Talk:Torchic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Torchic 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 December 23, 2006, and in the Did you know? column on April 7, 2004.

Contents

[edit] What is a Featured Article?

There has been a lot of people here saying that this article shouldn't be a featured one. If you are one of those, please feel free to contribute to the discussion. But let me remind you about what it currently means that an article is featured.

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects [...].
  3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Badda-Bing Badda-Bong. That's it! No really! Write an article that fullfills those points and it has a great great potential to become a featured article.

The subject of the article doesn't matter! As long it is a subject that is substantial enough to justify its existence here on Wikipedia as an ordinary article (atleast I think that's the rule).

Please keep this in mind while you discuss if this article should be featured or not.

PureRumble 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that nobody responds to this message is proof enough that people who think Torchic or Bulbasaur or Lindsay Lohan or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi should not be Featured Article are really clueless as to what other criteria should be met by an FA candidate. It's easy to criticise, but to actually give a meaningful suggestion requires brain, which these people don't have. --87.162.1.152 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nihongo

Currently the nihongo templates in paragraph two are incorrect, as the Latin text appears where the Japanese should (causing the strange font). However, there are two ways to change them, and I'm not sure which is best.

The Japanese name for Torchic, (アチャモ Achamo?), is a portmanteau of (アカ aka?), a term for baby, and (シャモ shamo?), a breed of Japanese bird, originally bred for fighting or hunting.

or

The Japanese name for Torchic, Achamo (アチャモ?), is a portmanteau of aka (アカ?), a term for baby, and shamo (シャモ ?), a breed of Japanese bird, originally bred for fighting or hunting.

Which is better? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is the strange font? And the second. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And yay, first topic! ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Compare シャモ (shamo?) to (シャモ shamo?). Note that in the first one it appears smaller and uses a different font. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(But not in Internet Explorer apparently...) smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Which is my problem ; ) I've fixed it with the second version, thanks for the help Smur. (Like it'll make a difference since the walls are coming down on the stupid FAC ¬_¬) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't think it's 'aka' as in red? That's what occurred to me. Um, I'm glad this is a featured article, but it sorta only is because it contains a lot of superfluous information that's irrelevant to Achamo in general, and belongs in the general pokémon article and related articles. Meh, that's how I feel.

[edit] Picture

Can we add the shiny picture somehow (To help keep featured article?) I dont know how, can someone help out? [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz (talk • contribs) .

Well the only significant shiny Torchic is the "Torchic Star" card, which features what appears to be a shiny Torchic, but I don't think it would help the article fabulously (the article would have to go into shiny Pokémon detail, which has very little to do with Torchic itself). Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a picture of Shiny Torchic in its Ruby-Sapphire pose here. In fact, this page has almost all the shiny artwork for the first 386 Pokémon (including the four Deoxys modes).
The only problem is that, since this page contains 300-over pictures, it is bound to load slowly. -- A. Exeunt 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there appears to be some kind of Copyright on the site, but I can't read French. -- A. Exeunt 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need one! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Anyway, if it is appropriate, you might want to use the content of this site to help the Pokémon articles on Wikipedia. -- A. Exeunt 05:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, see this PokéBeach page for a near-rendition of the first 386 Shiny Pokémon! -- A. Exeunt 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured?

It is because so much of Wikipedia consists of extensive entries on trivial crud, that the so much of the mainstream (and more importantly, academia) doesn't take it seriously. --Lbalhorn.

No, actually - people don't take Wikipedia seriously because anyone can edit it. Which means it's very possible that someone could put in incorrect information.
-- M C Y 1008 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Just no. Just... no. No.--The Sultan of Surreal. 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

... Please feel free to elaborate your, three words. (???)
Two words. Hooray! --Liface 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If I am guessing right and you feel that this article shouldn't be a featured one... then you can nominate it for review of its FA-status. PureRumble 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope you guys are ready to face the shitstorm that'll hit the article tomorrow. Me, I'm off to Nottingham for the week :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia-combatants defending FAs on the main page from the evil vandalizors! Be ready! Arms up! Move to the front-line! Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge! :-) PureRumble 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was a good featured article, but this is just shit. Superior1 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Bulbasaur recently? I removed an entire section of fancruft from it about a month ago. -Amarkov blahedits 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it's written well. Stop complaining. -Amarkov blahedits 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it you whom made that comment, "Let's rape Torchic!"? Rest assured that it no longer exists.

