Talk:List of Pokémon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Pokémon article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Old/short regional numbers...

Originally I wanted the page to have all the regional Pokedex numbers on it, but thinking about it, the page is very, very large now, but in the future the numbering systems will only grow. Therefore I suggest we remove the Ranger Browser numbers from the list. It's not really part of the main series, and isn't that important, almost falling into a game-guide area. In the future as other systems come up, especially in remakes, they'll probably be longer and more inclusive. So for now, I suggest we remove the Ranger numbers, and if it's agreed I'll do it myself. Later we can consider others. - MK ( talk/contribs ) 12:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And, if/when we decide, I made the edit here. - MK ( talk/contribs ) 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #495

Please continue adding additional pokemon to this table. There are other pokemon. Anything found with Gameshark is original research. We need to catch them all for me to cage. 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I think this page should be at least semi perotected, so much vanalism (#494 and such). --Kuriza (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female Nidoran

While looking at this in boredom, I saw that the Trademarked Romanization of the Female Nidoran said "Vagina", and it seems to have been there for a while. Yet, when I translated the Kanji or whatever of the female Nidoran, it still came up as "Nidoran" instead of "Vagina". So I believe somebody forgot to fix this. Sir Sanjuro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. It looks like a case where we just missed some vandalism. I've fixed it now. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Un-merge

I think the List of Pokémon should be un-merged back into individual articles, because the lists contain virtually no information compared to the original articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative. Allmost all of the Pokémon are not notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you want individual articles, go to Bulbapedia. Cheers, Face 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur remerge

Someone (not me) put a merge tag on Bulbasaur. I wholeheartedly endorse it, and, when it is done, let's protect the redirect this time. Many years have gone by, and no one has found independent, third-party sourcing for anything related to Bulbasaur. It's all "official game guides", sponsored novels, sponsored this, sponsored that. If Bulbasaur hasn't been covered by third-parties yet, it never will be. Time to give up ... it will never be an acceptable article in terms of sourcing.Kww (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well someone apparently has, under the reasoning "if some are on a list all should be" @_@. Along those lines he put up a merge proposal on Pikachu and Jigglypuff for the same reason. Bulbasaur...I really don't know in all honesty. It's a former featured article, so that at least leaves some indication it could be repaired, so I'm divided. But if it's merged I won't object either really.
Now, as for Pikachu and Jigglypuff...both of those could be salvaged, and I'm working on the Jigglypuff one atm to try and do that (see its talk page). And Pikachu's notable enough given he's outright compared to the japanese equivalent of Mickey Mouse, so while not a stellar article a merge proposal shove on it is senseless.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
How many times do we have to do this? As you said, it's been hotly debated for years on end. Can't it just be let be? There are countless valid points on both sides. There'll never be a consensus. What's the point in dredging it up again? —Celestianpower háblame 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there is no valid argument for leaving it as a separate article. Kww (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking around at everything involved here, and there seems to be a very big qualm about the merge proposal I have. We'll all agree there is indeed some information to support notability. Intense digging and proper handling of the sources (for example, the TIME nod would be perfect if it instead cited the name change was in relation to making it suitable for western audiences, and then followed with a mention of the french version, Bulbizarre, which can relate more direct relate to the japanese original name) would be well enough to make things work. Now it gets shoved on that massive list...truth be told, it'll probably just sit there and grow stagnant. Making a single article into something FA worth compared to a list is a lot easier, given the list has to compensate for *everything* on it, and a lot of those characters are barely worth a footnote.

Not to mention too, there is already some dissention over the merge already: TTN's suggestion had his usual allies agree for the most part, but the mention in the abritration bit that recently came up had even an admit shout foul about a merge. So really it isn't something you could readily get full consensus for either.

