Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Bot problem

Some crazy bots are keeping up adding inappropriate interwiki links.

1, 2, 3.

Every time I see this happening I keep on thinking "What the hell is going on here?"

I also brought it up to this page, I hope something can be done. TheBlazikenMaster 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In affect, they are right... They are probably going to the Nidoran♂ page, and being redirected to that list. Therefore, the interwiki links are being added on that page. Reedy Boy 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's the problem. I used a section redirect, I hope that will work. TheBlazikenMaster 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Key problem with the lists

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Sonic Mew 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part of this policy are the lists currently violating? Spigot Map 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also curious: How are the lists any more indiscriminate information than full articles filled with Smogon's originally-researched metagameguide? You Can 't See Me! 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the original full articles, this is the blessing of the Holy See. You want IINFO, look at the originals. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think we are making the lists? So we get rid of all the unnecessary info. Full articles clearly violated this. And no, it doesn't have a lot of information, if that's what you think, only some Dex info and little more. TheBlazikenMaster 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The original articles fail WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no conceivable information at all on real-world character development or impact that these characters had in the real world. At all. hbdragon88 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The image discussion isn't over.

We still need to find a way to get the images somehow. The lists suck without them. Common, nothing's impossible. I know there is a way, we just haven't found it yet. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. The Wikimedia Foundation's policy on free content is not negiotable. Similar battles were fought on episode lists and were trumped by the WMF's policy. hbdragon88 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't negotiable. The problem is people conflating their interpretation of the policy with the policy itself. I've read it. It says nothing about "images may be used to provide visual information that could not be given any other way, except on lists where images must be removed immediately". It should be obvious that organizational changes in a group of articles shouldn't invalidate previously valid fair use claims. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So you think the images should come back, then? hbdragon88 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that our current fair use policy does prohibit images like those, so currently, I do not. But that can change, because it's just part of our policy, not the Foundation one which we are obligated to follow. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there must be a way to change the policy so there will be an exception. Pokémon are impossible to describe without the images. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And the discussion isn't over until we find a real solution. TheBlazikenMaster 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone may want to check out this, this, or any other guide to see if they are grouped in a reasonable manner. If the organization allows for a good amount per page, it could work out. TTN 22:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have a solution, maybe we should have some kinda link to the images on the pages. Oh and don't dare say there is no solution, don't be a quitter. WikiProjects are there not so you can give it up, they are there to find a solution to problems. Here are some examples of what I mean:

TheBlazikenMaster 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The link wouldn't work because the pics they link to would still be orphaned, and you'd have a redlink within a week. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea

I remembered something WP:D&D did for its monster articles - they uploaded their own illustrations of each of the monsters. I don't know if it will help in this case, but if it will, that's an avenue you mught want to consider. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 09:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To design using pictures of Pokémon is to be creating a derivative work and will still fall under copyright - it won't evade the fair use policy. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is only one thing we can do. Either contact some people in the Pokémon Company of Japan or the company that translates Pokémon from Japanese in the United States. Someone from the pokémon company in Japan would be better idea, since it's made there. TheBlazikenMaster 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't use copyrighted images that only have permission to be used on Wikipedia (which appears to be what you are suggesting). I highly doubt that you would be able to convince Nintendo to release the images of all of the Pokémon under a free license which would even allow people to use the images for commercial reasons. FunPika 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but we have no other choice. TheBlazikenMaster 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, something tells me that this project isn't the only WikiProject having image problems... TheBlazikenMaster 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not. Therefore, the solution is changing the policy, not just thinking of how we can plausibly make it not apply in this specific instance. -Amarkov moo! 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know there is no deadline, but I still hope that I'll be able to see the images on 2008. TheBlazikenMaster 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see what's to benefit from Nintendo suing Wikipedia for using an image of a Pokemon on something like an encyclopedia, it's a neccesary visual aid. This whole debacle almost seems like an irrational fear of lawsuits. Why is it that a place like Bulbapedia can use all the images they need to, but Wikipedia can't? There's no difference between the two other than scope. Toastypk 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is an irrational fear of lawsuits. How often does Nintendo sue one of the countless fan sites that contain pictures of their characters (including ones from other franchises such as Mario, Legend of Zelda, etc.)? Unfortunately, we can't use the images unless we somehow change consensus. FunPika 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If they did sue any of those fansites, it would be a Pyrrhic victory - they'd alienate all their fans. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the countless number of YouTube videos, yeah, I agree, it's ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did a little more research and determined that people want as little fair use images as possible on Wikipedia. I may still be wrong though. FunPika 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, your not wrong and see this for related answers to your questions. Though I'm sure that link has been brought up a lot. « FMF » 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has - Durin was on this talk page before he was scared off. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Head notes on list pages.