Wikipedia's featured article is set aside for what are considered the best articles. It doesn't matter whether it is Pokemon, ancient buildings, an artist, or a type of animal. Not everybody will like the featured article, but it recognizes the best articles on Wikipedia, of which Torchic is obviously one of them. MelicansMatkin 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a general notice: we are a mature source, so we have excellent articles for every notable topic, from, yes, pokemon to historical figures. That's professionalism and maturity. — Deckiller 00:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects [...].
  3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

So yes, I agree with Amarkov. It's about how well written it is, not about what it is about. PureRumble 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, yes, subject IS important and SHOULD be considered in the Featured Article selection process. Give a "Pokemon" twenty four hours on the front page of this website is just a waste of screen space and is exactly the sort of thing that keeps me from taking this website seriously as reference material, and relegates it to the place of a quick shortcut for getting an overview of a topic instead of real information.
WARNING: I'M ABOUT TO BE VULGAR TO MAKE A POINT!
For lack of a better example, we could write an article about my left testicle. It could be very well written, including description, physical data, history, general behavior, public sightings, etc. It could be written exactly in the correct style, and be included in a WikiProject about biology or something. It could have full, 360 degree images, all released to the public domain under a free license. And it could be completely focused, not straying from the all-important topic of my left testicle. That would make a great featured article, wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't. The fact is, information about my left testicle is useless information, except in the case of a very small number of people, mainly myself, my doctor, and maybe whatever female I'm currently spending time with. Similarly, an article on a Pokemon is useless information. In the few seconds I spent skimming the article, I felt gangrene trying to set in on the frontal lobes of my brain, and I quickly asked myself, "Why am I reading this garbage?" Then I realized that, since it had been a FEATURED ARTICLE, I had mistakenly thought it might be somehow useful or enlightening.
Sometimes I think that Wikipedia is entirely too caught up in minutia. Obsessing over the all-important quest to replace a fair-use image with a free-license image instead of expending effort on the INFORMATION in an article is a case of failing too see the forest for the trees. JDS2005 08:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
by my count, there are only, at most, three people who'd benefit from an article on your left nut. take a look at the edit history of this article. you'll see that there are many more than three people who contributed to this article - even before it's being a front page featured article. if we further assume that those contributing only make a small subset of the readers of that article, then pokemon is, hands down, more popular than you (or, by extension, your nut) are likely ever going to be.
if you think wikipedia is caught up in minutia, take a look at Collège de Montaigu. information about it - information that almost no one will ever look up - is useless information, except in the case of a very small number of people. kind of like your left testicle.
of course, the real difference between your left testicle and Collège de Montaigu is that an article on the former is simply vanity. wikipedia is not here to boost your ego and that's likely what the chief effect of any article on you or your body parts would be. torchic, in contrast, boosts no ones ego. Queen.zeal 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I applaud Wikipedia for being bold and featuring articles like this. Flipping awesome, man. 209.107.122.185 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is displaying a statement: intelligence and mature research has evolved beyond "adult" topics and into general topics about every aspect of life. Even older professors are beginning to notice this shift for the better. I believe the cycle has repeated itself enough throughout history; when such impressive changes drive knowledge forward, it's not a bad or ridiculous thing. The shunning of pop culture coverage and whatnot seems like an attempt to strengthen the maturity and "adultness" of a doomed arguement, which, in turn, makes the argument immature and childish, not mature. — Deckiller 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
But it has a paucity of reliable sources. Most of the sources are personal fan sites. —Centrx→talk • 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Name 'em. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like all of the cited footnotes except Gamespy, Ign, and the Hasbro website. http://www.pebbleversion.com is the worst offender, but http://www.psypokes.com/, etc. are weak as well. —Centrx→talk • 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my pro-Serebii bias, but Pokebeach is kinda not all that reliable. -Amarkov blahedits 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because swearing is sooo mature. -Amarkov blahedits 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, wasn't the opposite, but in many ways similar, argument made a while back when History of erotic depictions was featured? Apparently that content was too mature to be featured on the front page, but now this is too immature. You'd think people who complain would at least try to stay consistent...*hides* --86.130.21.79 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The problem here is that those outraged by the article's status are too angry to respond coherently. So let me try. Featured articles present a first impression on those visiting the site. One never knows who is clicking on Wikipedia for the first time, and...sees a Pokemon as the featured article. It gives Wikipedia a bad image by featuring obscure and narrow articles on the main page. It may be a well-written article and a fine example of what every article on Wikipedia should be, but the Main Page is not the place for an academic class in good craftmanship. There is only one day more of Pokemon, but may I kindly request that you don't put such articles on the Featured Article portion of the Main Page. Why not find an article of interest and select it for immediate improvement for use on the Main Page? P.S. History of erotic depections was not a good choioce either, as it present another narrow and controversial topic. Perhaps a five-year old would see objectionable material for the previous article, but a college professor trying to see if Wikipedia is a viable source for information would get peeved (for lack of a better word) at the perceived pointlessness. So it's not a matter of immaturity vs. maturity, it's more of impressions. Arius Maximus 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

