Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.
[edit] Charizard
First failed FAC, Second failed FAC, Third failed FAC, Fourth failed FAC, Fifth failed FAC
- Support - nice and well-referenced article, it really could be a FA. Eurocopter tigre 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support I like this, and hopefully it will stay featured after Charizard has been merged. TheBlazikenMaster 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Changed my vote to Object per Amarkov. C'mon, there are better sources out there. TheBlazikenMaster 21:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)- Object. First, the episode citations should use {{cite episode}}, unless the Serebii synopses contain some information not present in the original work (which they don't). This is obviously not a huge thing to fix. However, secondly, the sources are really not that good. Of the sources which actually mention Charizard (quite a few don't), there are simple synopses of primary source material (no original thought in them), primary sources, product listings, a few unspecific game guides, and a strategy site. There really need to be more third-party sources that talk about the Pokemon itself. -Amarkov moo! 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Citation templates are not required by any policy or guideline and just inject articles with pointless excess code. They are a great bane to editing with extremely few benefits. There simply is no need for dinky templates just to achieve a logical order for citation details. Peter Isotalo 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Amarkov meant the episodes should be cited directly, such as {{cite episode}}, rather than citing a fan page's synopsis in the {{cite web}} style. Jay32183 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hell yeah. The fansites aren't these that give the oringal info, the episodes are. So I agree 100%, that would be more reliable source than citing a fansite. This is like, if you're citing a Family Guy episode, you cite the Wikipedia article, not the episode itself. TheBlazikenMaster 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, no indirect citations, I agree, but I just want to again stress the importance of avoiding citation templates. They generate so much extra code that editing is severely hampered. Copyediting articles that use templates always takes a lot more time, and I can't even imagine how frustrating it might be to anyone who isn't used to wikicode at all. Peter Isotalo 10:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look at Texas A&M University for a cite template fright. Not only hard to edit, but very slow loading. ~ 40 KB prose, 20 KB refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, no indirect citations, I agree, but I just want to again stress the importance of avoiding citation templates. They generate so much extra code that editing is severely hampered. Copyediting articles that use templates always takes a lot more time, and I can't even imagine how frustrating it might be to anyone who isn't used to wikicode at all. Peter Isotalo 10:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hell yeah. The fansites aren't these that give the oringal info, the episodes are. So I agree 100%, that would be more reliable source than citing a fansite. This is like, if you're citing a Family Guy episode, you cite the Wikipedia article, not the episode itself. TheBlazikenMaster 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Amarkov meant the episodes should be cited directly, such as {{cite episode}}, rather than citing a fan page's synopsis in the {{cite web}} style. Jay32183 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Citation templates are not required by any policy or guideline and just inject articles with pointless excess code. They are a great bane to editing with extremely few benefits. There simply is no need for dinky templates just to achieve a logical order for citation details. Peter Isotalo 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Well templates aren't required by any criteria as long as the format is done correctly it can be done manually or with templates. However, after looking over the previous FACs the sources just don't seem to exist to make this an FA. It's unfortunate but those are the facts of life. This was brought up on all of the previous FACs. Quadzilla99 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- '
Oppose' - third party sources on individual Pokemon do not exist and never will. Guy Fuchsia 00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Extremely uncivil of me, I apologize. Guy Fuchsia 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC) - Oppose Uses unreliable sources, and is not comprehensive because it does not cover the concept and creation nor the reaction to the character/species. Jay32183 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: This article seems to use a lot of original research. Even when there are references, most of them are unreliable pop-culture ones. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't the fact that an source discusses pokemon make it unreliable? What I mean is, you're not going to hear scholars talk about it very often. What if pop-culture is where the sources are? And, as a way of measuring pop-culture (which pokemon is), what is better than a pop-culture article? Shouldn't the sources match the article? Wrad 04:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pop-culture sources are less reliable than, say, a scientific textbook, of course, but that doesn't mean they're completely unreliable. The problem here is that the "pop-culture sources" are mostly self-published fansites. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the problem isn't the culture, it's the blogs and personal sites. I see. Wrad 05:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that any sources reliable enough do cover Pokemon, though, but it's not just that they're pop culture sources. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a multi-million dollar franchise and worldwide cultural phenomenon. I'm sure it is covered, in some depth, but as a whole, not in the treatement of individual Pokemon. I can't shake the feeling that numerous FAs could be written; but about the individual games, concepts and series, not the species. Unfortunately all we seem to see are nominations for individual species which are much more difficult to get up to standard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that any sources reliable enough do cover Pokemon, though, but it's not just that they're pop culture sources. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the problem isn't the culture, it's the blogs and personal sites. I see. Wrad 05:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Pop-culture sources are less reliable than, say, a scientific textbook, of course, but that doesn't mean they're completely unreliable. The problem here is that the "pop-culture sources" are mostly self-published fansites. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, sources are not reliable; full of original research. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Besides the over-reliance of a not-great source and the problem with OR, I oppose because all Pokémon species articles have been put on the "chopping block" (with obvious exceptions such as Pikachu), and by that, the article is unstable and might become merged, and the FA clearly states that an unstable article shouldn't be a featured one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
