Talk:Bulbasaur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Bulbasaur is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2006.
Archive
Archives
*Archive 01: Sept 2003 – May 2006


Contents

[edit] Redirect

There is no consensus, or even discussion that this article should be a redirect. As many people tried to revert this as do it. While the matter is being discussed, the article should be restored to its former state and edit warring over this needs to cease. THings are done here by consensus, not bullying. Discussion goes here. pschemp | talk 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to restoring the page to the version before the blatantly unjustified content deletion. Restore first, then discuss later. The discussion should probably goes here or at the DRV you started. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 -- Cat chi? 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Blanking a featured article seems a clear case of WP:POINT. Since there seems to have been no proper discussion of this here, it should be reverted as vandalism. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not unprecedented. TTN used to perform self-delisting GA without any reviews and blatantly merged that article. @pple complain 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD comment

My vote in the AFD got edit conflicted in an edit war over whether the AFC was closed. Ironic, neh? Anyway, here is my text that couldn't go in:

  • Delete, replace with redirect, protect to avoid resurrection. I'm sorry, to me this is a pretty obvious one. I'm sorry that it used to be a featured article, too. But, bad judgment in the past does not require us to continue to have bad judgement. The article is a massive violation of WP:SELFPUB's restriction against primarily basing an article on self-published sources. Of the 20 sources in the article, article, only 3 are indendent of the creators -- 17 of them are official websites, affiliated with the creators; manga, affiliated with the creators;PR Newswire releases, a press release by the creator; or videos, affiliated with the creators. The information gleaned from independent sources are sales figures from Nintendo in a source that doesn't mention Bulbasaur, a game review that doesn't mention Bulbasaur, and a Time article that gives us the riveting information that Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur. That is in the context of Fushigidane being a popular Pokemon in Japan, which it would require synthesis to state applies to Bulbasaur in the English editions. In short, there are no reliable third-party sources for this article. No sources = no article. It really is that simple.Kww (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is ridiculous that a valid AfD got speedy kept because it USED to be a FA. What is the problem when there are multiple reasons against the article and the only thing going for the article is its past FA status? The only people who were able to voice on the AfD were the people actively involved with the conflict in the time that the AfD was brought up and was unjustly closed due to some sort of FA immunity. SpigotMap 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to raise a stink about this. This article's FA status was revoked for good reason, as stated above and on WT:PCP, because everyone realized that FAing the article was a shot in the foot. Former FAs should not be immune to XfDs or DRV or somesuch just because they were frontpaged. To me, this is just further evidence of the deterioration of PCP, and I will be henceforth removing the supporter userbox from my page barring people adopting common sense in re Bulbasaur. Not to be crass, but this article is shit. It's been shit from before the FA, shit while an FA (notwithstanding the vandalism from hell while it was on the frontpage), and shit even after it stopped being an FA. The editors here have had enough fragging time to come up with sources. It appears they have failed or not even fragging bothered. Time to redirect to the list. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the past I've seen AfD's speedy kept based on FA status. If the article does not meet inclusion guidelines, how did it become FA? The thing went all the way to Front Page and no one noticed it did not meet inclusion crtieria. So "FA status" is certainly a powerful argument for a speedy keep. The idea of the subject not being notable leaves me speechless. Pokemon in general and Bubasaur in particular are, in my opinion, notable as meeting "household name" status. Notability does not wear out or expire. If the current version is flawed, the correction for that is always reversion to a better version or re-editing. Cheers and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in this case, there is no "better version". Everyone realized when it was FA-reviewed that it was a travesty of an FA. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't deny the fact that this article survived one year as an FA and a day as an FA main page with thoudsand of people looking at it. Oh, and it got through the first FAR, too. Not meeting FA standard doesn't mean an article should be redirected somewhere, because, let's face it, you cannot merge all the valid, relevant and well-sourced materials currently presented here to some "list of characters" page. Please drop it. - PeaceNT (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