controversy won Hugh Hefner a pulitzer prize. if pokemon controversial, i say more power to wikipedia. it good to shake thing up - to challenge people 72.36.251.234 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that viewpoint, but I feel that impressions are also a matter of maturity; basing something on first impressions is also a sign of immaturity, and I believe that academic researchers know better than to judge a book by its cover. Moreover, I believe that such narrow topics proves how Wikipedia can provide diverse, well written articles without excess detail. — Deckiller 03:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem, it's obvious this article is well-written from the point of view of someone who's unfamiliar with pokémon, but if you just want information about achamo itself, there's pretty much zero reason you need to read "pokémon is a popular game series" or "the trading card game is ..." .. perhaps those examples would actually suffice, but anything more is unrelated to achamo.

Not necessarily. However, academics and people interested in editing/learning are also not likely to be banking their entire interest in Wikipedia on what is on the main page. If that was the case, Wikipedia would have a low alexa rating. — Deckiller 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, it can encourage people to edit wikipedia. They'll say "I hate the featured article, and I see that many featured articles aren't up my alley. Perhaps I'll help contribute to create a featured article in my field so that it can be featured on the main page". That's what motivated me to get into the FA process. — Deckiller 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking that the current, protected revision of this article is appropriate. There may be some people who want to save the trouble of looking all over Wikipedia just to know what are Pokémon, or what are Trading Card Games. Giving some small information on this article that have a relation to Pokémon and its mechanics would be wise, in my opinion. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how much credibility you lose by featuring all of these Pokémon and other fandom articles? Written well? That's great. Good Job! But please have a drink of the reality Kool-Aid before the collective hive puts another juvenile subject on the main page of the site. Maybe there should be a common sense officer who has the authority to put the brakes on this stuff.

Sigh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.58.183 (talk)

wikipedia is great resource for stuff like world war 2. how does torchic change that any more than the fact that u didnt sign your comment and are an unregistered user invalidates your argument? John Seigenthaler, Sr. is what make wikipedia lose credibility. and u name pokemon as culprit? pokemon have about as much to do with wikipedia credibility as pokemon have to do with george bush credibility and if u think otherwise, wikipedia really not place for u and u should leave 72.36.251.234 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
People, get over it! Don't you think the world has bigger problems than whether Wikipedia featured Torchic as the featured article? Put yourself to doing something constructive instead of complaining about it! DoomsDay349 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, DoomsDay! I agree! -- Altiris Exeunt 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, people joke about wikipedia being full of information about Pokemon and other utterly useless subjects. I thought somebody had somehow hacked the main page when I saw this article was the featured one. Are there that few suitable articles?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.80.182 (talk • contribs)