Recently Sesshomaru moved a headnote, as you can see here. Because it doesn't follow this policy. As you probably know we have many headnotes in sections. So we should maybe help out? TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatnote is part of the Manual of Style - a guideline - not policy. It seems counter-intuitive to me to expect readers to know to scroll to the top of a page when redirected to a list, I've raised that specific point on the relevant talk page.--Alf ^melmac 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all want to keep Wikipedia as perfect as possible so I see no reason why WP:HATNOTE should be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly the reason why I knew it was good to bring this up here. Since we need help from other people editing the list pages. TheBlazikenMaster 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This guideline does not work well with these lists. There is no reason they can't go in the sections. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Spigot Map 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just been changed in TheBlazikenMaster's favour, see the very last section in the talk page of WP:HATNOTES. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I knew I was right to revert. But I couldn't explain it correctly, so I have to thank Melsaran to explain more specifically to Sesshomaru's talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hm... funny, WP:N is just a guideline but it was a good enough reason to scrap all the species articles and put them into lists, which are now no longer allowed to contain fair-use images. but it's nice how the "well it's just a guideline" argument can work for specific interests.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. In that case, common sense did not conflict with the guideline, here it does (asking a redirected user to scroll up to the top of the page is a common sense violation). As for the images, they were removed under the fair use policy. Policy, not guideline. Please stop making observations that sidetrack a conversation, Zapper. -59.164.117.243 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki 1.0 Inclusion

I'm working on relabeling the articles for Wiki 1.0 inclusion. Many minor articles were tagged as "Top Importance" while many of the main characters weren't even labeled. Feel free to jump in or give advice on which articles should be what priority. I figure main characters and the Pokemon, Pokemon Anime, and Pokemon Games articles be top priority, with the individual games, supporting characters, and some movies being high priority. Towns, minor movies, whatever else being mid priority. Spigot Map 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Field Day

Have fun! -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article's log, the page was deleted twice already. Shouldn't this have been speedied per G4? You Can 't See Me! 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I've seen larger number of times an article has been deleted before even heading to AfD. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

G4 doesn't apply if the current is radically different from the past incarnations. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The out-of-date manual of style guide is being discussed for deletion.

