Talk:List of Pokémon anime characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merge

I think that if you wanted to merge the characters, that you would have to merge all of the characters, not just some, as well as all of the info about each character. That would be a lot of merging that I just don't think is worth all of the effort.Planet X42 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The characters do not require separate coverage. This list will cover each important character and the more important Pokémon. The hundreds of minor characters will be covered within the episode summaries on the lists, and the minor Pokémon will be covered on the Pokémon lists. TTN (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF dawn is a main character just like misty, brock, and may. and team rocket doesnt need to be merged, it has enough to stand on it own -_- --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OMFG you have got to be kidding -_- you want to merge people that have been in over 250+ episodes? and one person who has been in every season except the second?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you read over WP:N. "It's a main character" and "It's been in hundreds of episodes" are not indicators of notability. They don't have real world information, so they need to be merged. TTN (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
you are going to get a lot of people that hate you for doing this. misty, may, dawn are notable--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
before you even think about editing again look at WP:POINT--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they are not notable, and plenty of people are already angry at me anyways. There is nothing pointy about trying to get some articles that fail core policies and guidelines merged. Though, something pointy would be removing some merge tags that I don't agree with. TTN (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
dont be a fag, i removed them because you are merging ash into here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ash does not assert notability, so he belongs here. TTN (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
yes he does, now stop merge everything you fucking see--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read WP:N, you'll see that he currently does not. You're free to search for reliable sources, though. TTN (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
what do you call the anime and manga?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
ash = Ash Ketchum#References.
Absolutely not Ash and the others should not be merged. The merging will cause alot of information to be removed. TNT just stop! You merged all of the Pokemon articles (except Meowth and Pikachu 2 out of the 493) into a crappy list that has less information about the Pokemon. Now you want to merge all of the major characters from the anime? Just stop. It seems Bulbapedia has more information and a better source for Pokemon instead of Wikipedia. (Taiketsu (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

(un-indent): The problem, Taiketsu, is that there are few to none verifiable third-party sources that contain information on the characters. The reason why all of the individual Pokémon articles were merged (with the exceptions of Pikachu, Meowth, and later Bulbasaur) is because there is no real-world, out-of-universe information on the Pokémon (with the exceptions of the three mentioned, and even then Bulbasaur is hovering on the borderline). The articles fail Wikipedia guidelines. It's as simple as that. The individual articles can always be demerged if the relevant information is found. But take a look at Ash Ketchum. The section Creation and Conception is completely blank, and has been for months. The article isn't meant to be mainly a list of all of the Pokémon that Ash has caught. Until relevant and meaningful information like that can be found, sourced, and added to the article, what point is there in having an article? If it fails policy, why should it be kept? This isn't about what fans want. This is about following established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For these reasons, I say to merge all of the articles that have been proposed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck do you want to merge for. All characters have rights to have their own article. What if a wikipedia user who've never watched pokemon or started watching it recently. he or she would like to know what pokemon the characters had. I say no thanks --Omegace (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The reasons why have already been discussed. If you'd read the deliberation up to this point, you would know why it has been proposed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe because this guys been in 400 episodes? If this gets merged, you can just go merge all the other main characters in other things. There is a reason they call it list of MINOR, yes MINOR characters in pokemon series. Now, the word minor means a lot here. Dacheatcode (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Also, can you think of a way to fit that entire article into one iitty bitty section? Cause i cant. Apply for the world record books if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article is List of Pokémon anime characters, not List of minor Pokémon anime characters. It doesn't matter how many episodes the characters have been in, since they are still characters. As has been said repeatedly, most of the detail in each character's article is about their Pokemon. That is not needed. Every article fails WP:LEAD, WP:Notability, WP:IINFO, WP:Fiction, and WP:VERIFIABILITY (If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it). I see no reliable, third-party sources in any of these articles. These are just five policies that all of the articles (including Ash Ketchum) fail; I can find more if you'd like. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Main characters deserve their own pages Markcambrone (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Give a reason. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Because they are main characters. And common sense.Dacheatcode (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool it