To be quite frank, this is the sorts of things that make wikipedia lose credibility. The featured articles, displayed prominently on the front page, have almost always prompted me to read up on both their subjects and at least briefly on half a dozen of the interlinks. This is because the topics selected are of interest, unique and otherwise probably would not be brought to my attention. The Kengir uprising is a perfect example. To place an item of pop culture (and of a culture that is often ridiculed for its intensity and exemplified for the extent of its fan-base and fancruft that springs up surrounding it) alongside the relatively serious articles otherwise featured -- to name a few, ASCII, Caffeine, and the London underground, is to degrade both Wikipedia and those topics elsewise listed as "Featured" articles. Granted, there are other videogame and TV references, but they tend not to be as specific or asinine as a single Pokemon.

The category Torchic is listed under -- Sport and Games, includes video game references, but they are general and, dare I say it, more appropriate than Pokemon. Starcraft, Doom, Half-Life 2, are just some examples. If it's not already been seriously considered for removal from the Featured Articles list, it definitely should be.Euchre 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If an article on a Pokemon character can make it through the FA process, then that process needs to be changed. In my view, this is the kind of spectacular failure that makes one question whether the whole Wikipedia project is worth our time or money. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this article is encyclopedic or even worthwhile in any way to someone who isn't already a Pokemon fan. This should have gone to AfD rather than FA. Robotman1974 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I give up. No I really really do. That doesn't mean I agree with you, it just means that I'm giving up on this. I feel that many of the stated arguments are coming back and forward repeatedly, and I'm starting to feel that people wont bother to read what has been written previously to see if their arguments have already been answered. What makes it so damn interesting is that some of you are now saying that an article of "Pokemon character" shouldn't make it to the FAs. So please do tell me... who should receive the honor and responsibility to decide which articles should become FAs and which should not? Perhaps a committee of wise and honorable men (women allowed???)? Or how about some admins? Maybe we should ask a couple of the members of the Swedish Academy to do this for us during their spare-time? Or no! Wait! I bluddy got it! How about the man himself; Jimmy Wales!?

Do you get my point? If Wikipedia is supposed to be an open encyclopedia for everyone to decide over and to edit, then what kind of articles that could become FAs have to be indefinite. Because as soon as we let the subject of the article to decide if it should become a FA, then virtually NO article will be. There will always be someone who will put up his Object and say that this is a NO-NO. If it is about Pokémon, then it is to childish. If it is about Adolf Hitler then people might think we are Nazis. The holy pope? No No No No! People might think we are being sponsored by the Vatican|! Al-Qaeda!? He He He He...

See...? So the only good thing is to simply state that any article can become a FA.

Another point is that we want Wikipedia to encourage everyone to come, write articles and to contribute. One great great great great motivator is that their written articles or contributions can make the way for an article to become a FA. If we take that away from them by stating "Na Na... that articles subject is all about jibberish rubbish, it can't become a FA" then what do you think will happen with all those potential contributors?