... valid, relevant, and well-sourced materials? The article has no third-party sources. Absolutely none. How can that be described as well-sourced?Kww (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And the article has had zero third party sources since before the FA nom. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Lack of third party sources doesn't make an article less "well-sourced", all materials here come from reliable official sources, thus are verifiable, and go perfectly in accordance with WP:V. - PeaceNT (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." TTN (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to take words too literally, from WP:V: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." — article doesn't violate this spirit of the policy. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
PeaceNT, it is general understanding that because of this limited interpretation that leads to thousands of controversial redirections. Wild claim that article has no or zero reliable sources is fallacious. At the same time, as stated in WP:V, self-publish sources can be used under certain conditions, to which this article satisfies. @pple complain 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB says that self-published sources are OK if the article is not based primarily on such sources. This article is clearly based primarily on self-published sources, as only 1 of the 20 sources is a third-party, independent source that mentions Bulbasaur. My claim is not wild... it's factual.Kww (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that V isn't the only threshold an article needs to meet, right? Just because the information is verifiable doesn't mean that the information has anything to do with notability. WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS all require or put a great emphasis on reliable third party sources. This is expanded upon in WP:FICT (No, being "disputed" does not make it irrelevant. The consensus is leaning towards "keep but make less harsh and more workable" anyways.) and WP:WAF for fictional topics. There is no way that you can call this current article anywhere near a viable topic. TTN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
TTN, you are going around the circle without the willing to advance the process of building consensus. Don't play JUSTAPOLICY as an excuse for lacking of argument. Even a new user can cite pure links to policy like you, but it is unappreciated, anyway. OK, back to the problem. V is one of the core content policies along with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:N, WP:RS or the disputed FICT are just some of subdivisions of the broad V. WP:N is one criterion for article inclusion, i.e. a barometer for topic suitability and should never be separated from WP:V. You claim that "the information is verifiable doesn't mean that the information has anything to do with notability" enhances the another side of your superficial comprehension of policy. @pple complain 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not one or the other. All articles have to come in line with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and any other specific MOSs and notability guidelines. The information in this article can be attributed to sources just like any other fictional topic, but per the rest of those, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. TTN (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what Template:Primarysources is for. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this has been through plenty of discussion with absolutely no good sources turning up, that's not going to do much good at this point. TTN (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It takes only a second to redirect a page, but days or maybe weeks to find sources and write articles. There's nothing so urgent that one has to deny the article's right to improvement and redirects it right now. No reason has been given as to why this page has to be redirected now. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) We have had many months in this case. Many people have searched for sources in that time, and none have been found. It needs to be a redirect now because like the other 492 non-notable Pokemon, it does not assert notability and needs to be part of a list. There is currently no reason to think that this is a worthwhile topic.

