ie it's trivial, because it provides no pertinent information about the character. You tied this argument to the fact that the information can change at any given time. This is a rather large stretch. The dynamic nature of the information doesn't relate to how relevant the information is. Your argument isn't wrong, though, as your main argument is that the information doesn't reveal anything about the character. This argument is correct, and it is a rather damning argument. You just tried to back it up incorrectly. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
However, there is an argument to be made that this in itself is information to be revealed about the character, so ultimately everything has to tie back to the notability issue. If notability can be established, the information should be inserted into the article, and if not, then it shouldn't be. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it fails WP:N in my book, for it is not supported by any sources. Also, it fails WP:NOT, for Wikipedia is not a directory and should not contain lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Artichoker (Discussion) 12:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the IPs that were repeatedly adding the information? This is their opportunity to provide evidence. Useight (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I really hope they aren't just waiting around until the protection is lifted to start an edit war again. Artichoker (Discussion) 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If they are, then there will be grounds to block them. -The Hybrid- 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Useight (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, they've had more than enough time to formulate some kind of an argument. It is obvious that they have either given up, or are laying in wait to edit war again. Go ahead and unprotect the article; there's nothing left to do here. Useight, I'm going to go ahead and leave this to you. As a non-admin there's really nothing left for me to do here unless they decide to formulate an argument. Artichoker, Useight, it's been a pleasure. Cheers, The Hybrid 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those adding and re-adding the content had more than enough time to provide evidence of the notability of that list. Since no more seems to be coming from the full-protection, I have unprotected the article. Since no discussion was made, it appears to have defaulted to leaving the list of current Pokémon out of the article.
Do not re-add the current Pokémon list without further discussion on this talk page. Useight (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unbelievable, you unprotect the article, and already the Pokémon section has been added. [3]. I guess I can give the IP a vandalism warning? Artichoker (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, judging by the IP's contributions, it would appear the IP was uninvolved in the edit warring. As such, this was probably a good faith insertion. Do remember, this is probably going to be reinserted ad nauseum by random users as they stumble across the article due to the nature of the information. I would ignore this particular edit for the time being. If they perform the edit again, I would leave a custom warning on the talk page, explaining the situation and pointing him/her to this discussion. Any future attempts to insert the info without a rational for notability provided would warrant a standard warning, IMO. Cheers, The Hybrid 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been too long since I've been able to access Wikipedia. I can see that I've missed out on far too much discussion.
Firstly, I agree that the list of current Pokemon is unneeded. Great work on the person who decided to be bold and remove it in the first place. Secondly, to help prevent the list being readded, perhaps an inline note would be of use? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already added a hidden editor's note in the location where the text was repeatedly added. Useight (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concept art found

I found some concept art on Ash Ketchum on this website. It has lots of other things like that about Pokémon on it too. StarBP (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. Artichoker[talk] 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)