Woah BEGD, I don't appreciate that kind of language on this site. If you wanted to go into a PUBLC resturant and say things like that, I don't think that you would get a good reaction, and if there's a cop, maybe even a serious warning for profanity in public. I am also posting this to your talk page so you can get the message.Planet X42 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
BEGD, you're stepping out of line here. Take a few minutes to calm down and stop swearing. That doesn't accomplish anything except for a loss of respect. Search for reliable third-party sources instead if you are so desperate for the characters to have their own articles. TTN, I have a quickquestion for you. You say that This list will cover... the more important Pokémon. What criteria do you use to say how "important" a Pokemon is? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why should i, people dont respect me here or in real life, what have i got to loose if i keep going?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The important ones will probably be mostly the ones that play a generally significant role. The specifics will be worked out later, but I'll just say that it'll be for the ones with more than a paragraph of information available for now. TTN (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
if you are going to merge them dont merge them here make a new page like "List of Major Pokémon anime characters"--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just integrate the information into List of Pokémon anime characters? No need for a rename. Besides, I don't any of the characters (except for Ash, possibly) merit a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chance Cleanup before Possible Merge

Unfortunately all of the pokemon character articles suggested for merge do fail the requirements for maintaining a respective separate article. A lot of the information discusses the pokemon of each character and not the character themselves. While it is important to note several key pokemon specific to the character, the bulk of each article should not focus on their pokemon nor should it list every single one the character caught. As such, a merge would be necessary. However, considering the immense popularity of the Pokemon franchise and the main characters, an abundance of out-of-universe information can be collected and a significant revamp of each article is certainly within. Instead of jumping into a merge that undoubtedly causes heated arguments on both sides, it would be best to perform major cleanups of the article to see if at the end the article is worthy of being independant of a list. If it can't, or the cleanup isn't taken seriousely and not done, then we can go ahead and merge the articles. This would give a chance for editors to do their thing and bring articles to standards...even though it should have been done in the first place. Though what's done is done so this gives editors a second chance so to speak and saves everyone from spending useless energy arguing. A time-table of say a month can be set on each article, then a review, and if it doesn't pass then a merge can be performed as agreed. It's certainly better than tagging merges on everything, though that would be a great way to get people's attention in saying this needs a big clean if you want to keep it. Fox816 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure cleanup has already been tried (evident by the empty creation and reception sections), and nothing has actually happened. There is no real point in waiting any longer at this point. If information is found, they can be split again. TTN (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
if you merge it please dont mess it up like they did on the naruto articles--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If you find this information to be important, I suggest copying them over to Bulbapedia if they don't have it or another relevant wiki. TTN (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Though true, that would be a waste of time to go back and forth between list and splits. As I said earlier, while it should have been done in the first place this adds more incentive for editors since they basically have it all risked. When under pressure, people generally do a lot more work and commit. I agree that the time given was far too lenient yet even an extra month won't hurt if its going to be merged anyways. It's far more better to use the energy spent on mindlessly pleading and arguing back and forth with editors and channel it into shining up an article. The article was only tagged today and already we've seen a fair share of wasted energy. It's only a little longer and if no progress has been made then a merge will have to be accepted by everyone since basically guilt would be to blame for not trying. Fox816 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, bringing everything together, and then expanding is a much better way to improve things than cutting them down piece by piece. It gives us perspective of what's important, and it allows for gradual improvement. I'm really not even going to pretend there is information for any of the characters (maybe, at the most, Ash has a little smidge), so giving time for improvement seems rather pointless. If someone can provide actual sources, I'll change my mind. TTN (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You're giving time either way you go. Whether merged or not, time for improvement is there...with the only restriction being that separate articles have a limited time-frame to improve while in a merged list it's almost indefinite. Considering the volume of information already present in each character's article, it's better to improve them now while they're whole. That way you already have existing information in which you can slice out that which is unimportant. In a merge, major trimmings are done and often info pieces needed or can be elaborated upon are accidently taken out. Here whether merge or not, a cutting down will happen. Better to improve the whole now while it's there. Fox816 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of the individual Pokemon being merged into lists, there were several months in between the start of discussions and the majority of the actual mergings, were there not? It seems a bit presumptuous to say that nobody has searched for third party sources when the merge discussions have only begun today. Also, the "Character reception" sections haven't even been on the pages for that long. I know that I, for one, haven't contributed anything to these sections simply because I assumed that the creator of those sections would add information later, as opposed to just leaving them blank. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between 493 articles and 14 articles. This should go on for about a week or two at most. I'm pretty sure people have searched, given that the Pokemon project was pretty adamant about getting these up to our standards. If you can find some basic sources, I'm fine with leaving them for a little bit, but we really shouldn't pretend like improvement is really that likely. TTN (talk)