The fact that it was featured means nothing. We let this become featured at one point, but our standards changed. This article became a featured article, but again, our standards changed. While Wario is currently possible topic, this and Torchic (the other featured Pokemon) have not even came close to showing anything that places them in today's Wikipedia. The only reasons to even think that it is worthwhile topic is because it is the first Pokemon, which carries absolutely no more weight than being 29, 265, 429, or any other number, and the fact that it is one of the first starters. That second carries no more weight than any other starter or legendary of the series. Are you going to try to get those brought back soon also? TTN (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the main argument ... this article has been around for a long, long time. The lack of sources has been a sore point for a long, long, time. Not a single editor has discovered third-party sourcing ... what's the argument for keeping it after such a long dry spell? How can keeping such a poorly-sourced article be justified? Kww (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you considered the possibility that the problem isn't the article, which covers the topic quite well, but rather the mess of contradictory and unwieldly guidelines and policies you are treating as infallible? Catchpole (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If guidelines seem fuzzy or contradictory, one goes back to core policy. Core policy insists on reliable third-party sourcing being available. This isn't an argument over whether an article can be fleshed out with self-published material (which it can, and no one arguing for redirection says that it can't), but whether an article based primarily on self-published sources can be allowed to live, which is prohibited by WP:V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, haven't searched for third-party sources simply because I wasn't aware that was an issue. I'm sure the situation is the same with other editors; not everyone has been a part of the Wikiproject for as long as TTN, Jeske, etc. I wouldn't mind following WP:IAR for a short time to give newer editors on the Project (such as myself) time to find reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. Odds are that none will be found, but I don't mind spending a day or two trying to find some.
It's obvious that we are all here because we want to improve Wikipedia. The problem is that we just have different interpretations on the best way of doing that. If the redirect can be postponed until next Sunday (February 3) to give the newer Wikiproject members time to find the sources, we will be able to know for sure if the article is kept, or redirected. Any objections? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have stated before that due to my custom D&D material (which does involve Pokémon), I have a conflict of interest w/ regards to Pokémon species and thus avoid editing other than the redirections or reverting vandalism. The same COI also kept me out of the PCP - I was merely a supporter of it until the AfD.
As for the time, I would normally agree to this, except that the users who want this article separate have had literally months to find such sources. As I have stated above, they either have not found any or have not looked. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to be common ground that the Wikipedia should contain an article about the Bulbasaur. The only difference seems to be whether that article has an arbitrary and unhelpful title like List of Pokémon (1-20) or is the more direct and obvious title of Bulbasaur. The latter seems better. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What the heck are you guys looking for in a "third-party source" that isn't here? Please explain for some of us who think that this article has quite a few third-party sources. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Third-party sources are independent of the subject or its creator. And, Colonel, I have a question. Were you even involved in the endless discussions at WT:PCP last year that led to the merging? The consensus was to redirect to lists. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To expand on third-party sources: they have to be independent of the creator (in this case, they basically cannot profit from Pokemon in any way), have a reputation for fact checking, and have to have a direct and detailed examination of the topic. Look at WP:RS for the rules. Essentially, you have to find someone like Time Magazine or the New York Times that wrote an article about Pokemon that took the time to write a paragraph or two about Bulbasaur. It can't be just a passing mention (like there are 492 first-generation Pokemon, with names like "Pikachu" and "Bulbasaur"). Given the topic, you would be better off looking at magazines like Newtype and Animage. Be careful though ... if the source is really talking about Fushigidane, it may not be OK to use it in reference to Bulbasaur. That would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The other thing you need to find are in these third-party sources are things that show that Bulbasaur himself is important... best-selling Pokemon toy, satirized or parodied in other works, things like that. If all they are talking about is Pokemon in general, that doesn't do anything to make Bulbasaur any more notable than the others.Kww (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect. Per WP:SOURCES, Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations.. In other words, since Nintendo is the copyright and tradmark owner for most of this material, it is essential to reference them to show fair use. Also, since Nintendo is the creator of this material, their sources are literally authoritative. Economic independence is not an decisive factor as most sources have a vested interest in their subject.
  • Never said that you couldn't/shouldn't use Nintendo as a source ... I just said that they aren't a third-party source.Kww (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think our common sense would agree that Bulbsaur is notable. Pokemon are not created equal and bulbasaur is exceptional. Pokemon wouldn't be popular if there wasn't the original three starting pokemon backing up pikachu. They highlighted pokemon's animal characteristics, emphasized collection, and the weakness and resistance part of pokemon battling. They really are the companion mascots to pikachu. Tangeros (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other language Wikipedias