Forcing improvement would be far better than a merge ever could in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concept, but I think it has failed in this case. I notice that you have been making some changes today. What the article needs, that no one so far has been able to find, is independent sourcing. Sources that aren't sponsored, affiliated, or approved by Nintendo or the Pokemon creators that mention Bulbasaur. So far, all that people have found are official game guides, official Pokemon guides (the Scholastic editions are "official" and "approved"), or completely unreliable fansites.Kww (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then the current agenda should be to replace the unreliable references with reliable ones, something I'll take a look into tomorrow at the college though you are welcome to help cite any here in the meanwhile or those I miss so we can get those cleaned out regardless of how the final merge decision goes. Now for references from third parties, the Time one is obviously there. CNN has mentioned the character more than once in the context of recognizability in the pokemon franchise, which is how those references would be best handled. That interview with the children over their favorites comes to mind as something that augments it a little (and would be further useful if significant reception info could be found to restore the MewTwo article at a later time). More or less brainstorming possible references beyond this, but the article mentioned children's books. What about sale number of those books, and possibly professional reviews (that last one is doubtable, but possible). Think too a few various references with citations that Bulbasaur is indeed one of the most popular pokemon, or at the very least was during R/B/Y's time in the sun, would augment a little too.
As for the article having more references from the games than it will third party...it's in truth understandable when you think about it. Magazines and whatnot when covering pokemon will go for the lead character(s) because they're the ones people will know the most; people will always recognize Kirby more than King DeDeDe for example, even though DeDeDe's been in almost every Kirby game. So that's visibly going to reduce the number of direct references...however, one has to look at the ones given too. More than one mention on CNN, even if not the world's strongest ones, are nothing really to sneeze at. Google News has a large archive that might be sifted through for some too.
What I'm getting as is, there is something there *for* an article to remain, it'll just have to be dug up, and even then won't dominate the reference count for material from the games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, just in case, when you do dig through Google News, turn "All Dates" on and be forewarned that there are a great deal of articles in there also that seem to deal with a "virtual race horse" that apparently goes by the same name...at least I think it's virtual o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. And Peregrine Fisher *did* add independent, third-party sourcing to the Bulbasaur article, so your argument holds no water Kww. If you had taken a few seconds to look for sources yourself, you probably would have found them too. And since Aussie Evil was the one who added the merge tag, and appears to feel that either all Pokemon should have an article or all Pokemon should redirect to a list, I see no problem in un-redirecting all the other Pokemon articles as well. --Pixelface (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did re-review the article. If you would like to point out the independent, third-party source that provides a direct and detailed examination of the topic, as required by WP:N, I will stand happily corrected and withdraw my support of merging this article. What I find from third-parties are passing mentions: Bulbasaur being included in a larger list of Pokemon, with no statements that establish any notability.Kww (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
@Pixelface:Alright early on I'll state right out splitting the articles back apart en masse would be a terrible idea. If notability *could* be established for any slew, the best bet would be the first 152 (that number including MissingNo.), back at a time when children were being mentioned by tons of refutable sources to be able to name all of them. The ones beyond those just didn't end up carrying the same cultural impact short of Gardevoir's evolution tree (blame 4Chan) and Wobbuffet (blame Team Rocket); the "weight" of Pokemon has diminished with each installment.
Kww, it might be easier to understand your stance if you can cite the exact lines in WP:N you feel the article is violating, because I did a quick readthrough twice and missed comments about how third party references needed to be more than first party ones. (significance...can be debated. We both know that and it'd be a lost cause to argue on that ground alone).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The weight argument comes from WP:RS. Two portions leap to mind: the lead sentence of Reliable Sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An article which derives only 2% of its content from third-party sources can hardly be said to be relying on them. Secondarily, material published or authorized by Nintendo are self-published, which brings WP:SELFPUB into effect:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
...
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Kww (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUB is a measure for verifyability. Not notability. If it was one for notability, then we would be better off discussing an AfD for the article in question and the lists, as they all would have to rely on a majority of self-published sources. Yet we've confirmed Bulbasaur does indeed exist, so we shouldn't be confusing WP:V and WP:N. And the bit from WP:RS is open for interpretation: there's no guideline on what constitutes relying on third party sources. An article's reception section easily can for example: does that cover the entire quota for the article? Lastly, it's a guideline: even the article itself points out it's open for interpretation and common sense. Not every article will fit it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2008

I strongly disagree that Bulbasaur should be merged, his page has lasted this long and nobody has objected. Besides out of the 495 there are bulbasaur is one of the most well known and has gotquite a bit of history in the series..--Behellmorph (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be merged, because otherwise there are other Pokémon which deserver their own articles, too. For example, Charmander, who is more popular than Bulbasaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.103.96 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are others that deserve their own articles: the issue is can notability be proven or not, not a popularity contest. If you feel Charmander fits the notability guidelines and can back it up, then build the article again and cite it. Simply saying "article B doesn't exist so article A shouldn't" is just an inverse of WP:OTHERCRAP and just as invalid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

Does this trash belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.88.219 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User, look at thyself and ask that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and whoever posted this message, you should be a little more civil in your language. 71.161.133.35 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon is a notable. This is not trash, just becuase it is about Pokemon, doesn't mean it can be here at Wikipedia. -- RyRy5 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete

Is this a complete list of ALL the pokemon games, I misunderstood the beginning, or is it only diamond and pearl? Androo123 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh... what do you mean? This is a list of all the fictional species called Pokémon. If you want to see all Pokémon related video games, check List of Pokémon video games. Cheers, Face 09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)