I'm fine with an article called List of Pokémon, but I think characters such as Ash Ketchum warrant their own page. Useight (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why? (Just playing the devil's advocate) MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Creation and Conception..hum lets see MelicansMatkin, the characters (insert name) are based on THEIR GAME CHARACTERS, which were designed by Satoshi Taijiri and Ken Sugimori. It won't be that hard to add that on ALL OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS pages. And besides the key word is Main Character, so the main character deserve a separate page. Also i agree with Useight, Ash Ketchum warrant their own page. THe main characters of Sailor Moon, Digimon, InuYasha, Naruto, Dragon Ball series, Chrono Crusade and even Yu-Gi-Oh! have their own respectful separate page, and your telling me that the most popular anime cartoon doesn't deserve there main characters have their own separate page? (18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talk • contribs)
You misunderstand, Taiketsu; all of the character pages are currently orientated on the anime characters, but let's not forget that they (with the exception of Ash and a few anime-specific rivals) were first created to relate information on the game protagonists/antagonists. How did the final designs of these game characters come about? Why did the game designers chose to implement them into the storyline?
This is the kind of information that is needed to develop the articles. All of the articles are filled with cruft, speculation, and there is no out-of-universe information present whatsoever. There is still no information on the reception for each character. Fact of the matter is, they fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have not yet seen a single Pokémon character article that passes WP:Notability, WP:IINFO, or WP:Fiction. Even WP:Lead is failed!
You only want the articles to remain demerged because a) you are approaching this as a fan and not as a serious editor, and b) you dislike the fact that the articles for the individual Pokémon were merged and are determined that TTN's suggestion to merge the character articles does not happen. The articles all fail Wikipedian policies. If I were to go take the Ash Ketchum page and strip away all of the cruft, trivia, and useless information to leave only hard fact, the article would be no longer than a couple of paragraphs. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So what. All of you just get a life, all of you are so called Wikianerds..... Bulbapedia is much better. Also MelicansMatkin, why not you go ask Satoshi Taijiri and Ken for How did the final designs of these game characters come about? Why did the game designers chose to implement them into the storyline? , their isn't going be any information about that. oh wait i know BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO <_> :-; (Taiketsu (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
So what. All of you just get a life, all of you are so called Wikianerds..... Bulbapedia is much better. - If that's the way you feel, stop editing Wikipedia. By resorting to petty namecalling, people will take your opinions less seriously. What little respect I had left for you has now vanished with your childish remark.
Also MelicansMatkin, why not you go ask Satoshi Taijiri and Ken - 1) I do not know any of the Japanese language, either written or spoken; 2) I am a student saving up to university and cannot afford the price of a plane ticket.
their isn't going be any information about that - You'd be surprised what you can find with a little effort.
oh wait i know BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO - 1) Work on your spelling; 2) Source it ;)
Back to the topic at hand please, everyone. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been well over a month since discussion started and the articles have been hardly touched for appropriate cleanup despite notification to the Pokemon Project. As much as I would like for the articles to remain separate, unfortunately we have to face the facts that they can't even hold a candle to it. It would be best to cleanout and merge right now. Going back on what Melican said, taking out all the cruft hardly leaves anything at all. Most of the article information is centered around the Pokemon, not the character themself. I'd support a merge. That way we can have atleast one respectable article concerning the characters. Fox816 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it simply make more sense to just leave the pages of the main characters on their own, and merge the minor/supporting characters into the List of Pokémon anime characters page? Every one of those listed as the main characters are notable for their long-running appearances in the show, movies, action figures, etc. I believe they have enough notability and information on their pages, but I do believe that the minor/supporting characters don't exactly warrant their own pages. --Antoshi~! T | C 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
They have enough notability on their pages? You're kidding, right? Show me the references on the main character pages that establish their notability, and I'll eat my hat. The pages are filled with absolutely nothing but cruft. There are no reliable third-party sources anywhere, and I've lost count of the number of policies that just one of the articles fails. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Roughly half of each article is about their Pokemon and not about the character themself. Taking a look at the article for the central character of the series, Ash, majority of the information is about the backstory of each of his Pokemom. The articles were given enough time for a salvation cleanup and nothing was done. There's basically nothing else to do but merge since we can't just leave this mess as it is. Fox816 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is dawn, may and max considered not a main character or not as improtant (as in not having thier own pages)? they should have thier own pages again, clean this up! signed by: can't sign in again! this mac in the school cant use the sign username! can anyone sign for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrariguy1000 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources exist