PureRumble 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

well said. there's some truth to the idea that something can only ever become what people will allow it to be. I personally get annoyed when an article on some building in a country i'll never visit gets featured. The only notable thing about it happens to be a few famous people had something to do with it, or it was contoversially erected during some crisis. I could say, "That's historycruft and only history buffs would care about such an inane article." I might be right, but it doesn't matter. Wikipedia is supposed to be able to provide encyclopedic information on EVERYTHING. As far as losing credibility, if someone is going to make the insanely illogical conclusion that because Torchic is featured, the whole project is bunk, then i don't want to have them here. For the person who said this is a waste of our time and money, i think that those who spent their time working on the article don't feel it wasted, and my donations to wikipedia have covered at least the Torchic page so stop griping. (i'm getting very sick of people who use money arguements for notability) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Doesn't this article violate Wikipedia:Notability_(fandom)? Wikipedia is not supposed to provide information on everything. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE The subject isn't controversial; it's irrelevant to the real world and the lives of anyone older than 10. Delirium of disorder 18:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, that proposed policy/guideline (note 'proposed') is about fandom of real people (Edit: Well, I didn't read it up completely--skimmed it--, so correct me if I'm wrong-- 20:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)). Also, you may want to note that notability is not subjective.
-- M C Y 1008 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a time and place for cursing. This is not it. If you really do lack the class to avoid cursing, and you feel you truly must curse, then I'm not going to stop you. However, I ask that you keep in mind that this is a public forum that is liable to be read by children whose parents will not take well to such 'wording' (which might impel them to prevent their children from reading Wikipedia altogether).
Now, as for whether this should be a featured article, I don't believe there is a debate. The standards for being a featured article are listed at the top of this talk page, and do not exclude this article. This featured article isn't quite what I might expect (whereas the "Bulbasaur" article would seem to have fit better, that creature being the #001 among the group), but that is no reason to prevent it from being featured. If it is a matter of relevance to any of you, then what relevance is the "Definition of Macedonia" (relevant to only about five million people - far less than the number of children under 10 in the United States) or the "History of the Board Game Monopoly"? I recommend that you read the previous poster's link to "notability is not subjective." 69.247.72.118 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern that such word usage is offensive to some, and I agree that this is not the time or place to curse, but it isn't exactly necessary to edit other people's comments to remove such things.
-- M C Y 1008 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, seeing this as a featured article bugs me for most/many of the reasons already stated. So I'll just state my agreement and move on. My main beef is that, this is the 2nd Pokemon character article to be featured. There are MANY articles that deserve to be featured, and many different topics that deserve to be featured, and now we have given space twice to something frivolous. Once was perhaps perfectly fine, so I won't argue that something Pokemon related should never get featured, but to do it twice? Why not just have the main article for Pokemon made to fit FA status, if it isn't already, and have that made into a featured article instead of two minor subtopics of it? I feel that perhaps the definition of what qualifies for a FA may need revision. Tonerman 23:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, notability is not subjective. Featured articles are currently not required to be something/someone that nearly everyone knows about, like, say, George W. Bush, but only must be identified as some of the best articles on Wikipedia. As for getting the featured article standards revised, I sincerely wish you good luck. Hopefully Wikipedia will be the better for it if you do happen to introduce improved standards to the featured article selection process.
-- M C Y 1008 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
"My main beef is that, this is the 2nd Pokemon character article to be featured."
Well this might scare the h*ll out of ya, but I can promise you there are maybe hundreds of Wikipedians out there whoms' ambition is to bring as many pokémon-related articles to FA-status. And NO.... most of them aren't below 10 years old.
"There are MANY articles that deserve to be featured, and many different topics that deserve to be featured [...]"
An article deserves to be featured if and only if it embodies the criteria of a featured article. A topic deserves to be featured if and only if it embodies the criteria of a featured topic. None of these criteria restrict the subject of the article/topic in any way (except that the subject should be relevant enough to have an article/topic on Wikipedia). I'm assuming I have interpreted the word "featured" (in your comments) correctly.
"I feel that perhaps the definition of what qualifies for a FA may need revision."
See, good! Now we have something good to discuss! No really, I mean it! This is something that I'm willing to discuss. I have already stated my opinion above your comments. I *think* the talk page of Wikipedia:What is a featured article is the correct place to present views and share thoughts.
Now if you will excuse me, I will go and continue my research on Dan Cooper. I'm gonna bring that succer to FA-status :-P *Note: FBI, you have the power to bring down druglords... please learn the power of properly copying news-articles with a copy-machine sigh*
--PureRumble 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Featuring idiotic content such as poekeomne's or whatever the hell they're called is the reason why wikipedia is routinely banned from use at colleges. This site will never be taken seriously by anyone until the stupid fanboy crap is culled. Poekemenos are not worthy of inclusion anywhere at anytime. --Slagathor