Have your opinions here. All your votes or comments should be made there. No more edits should be made to this section. TheBlazikenMaster 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Currently, there is a new user readding a bunch of crap to the Bulbasaur article. If people can help, that would be nice. TTN 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that, I'm wondering why the hell Charizard along with Bulbasaur have their own articles. I mean, are they really worth it? TheBlazikenMaster 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"A bunch of crap" that was there a long time since which not many have any problem with (if we are to judge by those who have made edits to the page) the fact that the merge you wanted didn't go ahead is no reason to do a knee-jerk hack and slash reaction. Yes, TheBlazikenMaster, they are worth it as much as any other subject. Why not go treat Luigi to the same style of treatment and see the shit-storm you'll raise there. That has vaster tracts of unreferenced material but no-one seems to mind. The version was stable until TTN decided to make two subsequent edits and cut out referenced material under a spurious guise of legitamacy, I'm just taking it back to the stable version.--Barnyard animals 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Luigi is a great article. It doesn't have a tortured and long plot summary, so there is nothing to remove that would cause a "shit storm," in your words. hbdragon88 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that shows up the differences of perception nicely, I find swathes of uncited and unverified info that I could go and edit brutally if I chose to, but we are not supposed to makes edits to 'make our point', so we'll have to agree to differ on opinions.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnyard doesn't seem to be aware that there is a whole policy page devoted to what is not allowed here. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will always use my own judgement for deciding on the merits of things before looking at any regulations which then say I can't improve the encylopedia because of Rule 34, para 20, line 75. And even if I am aware of such a rule I'll still go ahead and try to improve the encylopedia anyway if the rule is getting in the way of it.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the Luigi argument also fails this: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. TheBlazikenMaster 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take note that certain persons believe that one should not cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. I believe you have also been told before about using this essay on pages outside the scope of Articles for Deletion, but you still continue, please reconsider that kind of manoevure.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually started a discussion here regarding what needs to be done. I don't agree to removing sourced content without a proper consensus. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sesshormaru at least one editor is prepared to use their own onboard aparatus to judge things for themselves instead of howling "down - begone - see WP:CRAP" with the rest of the pack. The way some of you people try and slap people down is barely simian, and is unsociable to boot.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we have a number consensus to remove the crap, regardless of what he thinks, so that should be enough. TTN 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So regardless of anything whatsoever you are right and I am wrong, so the crowd gets the call? That's bollocks and you know it, you do not have consensus, consensus is not derived from numbers. This was not the right place to raise the issue and it still isn't, the fact you asked for help in 'dealing with me' here is telling enough.--Barnyard animals 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are set in a quantity over quality stance (believing that just having a source makes something relevant), and you seem to want to stay there regardless of what we tell you (i.e. WP:NOT#PLOT for most of it the content). You are the only person on your side, so we're going to go with a number consensus for this one. TTN 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not set in anything - you are choosing to see what you want in my words/actions. I am not 'the only person on this side', enough editors have expressed their concerns over your edits and methodology; on article talk pages, on your talk page (extensively) and on Administrators' Notice Boards (which you at one point stated you would no longer take part), but you haven't adjusted your approach in response. It seems you are the inflexible one as your words clearly see it as "my view on this is the only valid one". This is still not the right place to discuss the Bulbasaur article.--Barnyard animals 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the only person that has expressed that all of this content is valid; my "past" has little to do with this. When you can actually cite something from policies and guideline to back yourself, then my view will not be the only valid one here. Seeing as this is the Pokémon WikiProject, it is a very good place to discuss to gain opinions on the situation. I see very little discussion on the other page. TTN 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AMiB protted the page; I left a counterargument on the talk page. My biggest issue is that you're detailing what Bulbasaur does and/or is used for in anime and manga, which violates both WP:SUMMARY and WP:NOT#PLOT. Just because something has cites doesn't make it worthy of inclusion; for example a cite saying that Winston Churchill always put his left shoe on first wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in his article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY is irrelevant; it is a guideline (see WP:NOTPOLICY) and deals with sections of long articles, which should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place, whilst creating correct linkage and ensuring GFDL. The version you revert to removes the Manga and Trading Card games in toto, without any explanation of them at all, that just can't be right, common sense says that. Your recent editing history has a bearing in this, TTN, you edited the article, making severe cuts, as you have done with other articles to the consternation and disaproval of some editors (although some applauded you): others edited down the info in a negotiational way on the Bulbasaur article and you, assisted by Jeske continued to revert to the same version, again showing a disregard for compromise (in your views at least). Jeske can you honestly say that that revision is the best we can do on Bulbsaur on Wikipedia at this moment in time, or is their some room for at least mentioning and encapsulating what we have already for the two section that are missing in that revision. Not mention MacDonald's at all? I'm not for keeping crap, but I'm not for throwing away the baby with the bathwater either, which is what I think TTN is doing here. I thought (last time I looked) that for TV shows and the like there is a suggested number of words in text in respect of so many hours of showtime, that guidance would be the most relevant to deal the amount of text to deal with Anime, although quality is a different matter. Doesn't that diff. orphan two images to boot, is that necessary?--Barnyard animals 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that guidelines are generally enforced (unlike essays), and that the article is not about a TV show. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The manga and the TCG are mentioned within other media, which is where they belong. Giving them sections means giving them undue weight. Unless the promotion was something specific about Bulbasaur, it is trivia, which does not belong. Plot summaries for movies and episodes are limited to ten words per minute, but that does not translate over to characters. The articles sum up the roles; they don't give every detail. TTN 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, thought the book info got moved. That's way too short for those three according to guidance elsewhere then. Yes, you're right not every detail, some summary should be there not an absence of data. --Barnyard animals 19:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please show me any good or featured article that provides equal coverage for even the smallest medium. The two main mediums of the metaseries only need to be given extensive details. In the other two, Bulbasaur has minimal involvement (and that TCG section is just pure filler). The site is not the be all and end all for topics. We provide summarized information to help benefit the reader (the general reader, not the fan). While it helps to know that it is a major anime character, it's various minor roles in minor manga are not as beneficial to know about. TTN 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand "The two main mediums of..." - do you mean the article can have as much coverage in this type of article, or as a preclusion to me choosing the article Link (The Legend of Zelda) as a good example of a character that has a good deal more information on the appearances in the video games section that is in the current version Bulbasaur and a fuller Non-Zelda appearances and other media sections than in the version you revert to?--Barnyard animals 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You do not think that we should make the articles as informative as we can then? I think your long term projection of what is Wikipedia very disappointing, I encourage you to take on board the outlook that, after reading a Wikipedia article, one would be as informed as having trawled over many manhy other places for information, thankfully untouched by confusion of many points of view, personally put forward, and the lack of structure and value (cites) in the information presented. "Not as beneficial to know about", I'm sorry but that sounds like the Chinese government :) "The general reader, not the fan" - have you looked at some of the chemistry aticles lately? I think a general reader deseverves to be able to choose to read more information than the revision you were reverting to has available to them. Exactly how much should be the debate, not citing guidance to re-inforce your view that your version is the only acceptable one.--Barnyard animals 20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're looking for is wikia, a collection of fan sites that provide specific information for various topics. This is an encyclopedia that gives overviews of the topic; it is a given that some parts will have more weight than others. For video game characters, we do not detail every single little topic possible. The main topics are given the greatest weight, while things like cameos are summarized. TTN 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, try Bulbapedia; they're a Pokemon-specific Wiki (they are not Wikia, however, they're independent). I suggested that in one of my edit summaries. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for "showing me the door". No, you have set your sights too low on this project, you would have us make an object no beter than Britanica. Not good enough. I do not want to have to go other sites, I don't have to in other articles. See the article Link (The Legend of Zelda), now honestly, the revert to your version is way contrary to the levels in that article isn't it? It's really very miserly in comparison.--Barnyard animals 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The amount of information cannot be compared. While that article needs to be trimmed, most of the given information is relevant. The sections on the other hand, show something. Do you see separate sections detailing the cartoon and comic/manga spin offs, or do you see one section that encompasses all of that stuff, while the major aspect gets its own section? TTN 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should see Talk:Bulbasaur#Discussion on cutting content also. Some there, aside from me, have agreed to keep the data the user Barnyard animals included in the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Short version: Sess and BYA, you're wrong.