People have even written academic papers on the darn things:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22037604_ITM

Geni 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what exactly does that have to do with the characters? That's an article on the metaseries that mentions some of them as examples (not relevant ones, though). TTN (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that use as an examples in scientific papers isn't significant? That would be say Drosophila melanogaster's main claim to fame. Another example would be GOTTA CATCH ‘EM ALL Structure, agency and pedagogy in children’s media culture.Geni 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Both are analyzing the series and metaseries. If you want to add them to Pokémon and Pokémon (anime), that'd be fine, but they have no real relevance here. TTN (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
and Charles Hadfield's The Canals of Southwest England is talking about all the canals of that area. Are you suggesting that we delete the article on the rolle canal?Geni 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. TTN (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Okey you appear to have carried out a Reductio ad absurdum on your own argument. Impressive but probably a fairly solid hint you need to rethink your position.Genisock2 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I just don't feel like responding to your totally irrelevant comparison. It's the same thing that you always do. TTN (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum is a standard technique in logical debate. If you have to reject logic for your position to hold together it is probably best that you adopt a different position.Geni 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I won't be responding to you anymore. TTN (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
lol--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The sources you provided are good to use on the general Pokemon series article, not the character articles themselves since the main focus is the series. It's possible to maybe pull out one or two things from that regarding the characters yet that wouldn't be enough. In terms of sources, we need ones that are specific to the character. Some examples would be: director/creator/voice actor interviews regarding the character in question, character designs, influences on design/behavior of character, character impact on the real world, etc... If you could say find a notable study paper entitled "Ash: The Boy, The One, The Catcher" or something like that then you could use that for Ash's article. Fox816 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
what the fuck do you think we watch the anime for?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that that even a cursory search shows that there shear amount of material availible means that it would result in an unacceptably long article.Geni 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's all in-universe information. We need out-of-universe info. I'd ask that you please refrain from using disruptive language against other editors. You have been warned appropriately...and it's not helping in trying to cleanup and keep these articles. Fox816 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Fox. Cooperation is far more likely to lead to action and accomplishment than antagonism. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
i still think that this will totaly fuck up the page, your "help" sucks and you dont deserve those banners--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Play nice now, Blue eyes gold dragon, take MelicansMatkin's advice. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the article quoted above does indeed talk extensively about how the very main characters (Ash, Misty, Jesse, James) affect the real world and real children. Have you even looked at it? That certainly meets the notability guideline to which you cling so dearly: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And if that article doesn't contain "real world information", then I don't know what does. —Celestianpower háblame 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is a good start, but one source doesn't exactly qualify as "significant coverage". More sources than this will need to be found. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But if there's one, there are bound to be others. We're under no obligation to do it now. We've proved that sources do exist, so that's all that's required. No sense in removing all the valuable information. —Celestianpower háblame 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
How about now, a full month later with no additional sources or information provided to any of the character articles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are already outside articles and real-world references included in the topic about Jesse and James. The names "Jessie" and "James" link directly to "Jesse James", the outlaw and backrobber of the 1800s. The article I am against merging also gives their Japanese names and their connection to famous samuari. How is this failing the Wikipedia guildlines? It is not failing at all, and in fact, has way too much information to be simply merged. I did not know the facts about these Team Rocket members, and I really enjoyed the article about them. It has many subtopics. It compares the TV shows to the movies, and the games. It is very focused, and divided rationally. It was also informative, interesting, well-written, and everything I expect when I come to Wikipedia. There is no reason the list of characters can not simply link to the more indepth topics already presented.Amirrah (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no actually, there aren't. Out of the 25 references in the article, 22 are from episodes, 1 is an action-figure pack on Amazon, 1 is a fan-translation of an episode, and the final 1 is a footnote, not a reference. All of the articles on the English Wikipedia for characters that originated outside of English-speaking countries provide the characters original name.
To quote what you said: The names "Jessie" and "James" link directly to "Jesse James", the outlaw and backrobber of the 1800s. The article I am against merging also gives their Japanese names and their connection to famous samuari. How is this failing the Wikipedia guildlines? It fails Wikipedia guidelines because the information is not referenced. Because it is not referenced, we have to assume that it is original research. There's two of Wikipedia's most integral policies blown straight away. All of the other detail can be easily compressed or removed altogether, because most of that information is just plain fancruft.
This is why these articles are being proposed for merge; if you'd read the numerous arguments above, you would see why they are proposed for merging. What readers expect when they come to Wikipedia is often different from what the strict standards that Wikipedia itself tries to maintain. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge: Guidelines vs Common Sense