It appears that an article about this Pokemon exists in 18 other Wikipedias - do any of them contain content or links to sources which could be used to improve the English version? (Of them, I only speak Spanish, and es:Bulbasaur doesn't appear to have anything to recommend it over the English version). JavaTenor (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

フシギダネ doesn't have anything useful in the Japanese one, either.Kww (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What constitutes a third-party source?

If video game content is discussed in a game guide that is not published by the same company that made the game, doesn't that count as a third-party source? I'm not familiar with Pokemon content, but there are third-party guides available for almost all of the games I do play. Certainly some of these could be found and cited. *** Crotalus *** 19:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IINM, the consensus at PCP is that strategy guides and such are usable as 3rd-party sources. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Though, note that there is a difference between a third party source and a third party source that establishes notability. TTN (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability is an official policy, and it requires that we have "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Notability is merely a guideline, and one that is clearly the subject of significant dispute as to its applicability and scope. *** Crotalus *** 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because you can attribute primary information to reliable sources does not mean that the article is worthy for inclusion, if that's what you're trying to get at. Being a guideline that expands upon and balances out with WP:V and WP:RS, WP:N cannot just be ignored like that. TTN (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There's clearly no consensus to apply the notability guideline in the fashion you want. WP:V is a major core policy, and non-negotiable; we can't indefinitely keep an article if it lacks any valid sources and none can be found. WP:N, a guideline, doesn't have anywhere near the same level of weight or importance. More importantly, all Wikipedia guidelines are based on consensus. They are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If a substantial number of users disagree with a guideline, then it should not (and probably will not) be applied. Guidelines do not justify edit warring. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Trying to clarify TTN's point. If the source is about a Pokemon game, and it mentions that Bulbasaur is available as a starter, or can be received from so-and-so at level such-and-such, that is certainly verifiable information, and able to be included in the article. Does it establish notability? By itself, probably not. If there were 50 game guides, reviewing the same game, and all 50 of them mentioned that information, it's just a detail of the game, and doesn't establish that there's a reason to have a article. If three or four of those same guides held that one of the reasons it was the best/worst/most-challenging/most-interesting Pokemon game was because you finally got to get a Bulbasaur, which everyone had been waiting for, then you have a winner: clearly, that kind of discussion establishes notability. That's why WP:RSWP:N includes the language about direct and detailed examination ... passing mentions don't count for much.Kww (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are incorrectly reading WP:RS. It says that "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." That is basically a reiteration of No original research. It doesn't say that passing mentions are not reliable sources, only that we can't extrapolate further beyond what the original source says. There are stricter requirements for biographies of living people, but that obviously doesn't apply here. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Corrected myself ... it's WP:N that calls for sources that address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.Kww (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I have a magazine called "Pokémon Master guide". It covers Bulbasaur quite a lot with comments such as "Although all the starting Pokémon are cool, Bulbasaur is the Nintendo Offical Magazine choice" and "Bulbasaur's a good starting choice if you want to build a strong squad". Would these be acceptable/relevant/etc? I've added a sentence or two to the Video Games section. —Celestianpower háblame 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate ... who publishes it? Is it by Nintendo, or by an independent game guide producer?Kww (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. I've scoured the whole magazine but I can't find any publishing information. —Celestianpower háblame 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that disqualifies it as a reliable source ... if you don't know who is talking, you can't establish whether they are reliable and independent. To say what TTN says directly below a little bit more nicely, while this is a start, it isn't sufficient. If this was all you could find, it would still best fit in the main list article. More things like this (that we can verify who wrote), and discussion outside the context of the game is important. Notice the difference between Bulbasaur is a good starting choice and Fans were happy to get to be Bulbasaur, because he is a good starting choice or The availability of Bulbasaur as a starting choice was a prime factor in driving "Pokemon Fuschia" to beat sales records. Kww (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, whatever. It's these guys. And I was just asking about that source, not if that makes the article (in your eyes) follow policy. —Celestianpower háblame 09:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Nintendo is not a third-party source, no. It's reliable, so you can use it, but not independent, so it doesn't count towards getting the article away from being primarily based on self-published material.Kww (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's borderline trivial and game guide material. If it's that important, it can fit on the list. You need true reception if you want to get anywhere. TTN (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
What your opinion of what is trivia is your opinion.--Barnyard animals (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What cannot be covered within the list entry?