Once again, Wikipedia's reputation (or lack thereof) is not based on the content. It is, instead, based on one of the principle ideas behind it - the fact that absolutely anyone can edit it at absolutely any time. You'd think that would introduce many many factual errors - or at least, it has much potential to do so. That's why Wikipedia is not considered reputable - not because there are articles about Pokémon.
Also, sign your posts with ~~~~.
-- M C Y 1008 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, M C Y. Think of it this way: if Wikipedia was not a free encyclopedia, and was expertly written, then Wikipedia becomes another Nupedia. That is not what Wikipedia should become. The difference between Nupedia and Wikipedia is that Nupedia is a free encyclopedia that only experts can edit, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If we started protecting every page on Wikipedia, it is no longer a wiki. Wikipedia is unique because anyone can edit it. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

This article hasn't been up that long and its already been vandalized numerous time. Should we consider semi-protection if it keep happening? I've made four vandalism removals so far in about 5 minutes MelicansMatkin 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, many people are too immature to handle the Internet and such an excellent source as Wikipedia (due to the obvious amounts of vandalism over a pokemon, like with Bulbasaur; or sexual position FAs). Such immaturity, unfortunately, cannot be countered by sprotection, since we aren't allowed to sprotect frontpage articles. — Deckiller 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We are, if they get about ten times the vandalism here. -Amarkov blahedits 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought Bulbasaur was protected though? Please correct me if I'm wrong MelicansMatkin 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be, but it isn't on the front page. -Amarkov blahedits 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I meant while it was FA. I seem to remember reading that in its talk page MelicansMatkin 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Articles can be protected while on the frontpage, but they need like 100 times the amount of vandalism any other article needs. -Amarkov blahedits 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, it helped to clear up my confusion. MelicansMatkin 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for information's sake I've checked all transcluded templates and they're all fully protected. --WikiSlasher 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mess

this article sucks.--John Knife 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's entirely unhelpful. Maybe try making constructive criticism? -Amarkov blahedits 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Axem just made an edit. You might want to re-read the whole article, Amarkov. -- Altiris Exeunt 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems the primary issue with this article is misplaced passive voice and singular/plural mixup, which is not a huge deal per se, and is easily fixed. I believe Axem took care of most of it. — Deckiller 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how this article could have possibly been made a featured article. I could name a couple articles much more worth the title...
Our featured article selection is based on the quality of content, not the type of content. As long as the article warrents its own article and has a good amount of potential sources, it can eventually qualify for a featured article. — Deckiller 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who put up that picture?

Please remove and ban the user who put up the photo of the butt.

User:Sam72991

OMG Why did I let my kids do research on Wikipeida! 71.135.72.4 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
nice try, agent provocateur 72.36.251.234 05:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. We have no choice but to revert vandalism the moment we see it. If we protected every page, you might as well visit Encarta. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the shock images

We should temporarily semi-protect the page. Those shock photos are very disturbing and I don't know what would happen if a young child were to see them. Jay Gatsby(talk) 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE THESE DISGUSTING IMAGES RIGHT NOW THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE LOWER REGION OF A DEAD WOMAN COVERED IN BLOOD, NAKED. THANKS!!!! --ROB

Try clearing various Internet things, they were removed a while ago. --86.130.21.79 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

"Take off every ArbCom, for great encyclopedia!", according to Uncyclopedia. However, it looks like with the bots and Wikipedians like Ryulong, we should be just fine...I hope... -- Altiris Exeunt 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

There seems to be a bit of a conflict about whether or not this should be a featured article, however please stop posting rude thoughtless comments on this talk page. I must be honest though, I laughed a bit when I saw it... *cough* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.131.52 (talk • contribs)

You're one to talk with those vandalism templates on your user page. Sign your posts with ~~~~

Blindman shady 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting???

The article on the front page should be something that will grap readers' attention. This isn't even a unique topic: "Torchic are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the Pokémon media franchise." So we're not even getting an article on Pokemon Creatures or Pokemon Franchise, we're hearing about 1/493rd of this franchise.