WP:N is a guideline for editing, not a policy. The reason many separate articles exist for individual characters is that their prominence within a setting warrants attention. This is particularly true of characters for which a good deal of encyclopedic content can be gathered. It's for this reason I oppose the merge as suggested. The Pokemon series in particular has dozens of characters. Merging the prominent characters back into the fold would imply a perceived reduction of importance, or greatly extend the length of the article, depending on how the merge was handled. I propose two alternatives:

  1. Retain the separate articles and let things be.
  2. Merge the outlying articles into a list of main characters, and remodel the existing list as a list of minor characters.

Both formats have worked well for other settings—it will work here, too. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The only articles related to fictional characters that do not always have to assert notability are character lists. Single characters can always be condensed to a reasonable point, so they will never be able to have an article without asserting notability. This list will be managed well, so there will only be a need for one. TTN (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems I misunderstood a bit. I thought the merge was going into the main Pokemon list, rather than this separate Anime list. The former is simply too large by any standard. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

why must people assume that, just because Misty doesn't have any OUT OF UNIVERSE sources, it gives them the right to merge HER and the rest of the main cast of Pokemon into a list? under that token, we should merge Son Goku's article with List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball Z, Link's article with List of characters in The Legend of Zelda, and many other things. Heck, why don't we merge EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE IN EXISTANCE into one super article, while we are at it.

See, this is the problem with this WP:N thing, It would mean that we have to merge every single article on this site into one super article, thus creating an even bigger mess than before. So I say we should keep this article, and NOT MERGE IT, and the same goes for the rest of the articles that you are proposing to merge.

~~Weedle_McHairybug~~

What happens in one article has no bearing on this one. We don't care what other Projects do, we're trying to decide how to best improve this one. What happens with the Zelda character articles has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what we do with this article. And by the way, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
But they are part of the same wiki! See, if it was wikipedia vs. bulbapedia, I can understand, but they all are in the same wiki, meaning, that they have the same exact rules as us. So, even if they are different projects, If they aren't doing that, then we aren't either, if they are doing it, then we are as well. Want to know why? because they have the exact same rules as us due to them being on the same wiki. Since you're an elite moderator, you should know that like you know the back of your hand. no offense, of course.
~~Weedle_Mchairybug~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not a moderator. What happens on one page has no bearing on what happens with another. Wikipedia has over 2 000 000 articles. Pokemon is completely unrelated to Mount Everest, and that has no connections whatsoever with MLK (song). Different wikiprojects, different perspectives, different articles. Talk it to the WP:PCP if you're so upset about what is trying to be discussed. Besides, precedence is one of the worst forms of judgement.
Those other articles could all have notable third-party sources discussing them. The Pokemon articles didn't, and the main characters sure don't. We follow policy, not the preferences of a few unregistered users who don't even know the policy to begin with.MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that they aren't exactly 100% related, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't follow the rules. I mean, if we have to do it, they should as well. I mean, if they are related in one way, it's that they are all part of wikipedia, and thus subject to it's laws. Thus, if one project has to follow the WP:N, they All should as well. If one project doesn't follow the WP:N, none of them should either. I'll sum it up with a quote from President Bush:
You're either with us or the terrorists.
Ok, so it isn't as far as siding with terrorists, but the point of this quote is either All projects follow these rules, or None of them do, there IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. Basically, it is a very absolute thing.
Also, in regards to 3rd party sources, What, do you want it to be BLARING like, oh, i don't know, a televised NEWS REPORT?! Honestly, I have checked them thoroughly, and as far as I can find, There aren't really ANY notable 3rd party sources (Stuff like IGM, IMDB, and other review places do NOT count as reliable sources since, if they won't count them as reliable sources in something like The Little Mermaid III, Ariel's Beginning, for example, what Makes you think that they are reliable in any of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Weedle_McHairybug~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing of the kind. It's the responsibility of each project to make sure that their articles follow the guidelines and policies, and if there are too many articles in one project (such as WikiProject Music), or no project at all (The Animals of Farthing Wood), it is the responsibility of individual editors to maintain the articles at the expected standards. What you are saying is patently ridiculous. Imagine if that was how the real world worked. Oh look, that guy didn't pay for a chocolate bar! I know, I'll take money out of this cash register or Dearie me, that man just shot a police officer. Does that mean I can stab my best friend?. George Bush is not the best example to use. But look, I have a quote that shows why I am right too! Lead, and the others will follow. See the point?
Ever heard of something called a featured article? They all follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I guess that nullifies your point. If you're going to say something, make sure it makes sense and make sure that you know what you're talking about. And please remember to indent when responding on a talk page. I'm getting tired of doing this for you. You can do this pressing : the appropriate number of times. Also, please sign your comments by pressing four tildes in a row, like this: ~~~~
What counts as a reliable third-party source? Oh, a news report isn't necessary. An article from Macleans or Time would suffice, anything from the AP, APP, or CP, a University paper, the list goes on. You're quite free to search for those sources yourself. For the definition on what constitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. A third-party source is one that would not profit in any way from the franchise. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically character articles aren't supposed to be personal biographies as if they were real. Information contained should be of the sort that reflects the character as a work- not an individual- for the most part. In-universe information should be written in the same manner, yet there is a certain degree of leniency. For all cases, notes about the character design, personality, voice actor selection, etc...from the director, author, artist, seiyuu, etc...would be prime pieces. However, it doesn't have to be strictly just that. The character's popularity and possible impacts on society are also great informational bits, and if possible any articles of notable source that focuses on analyzing the character in question would be interesting to include. In particular to anime, magazines like Newtype USA are among the best places to gather information since they often include interviews with series Staff and seiyuu's. If you own any official release DVDs of a series, bonus material sometimes has Staff interviews and the likes there. Note that citing bootlegged material wouldn't pass as good. Sometimes you'll see an article in your local newspaper, or a nationally circulated magazine (or any published material is alright) about an anime and such. I'd suggest going over Serial Experiments Lain to get the feel for how a general article should be like. Though it's not a character article, the same basic principles are applied. ADDED: Or you can look at the Naruto character articles such as Sakura. Fox816 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem *I* see with merging the articles is that Misty isn't only in the Pokemon anime. There are several different versions of her: the one in the games, from Pokemon Adventures, from Electric Tale of Pikachu, etc. This article covers all of her media appearances. Merging her into a list of anime only characters would imply that she only appears there or that her role in the anime is the one of utmost importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About Naruto characters articles the best examples are the first fours. About creation and conception the most important information is saying that the characters are based from the videogames versions but with a source.Tintor2 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final merge decision