OK, what cannot be covered within the list entry at this point in time? This describes the basic function of the species and links to the anime version (which will have its own list entry eventually). Besides maybe expanding to three paragraphs, there is no reason that the entry will ever grow much larger or require an article. TTN (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything currently in the article would need to be adde dto the list and you're not willing for that to happen. —Celestianpower háblame 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it would not need any of this. The lead is irrelevant. Concept and creation is generic filler. "Characteristics", game appearances, and the anime character are covered. TCG and manga are trivial filler (if they weren't, they would be covered within Pikachu, for sure), and they could easily be summarized anyways. "In other media" is trivial and pointless in this case. TTN (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, concept and creation is not all generic, game and anime are covered much better and in more detail here than there, TCG and manga are not fillers - they're just as important as the rest. In other media is equally not a filler but verified and useful information. —Celestianpower háblame 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I would rather hear from someone that isn't trying to keep this afloat just because they worked on bringing it up to our old FA fictional character standards. Honestly, if you really felt that this coverage was adequate and worthy of an article, I imagine that you would be fighting for the rest of the Pokemon articles to come back (The first 251 could easily match this "quality" quite easily). TTN (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I match those criteria: I never worked on this article (or any Pokemon article) and I think all Pokemon should have articles. This article is too long to go into a list (although it is admittedly somewhat short and may not be comprehensive); merging would necessarily lose about 75% of the content. (I'm sure you feel most of the content is stuff that nobody needs to know, but some of us believe in comprehensive coverage.) Everyking (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Giving single Pokemon articles without providing real world context is giving them undue weight. If you like the content, you're free to move them over to Bulbapedia or another relevant wiki. They certainly don't belong here. TTN (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What if there's a consensus against you? When consensus goes against you, do you concede, or do you try to force the issue? Everyking (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not based in small groups deciding that their articles are good. Consensus is found within our policies and guidelines, and this article certainly doesn't meet them without some heavy wikilawyering. TTN (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see: if you can't get consensus here, you can claim to have consensus somewhere else and use that to force the issue here. You do realize that people have different interpretations of policies and guidelines? Everyking (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
See, people act like a consensus within a small discussion rules this site. Policies and guidelines require the use of third party sources to assert and establish notability for all articles, and this article does not do that. No number of users can override or actually get around that interpretation without changing the relevant policies and guidelines. You're free to join the discussion over at the most relevant of the guidelines, WP:FICT, if you want to make sure that fictional characters can be covered just by existing and having a subjective view of notability placed with them. TTN (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It's true that there are different interpretations of policies and guidelines, Everyking, but it is difficult for me to see where your interpretation comes from. There aren't third-party sources that address Bulbasaur directly and in detail ... what interpretation of policy do you use to get around that?Kww (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a policy issue because WP:N is not policy. It's a guideline that some editors agree with and others disagree with. The question is whether the article meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and, if not, whether these issues can be fixed. I think sourcing could be improved using third-party game guides, but there are already reliable third-party sources cited. The article meets all three of the main content policies. I don't think the non-binding guideline has enough consensus to justify a redirect. *** Crotalus *** 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles have to follow policies and guidelines. To ignore one because it is convenient is not proper. And as WP:N is essentially the core guideline, it's even less proper. And you should read over WP:RS if you believe that problems are fixed just by citing third party sources. They have to actually provide information relevant to notability. TTN (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Articles have to follow core policies, usually meaning in particular WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. While it is best for most articles to follow guidelines, it is not required, nor desirable under all circumstances. According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (which is official policy): "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, though to differing degrees: policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." Furthermore, both policy and guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. They're supposed to reflect existing consensus, what editors actually believe. If you find yourself having to edit war to enforce a guideline, that's a good indication that it doesn't really have consensus and it should be disregarded (or amended to reflect actual consensus and practice). *** Crotalus *** 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
But If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it is straight out of WP:V. A policy. Not a guideline. What will it take to get you to drop the wholly mistaken notion that it is only a guideline that articles need third-party sources?Kww (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