Featured articles don't have to be on a particularly interesting topic. -Amarkov

blahedits 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean other people won't. 68.227.214.59 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this edit

[2] Sorry, that was an accident - I was trying to revert it to the non-vandalized version of the page, but a Bot had already got it and I reverted to a vandalized version by mistake :). Just noting this here so that I'm not banned or anything, it was an accident. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon Features

I don't think it's a good idea for fan-cruft to become featured articles. How do I familiarize myself with the featured article selection process, in order to influence it enough to make only serious articles featured candidates in the future? -- Mikeblas 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "fancruft" - It's a legitimate article on a fictional subject, and it cites the bulk of its facts. Also, and article's subject itself doesn't have to be "interesting" - but the article has to pass a process to see if it is well written. Cheers :). --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Although if you do want to be involved in the featuring process for articles, this is the place to go to: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'm not much familiar with how it's run myself, so just look around a little at how it's done. Cheers :). --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This had to go through two FACs. Bulbasaur had three FACs. The community has offered stiff resistance to making these articles featured already. Hbdragon88 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You will never get enough influence to be able to oppose a FAC and have it definitely fail. -Amarkov blahedits 05:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, we want Featured Articles to be of high quality, and that's the job of WP:FAC. The subject matter is not important. — Matt Crypto 13:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the need for Pokepedia has eluded the Pokepedians. -- Mikeblas 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You realize that based on your arguments a good number of Wikipedians are useless. If Wikipedia shouldn't have any "fancruft" as you so liberally put it, then well I suppose all my contributions are null and void, as are a number of damn good Wikipedians I know. I don't know how many bloody times this can be said; subject matter is entirely irrelevant when it comes to FA. Now please, for the love of all Wikipedia, build a bridge and get over it. DoomsDay349 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm simply applying the definition that the WP:CRUFT essay gives. I don't think the minutia and trivia in this article is interesting to anyone aside from a Pokemon fan. The article cites lots of references, but they come down to be only a few sources. -- Mikeblas 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was clear. I was talking to the person who started this heading. Just for the record. DoomsDay349 06:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the sake of record... everything is calm.

Almost 2 hours has passed since the last vandal (if I'm reading the dates and times correctly).

I was a bit shocked actually. I rushed to the front page to check if this still is the featured article of today. I checked the news.bbc.co.uk just to make sure that america hasn't disappeared or something else that would attract the attention of everyone (especially the vandalizors). But no, nothing :-/ So how come? PureRumble 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's only been about an hour. As for America, it's the middle of the night here. Or at least... really early in the morning.
-- M C Y 1008 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If the American vandalwave hasn't come yet it is sure bound to. --WikiSlasher 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Had no idea the times in the history-section were UTC. So if your right then we should have a sh*t-storm comming in in about eight hours (yeah the time will be like 1pm in america and all the lazy vandalizors and pokemon-bathcers will have gotten out of bed :-P) PureRumble 09:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect we're also seeing a just-before-Christmas effect here, where people are more concerned with gathering around the family yule log than editing Wikipedia. Recent changes is noticeably quieter than usual. Which is great, because it means I'm only reverting vandalism about every two minutes, rather than every thirty seconds. Perhaps this should be a lesson to us all to ensure that the next time we want to make fancruft a featured article, Christmas is a really good time to do it. ;) Squeezeweasel 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just LOL! That's a really good idea :)! PureRumble 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:N and WP:RS questions

Congratulations on getting featured article status. This featured article has a lot of references, but most appear to be either published articles in WP:RS reliable sources, such as main stream publications, which are about Pokemon rather than this specific one out of the 493 characters, or blogs or fansites which are how-to guides for playing the game and exploiting the characteristics of this Pokemon character. I was wondering if some one familiar with the quality of the references could show that there are, say 3 articles from mainstream publications in which this character is the primary subject of the article. This is in relation to a review of how standards for notability WP:N are upheld for things in the world (churches, shopping malls, TV masts, libraries, city streets, schools, professors) versus electronic things which may have more appeal to Wikipedia editors (such as TV show episodes and characters, video game characters, game weapons, and game spaceships, game locations, rock and rap songs and CDs) and fictional things (movies, books, and the characters, scenes, ships, battles, etc. in them.) Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. Edison 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchic is a notable fictional character because it is an arguably main character in both the video games and anime. Giving it full encyclopedic treatment would make it too large of a section on either of those pages. In addition it is featured in a TCG and manga. It fulfills the requirements at WP:FICT on being notable. as for WP:RS, when writing about fiction it is acceptable to use primary sources for descriptive points, and there is no requirement i could find at WP:RS that stated sourced material had to be solely about the subject. And as for your opinion of fansites, if a fansite is reputable, subject to indepenent fact-checking, corroborates with other independent sources, declares it's sources, and is stable it passes the requirements at WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources. Labelling something a "fansite" does not make it uncredible. The reliable sources are being used for description, not analysis. Although it does seem some of the refs are not porperly linking, i'll be contacting the person who put them in to see if he can straighten it out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protect this page!!!