So... what does everyone think? I say yes.--72.208.190.234 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent either way, it's nice having different character articles, but not important. A clean up should be done first, see if they should stay after being cleaned up. If they fail to meet the criteria after that, merge them. If not, keep them.

Also, when I read this "why should i, people dont respect me here or in real life, what have i got to loose if i keep going", it just sounded like BEGD is a spoiled little brat who has nothing better to do than be a hateful jerk on the internet because nobody shows him any respect on the net or in real life. 87.102.20.45 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to keep civil here. On the points about the articles, yes it's nice to have them but alas they fail criteria. After the initial cleanout we'll see what's left. From the looks of all of it, there won't be that much so a merge is very likely. Fox816 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... If that's what you want, then you should do that with every single article here on wikipedia. Please don't tell me that they have different projects since, really, it doesn't even matter anyways, since every single article/project is bound by the laws set by wikipedia, and thus should ALL follow it and make Wikipedia nothing more than just one big super article as a result. If I am ousted, go on ahead, but if it ends up becoming nothing more than one super article, don't say I didn't warn you. Besides, there are writers notes AND a VA's blog that deals with Misty, and thus, should be enough for it to be kept as an article.
Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If all the articles in Wiki were as bad as these ones there probably would be one super gigantic enormous massive article so big NASA would classify it as a planet. That'd be something to try and edit. Indeed there are alot of articles that are in heavy need of attention...if only every person had an extra pair of arms and heads. I'm sure evolution would select for that in the species Wikis editorius. Anyways, no one's holding you back to improve an article. If you have information, then add it. The responsibility falls on everyone editing or wanting to edit an article, not just those guys with registered usernames. Wikis can be edited by anybody and everybody, so why not help out a bit? Fox816 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Not every wiki. Some wiki's can't allow anyone to edit the article unless that person is a registered member. Bulbapedia is an example of that kind of Wiki. but I will try. And anyways, I know of Mayumi Iizuka's blog (Which IS an outside source, plus it's a VA blog, which is reliable. [though it's still being erased just because "She meant specials and not a return to the main cast".), there are also concept arts on Misty, and I know that Mayumi Iizuka talks about Misty quite a bit and was one of her renowned roles (Heck, the reason why she even got the part was because she acted like herself.)
Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Just add stuff making sure to cite and if it gets reverted then start a discussion and we'll help out. If this is information about Misty's character production coming straight from her voice actress and stuff, that's jackpot information. The only thing I'm not sure is translation, if the blog is in a different language, how that would be handled. If that's the case, avoid direct quotation and paraphrase making sure to cite as well. They key is citations, like an old English teacher says. A hefty bit of edits often get reverted because no citations to back it up. Fox816 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've added it in, and I also made absolute certain that I ALSO added in the blog translation from the Bulbanews article related to it. There does seem to be an error though: when I added in the info, for some strange reason, it moved a significant portion of her personality sub-article to the source area. I don't even KNOW how I even did it, all I know is that I somehow accomplished that.

Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it and added a Seiyuu section for that type of material pertaining to the voice actress. Just for future reference, we can't cite other Wiki's or unofficial translation pages for reasons concerning accuracy, fact-checking, etc... I also had to reword the edit to make it sound less like speculation. I widened it out too much I think and will try to narrow it down a bit more specifics. Check the ref tagging used when you need to cite. The problem was the citing format which caused that weird stuff to happen. Otherwise, thanks for the material. The more the better. Fox816 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge and I would also state I would prefer the Bulbapedia link stays. My opinion is because I feel that since some of the articles on Wikipedia are rudely deleted in terms of fancruft a better way is to keep the fancruft material on another wiki (The material that can be proven to be true) and convince unhappy editors that it is where they have to go to find the material since wikipedia can only use the basic material that isn't too large. An alternative is for the Pokemon characters there is also a. Remove the summaries to all the characters' pokemon and let the links to the list of Pokemon stay where those pages will have minor details on that Pokemon's role in the plo in addition to trimming the characters summaries' of any non-vital details. Then there is b. Trim the character and Pokemons' summaries together and find a way to make it work. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

87.102.20.45 here. (dynamic IP addresses and all that. Anyway, I was just thinking, if the articles are merged, they could at least keep the pictures and set it out nicely, kinda like how they had the list of Frontier Brains, Gym Leaders etc. Makes it easier on the eyes than the wall of text that the character list has at the moment :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.115.27 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL the Bulbapedia can't be linked too. Anyone needing more indepth in-universe info can find that wiki on their own. Inclusion of links in these articles isn't permitted. In terms of pictures, a group shot is best, rather necessary actually. Considering the number of characters we'd probably be looking at 2-3 photos: one with all the trainers, one with the supporting characters, and then one for Team Rocket. If anyone can provide photos that contain all these characters it'd be great to upload. Fox816 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out an observation and not making a direct insult to anyone, but unless if more of a way to convince dissatisfied editors or people stressed by Wikipedia's strict standards by introducing these separate wikis are a good way to avoid a waste of talent, because after all I have experienced I understand that because alot of resentment towards removal of pages due to lack of a completely necessary reason in numerous case using terms of fancruft as an excuse to remove a page. So unless if there is a way to both follow Wikipedias rules and help make sure that the more indepth information stays on the separate wikis on various fictional subjects then it will just create a better wikipedia and help with it's appeal that will reduce the chances of people turning their backs on Wikipedia and avoid a waste of talent since alot of wikis are undeveloped and require alot of attention and these kind of wikis should never be linked to this site until they are better developed. At the moment I am finding Wikipedia to become more corrupt and arrogant and the deletionists and mergists are in some part responsible for these problems. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I really don't like this. The bios are just too condensced for my tastes, not to mention they're too short and even a bit confusing. I say, we should restore it to the way it used to be with separate articles for different characters. Really, folks, let's not turn Wikipedia into one huge 'super article'. :/ --Super_Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's not have all of them squished in one huge article that really don't show as much detail as their actual separate bio articles. signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is good information about Ash Ketchum on Veronica Taylor's official website. (Veronica Taylor was the voice actress for Ash in Seasons 1-8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.237.143 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Danny Pokemon.jpg

The image Image:Danny Pokemon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] may and max have seperate bios, now what about the blue haired one? (dawn)

Max and May have separate bios, dawn is missing still. signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 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) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this art will be needed for Wikipedia. Artichoker[talk] 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)