But there are reliable third-party sources for this article. So far the complaints have been about triviality, which is not part of WP:V. *** Crotalus *** 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Color me unimpressed, but you are technically correct. Two third-party sources have been found, one pertaining to the McDonalds toy, and one pertaining to the Burger King toy. Now all you have to get past is the part of WP:V that says that an article can't rely primarily on self-published sources, which this article clearly does. Still a policy violation, not a guideline violation.Kww (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't say that in so many words. WP:V says that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (Emphasis added.) Also, it does say that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." We already have some secondary sources, which satisfies the bare minimum requirement. Now it's necessary to find more. A search for "pokemon" on amazon.com (books) shows quite a few game guides, many of which are not published by Nintendo, which presumably would contain information relevant to this article. (I don't have these guides and am not particularly interested in this game series, myself.) Searching on books.google.com found this, which describes the change of the name from Japanese (though it looks like we've already got another source for that). Here is another reliable, published third-party source that mentions a few facts about Bulbasaur. (From a university press, no less!) Here is a published mention of Bulbasaur appearing on airplane art, though that might be considered trivia. This game guide by Prima showed up in the search results, though I can't read it online. *** Crotalus *** 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it says so in exactly those words. Look at the last line of WP:SELFPUB, which is just a shortcut to the middle of WP:N, so it is policy.Kww (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) You're right, WP:V does say that. I apparently overlooked it the first time. Still, as I mentioned above, I'm confident that this article can be rebuilt using mostly third-party sources. I was able to source one Bulbasaur-related tidbit to a book published by an academic press. Much of the rest can probably be sourced to third-party game guides (Prima is a company well-known for this specialty). Next time I'm at Gamestop, I'll see if I can find any cheap third-party guides there that I might be able to use as a source.
I also think we're sometimes missing the forest for the trees. This article isn't anywhere near the worst we have. In fact, I would place it above the median. This argument isn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; rather, it's saying that if we redirect or merge this article, we should redirect or merge over 50% of the articles already on Wikipedia. We are a work in progress, which means not all articles will be perfect at all times. Articles should only be gotten rid of if they fail policies and there's no realistic hope that they ever will pass them. See Category:Articles lacking sources for a long list of articles that have no sources at all, and thus completely fail WP:V. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus some effort on them, rather than this article, which does have some valid sources even if not as many as we'd like? *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. Bulbasaur could become a featured article once again. I think we really need to work on its reception for now. I'll check the images for fair use information now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no way this will ever become a featured article again, let alone a good article, without a massive surge of information. There is just not enough specific information on the species to warrant an article. This only became featured in the first place because people worked on it because it is the first one. Afterwards, Torchic became an FA, and Charizard was about to at one point, but the standards had already changed by then (see Charizard's six FACs). Then the two were demoted and active work to bring the rest of them to this "standard" stopped. TTN (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
All images now have proper rationales. Chances are that Bulbasaur may pass as a good article once all requirements are met. What do you suggest TTN? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this remains a redirect until proper conception and reception notes are provided because this cannot become anything without it. If this stays around for much longer, I will definitely be cutting the sections way down. TTN (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You heard that people! Let's get to work then. TTN, when do you plan to start trimming? It'd be good to know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea because I'm sure the people trying to defend this crap that they're calling content will just revert it. The end result will be something like this. TTN (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a huge slash if you ask me. What'll happen to some of these categories:
  1. Category:Basic Pokémon
  2. Category:Grass Pokémon
  3. Category:Poison Pokémon
Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently bloated with unnecessary details, so of course it's a big slash. People are trying to justify this content as relevant and useful, yet it's just bloated and crufty. Those categories no longer have any use, so they'll be deleted. I believe that someone is working on a system similar to {{ER to list entry}} for characters, if you're worried about categorization. TTN (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Crap, unnecessary, bloated, crufty...At heart, every deletionist is just somebody who has contempt for information that doesn't interest him. Everyking (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Relevant information interests me. This is just a bunch of game guide material, trivia, unneeded plot summaries, repetitive info, and plain junk used to justify keeping an irrelevant topic around just because it once met our FA standards. Everything relevant is already covered, and if you find the information to be fun to read, find another wiki that covers it. That's what I do when I feel like reading about details regarding the Mario series that don't fit here. TTN (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Sesshomaru the cut is too big. As far as I'm concerned, the article has already been cut down enough during the series of negotiational edits I made when I created this account. Who knows what future readers will find interesting and what they'll find crufty, only they can make that decision. I agree with Everyking's comments. I notice TTN said he goes and reads other encylopedias - shame on him :p I don't know how long a project life span they will have, I do have an expectation (can I demand? Yes I DEMAND) that this project has an exceptionally extended life span, lets keep accumulating knowledge please.Barnyard animals (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that TTN is a stickler for policy, and, if you work at it, you can make that work in your favor. Once you find so many third-party sources for the article that the article is primarily based on third-party sources, it will comply with WP:V and WP:N. Right now, you have about four sentences of material based on third-party sources, so he can rightfully argue that the rest can only occupy about three sentences. I don't think you stand a chance, but you would be better off trying to find independently sourced material than arguing with someone that is correctly interpreting policy.Kww (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that at this point, we all agree that we're trying to follow policy. The problem is that one side wants time to be able to reach that standard, and the other group feels as if enough time has already been given. At this point, it's immaterial to me whether the page is merged or not. Discussions seem to be getting more heated, however, so... MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To join the secret cabal follow me!