You need to at least to semi-protect it. I had to click "next 50" at least four times in the history to see an edit that was not on December 23. --75.21.40.198 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be the work of /b/. I agree that this page is some serious need of a vandelism lock.BrendantheJedi 18:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. It should be locked! :o LonelyPker 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page featured articles are never semi-protected or protected. That defeats the whole purpose of putting them on the main page. They are there so that people can come and edit them to make them better. Now, this article seems to have garnered an unwanted amount of vandalism. But that merely reinforces the original point. Someone will come and see how some jerkoff added "Oprah Winfrey's vagina" (Is that supposed to be funny?) and edit it out. I have my doubts as to this being the work of /b/, since they actually do funny stuff. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

  • More likely, its 7chan. Or one of those /b/invasion offshoots that was created during the whole Jailbait crisis, but most likely the GNAA or something.BrendantheJedi 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bulbasaur was protected when it was a featured article. EllipsesBent 23:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I salute you for a good day of work!

Some moments I was thinking that this day would never come to an end. But here we are! Torchic is no longer on the main page, and being there 24 hours had only positive results (except the vandalz (which can't really count as a result 'cause good wikipedians always keep reverting their changes ;-) )). We have had some good edit and some good discussions about what a featured article should be.

So, wikipedians! No matter if you consider FAs being overrun and invaded by the unbeatable pokémons is a good thing, or if this is something that ruins your sleep late at nights... I salute you, for a good 24-hours shift! Cheers! *Raising my glass of julmust and eating some chips*

PureRumble 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism over, peace forever (well, not really, but you get the idea)! -- Altiris Exeunt 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I get it... you do want peace forever, don't you? ;-) PureRumble 01:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course! But not everyone seems to want it (they know who they are...and you're not one of them). -- Altiris Exeunt 02:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk template tags

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to add small=yes to most of the templates at the top of this page as is done at Talk:Wikipedia? --WikiSlasher 05:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, because I find it to be virtually unreadable, especially for the {{cvgproj}} header. I think skiptotoctalk is an adequate solution. I'd also favor intergrating the Nintendo WikiProject somehow...either to a work group or something. Hbdragon88 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical commentary from Village Pump

Hi, someone brought up this article at the Village Pump, citing it as an example of featured article on a "useless" subject, which of course confuses the point of featured articles. Nevertheless, some people cited some problems with the article that could be fixed to improve it further. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Shame, really. – Þ  17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical issue: sourcing and comprehensiveness

This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Some highlights:

  • Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to [3]; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
  • The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
  • Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
  • At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
  • The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
  • The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.

Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.

I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it is obvious we have to nominate this article on WP:FAR. Changes should be made during the FAR period. If they are not then the article can progress into FARC and potentially have its FA status revoked. Funpika 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed GA

This article was promoted to GA in March 2006 and to FA in June 2006. It was removed from FA in April 2007. Removed FAs are not automatically reassessed as GA without a new GA nomination. You are welcome to nominate it again at WP:GAC. Gimmetrow 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... I'm confused. It passed GA before, so why does being promoted further mean that it's no longer be a GA? -Amarkov moo! 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The article now is probably quite different from the article originally named GA over a year ago. Whatever issues caused the article to be removed from FA would likely disqualify from GA now, so a former GA status should not automatically be reinstated without a review. Renomination at WP:GAC is the appropriate way to have it reviewed. Gimmetrow 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me, just wanted clarification. -Amarkov moo! 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)