Whack!

[edit] Confused

What does this sentence mean? Bulbasaur, known as Fushigidane (フシギダネ, Fushigidane?) in Japan are the first of the 493 fictional species of creatures. By which I mean, what does the word first refer to. And also is Bulbasaur a plural term, because otherwise I do not understand the usage of "are" instead of "is". Hiding T 11:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And what does this sentence mean? Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon that can be obtained in the Pocket Monsters Aka (ポケットモンスター 赤, Poketto Monsutā Aka?, "Pocket Monsters Red") and Pocket Monsters Midori (ポケットモンスター 緑, Poketto Monsutā Midori?, "Pocket Monsters Green") Game Boy games originally released in Japan. Hiding T 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is the name of the creture. Fushigidane is it's original Japanese name. When it comes to describing Pokemon, there are no plurals. One Bulbasaur, two Bulbasaur, red Bulbasaur, four Bulbasaur. It's just like how we don't pluralize Deer. One of the problems in this article is that "are" and "is" are being used interchangeably. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I remove the "jargon" tag now? The article has since been reworked. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If the issues mentioned when the tag was placed have been addressed, yes it can be removed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above concerns have not been addressed. I still do not understand what the term first referes to in the first sentence, nor what the second sentence means. Thanks, Hiding T 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Which term in the first do you not understand? Fushigidane? MelicansMatkin (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to wikilink off to somewhere in the Pokemon article that explains the sequencing and evolution of Pokemon.Kww (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay let me try again. First, this sentence: Bulbasaur, known as Fushigidane (フシギダネ, Fushigidane?) in Japan are the first of the 493 fictional species of creatures.
  • To me it says Bulbasaur are the first Pokemon. Is that what it means? Is that correct? I'm asking what you mean by first and what you mean by 493 fictional species of creatures. Because at the minute it is overly jargonistic.
  • Second, Bulbasaur is one of the first Pokémon that can be obtained in the Pocket Monsters Aka (ポケットモンスター 赤, Poketto Monsutā Aka?, "Pocket Monsters Red") and Pocket Monsters Midori (ポケットモンスター 緑, Poketto Monsutā Midori?, "Pocket Monsters Green") Game Boy games originally released in Japan.
  • What does this mean. That in the game boy games Bulbasaur is one of the characters you can play at the beginning? The text is really really unclear. Hiding T 14:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Bulbasaur is the "first" in the sense that it is #1 in the pretty much unexplained numbering system for the monsters. It's one of the first obtained because at the beginning of the game, you're given either Bulbasaur, Charmander or Squirtle (your choice) to start off with.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite

I asked for a citation of the statement that The design and art direction for Bulbasaur were provided by Ken Sugimori, a friend of the creator of the Pocket Monsters game, Satoshi Tajiri. The cite tag has been removed but no reference added. Can someone please tell me where this fact can be verified. Thanks, Hiding T 11:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Their respective articles say they are friends. You're right that it still needs a source, because the articles could be wrong. Have you tried googling for a reliable source? Tajiri calls him a friend in his MySpace. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want a cite on them being friends, I would like a cite on him doing the design and art direction. As you may have seen Pokemon confuses me and I don't know what I am looking at when I do google. It's all gobbledygook. I put the cite tag in so someone who knew what they were doing could cite it, because that's how I thought things were done. Would it be better simply to remove the sentence then? Hiding T 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Might as well just remove if you feel that way. Seems the citation tag was taken off. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This interview with Ken Sugimori states that he designed and created the Pokémon. It doesn't mention Bulbasaur by name, but need it? It seems to be a reputable magazine. Reverted removal -I'm not sure how best to write the reference, but that's the source. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added the reference in, although I think the cite that Hiding was asking for was related more to the fact that they are friends. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Err... "I don't want a cite on them being friends, I would like a cite on him doing the design and art direction". From above ;). Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. This is the sort of stuff that builds an article and provides out of universe detail. Hiding T 13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squirtle and Charmander

If bulbasaur gets an article so should squirtle and charmander. They are just as significant in the games and Bulbaaur is only slightly more significant in the anime.

Block quote

  • Above was an unsigned addition by User:99.231.78.63
That's a variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Unfortunately, Bulbasaur is defended vigorously, despite the fact that there is absolutely no justification for this article's existence.Kww (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is some serious justification, or else it wouldn't be possible to defend it so vigorously. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Any excuse to justify this article's existente can be used to justify Charmander or Squirtle having their own articles, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.28.125 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Fushigi da ne"

After Kww's edit I did some digging to see how that could've slipped by as long as it did, and noticed here the info was different, and a google search turns up that the phrase does indeed exist. The kanji is also there on that page, so someone with the font available to them should splice it into the appropriate slots. Again, thanks for catching that Kww.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, 不思議だね would be read as "Fushigi da ne", and "it's a mystery, isn't it" or "it's strange, isn't it" would be possible translations. I'm pretty skeptical about the "pun" story, and think you should find a pretty good source that states it's intentional before you include that version at all. Japanese has a lot of homophones, and it's pretty common to be able to read a phrase two different ways. Sometimes it's a pun, but more often, it's an accident. Kww (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I know what you mean there, though the "tane" -> "dane" seems to support that a little alongside the fact it's evolution Ivysaur sports a name that can be read as "Yes, it is strange". I'll see what I can do to dig up other info, at least Venusaur's japanese name to make sure it is a trend.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Tane"=>"dane" is a phenomenon known as "rendaku". When a kanji that normally begins with an unvoiced consonant is used as the last component of a compound, the consonant frequently becomes voiced. This one is voiced in 火種 (hidane, or "coals"), 変り種 (wakaridane, or "hybrid"), 子種 (kodane, or "children"), 新聞種 (shinbundane, or "news source"), 艶種 (hiyadane, or "love affair"), 特種 (tokudane, or "news scoop"), and others.
As for Ivysaur, 不思議そう could be read as "appears strange" (never "Yes, it is strange"). Venusaur is 不思議花, "Fushigibana", and that pretty much only means "mysterious flower". From the kana, I could get "mysterious nose" or "mysterious mesa", but neither of those even seems worth considering.
BTW, I keep having to correct your links to make them work. Only use the | in wikilinks. If it's a URL, just use a space.Kww (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, with that settled it seems it's just a happy coincidence so I removed the info in light of that, leaving the realistic name info behind. (makes me wonder now if the thing about Wobbuffet and it's baby form having names that mean "It is so!" and "It is?" is true or not)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the sentence "Fushiginade is a Japanese phrase that translates as "weird, isn't it." that I added a while back? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the above, that's going off the speculation they made it a pun off that. The evolutions don't seem to support it though, especially Venusaur, and it's more or less guessing that's how the kanji is. It's something that would need confirmation from Nintendo or a reliable source as being the intention of Bulbasaur's naming. And it's "da ne" btw, not "na de".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)