Long version: Talk:Bulbasaur#Current problems

I probably won't be around to pursue this further, but basically none of the problems that got this deFAed, then deGAed, then merged the first time, have yet been solved. The article is still incomplete lists of trivial appearances, bad writing, bad organization, and no sources. Making the incomplete lists of trivial appearances include even more trivial appearances (or non-appearances) doesn't fix that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You kindly provided a list of things that are possibly fixable, that would suggest to me that Sesshomaru and I are right to revert to the consensus built version and negotiate the improvements from there. I'll ask again, compared to to the Link article, isn't this way of cutting the data miserly by comparison. The is a middle road, I'd like to negotiate us to it. In one of the examples of what's wrong you suggest fixing a line that TTN's editing removed, I agree with almost all of your points there, but you can't have your cake and eat it (by saying "Short version: Sess and BYA, you're wrong" (for which you provide no rationale, just the opinion), you can't fix that line if you support TTN's version. You do understand that despite the portrayal by Jeske that we are 'adding extra stuff', I and Sesshomaru are unhappy with TTN's cuts and want to discuss them, but they both seem to think that the issue is non-negotiable, there may be problems but hacking the whole lot is not the best solution. No one has added anymore data to make the current situation worse, in fact the current version is somewhat less than the consensus version before TTN's cuts, there was some negotiational editing going on, but that's stopped as two editors are basically saying "only TTN's version is acceptable".--Barnyard animals 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying the version that ignores WP:FICT, WP:NOT, and WP:WIAFA (I don't care in the slightest who wrote it or claims it or whatever) is the consensus version doesn't make it the consensus version all of a sudden. It's one of two controversial versions, and it's by far the worse one. They both suck, that's the problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty :) When stuck between the rock and the hard place, using the middle ground might be more productive than clinging to either side. If you genuinely believe it fails WP:FICT, then surely your correct course of action is to take the article to be reviewed for deletion? WP:NOT is, I believe what I'm trying to negotiate on, There is some data there that can be used, such as the little list in the Trading Cards section, which is not present in the version TTN prefers, WP:WIAFA is not a requirement unless it's a feature article.--Barnyard animals 07:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT, unlike everything else that's been brought up, is policy, and it's (for the most part) non-negotiable. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No as to bringing it to an AfD, because under the same policy you're quoting (WP:FICT), merging is explored as an option before deleting. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be anal about it, but WP:FICT is a guidleine, not a policy.--Barnyard animals 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sleepy, and my intent was registered in any case. I'm aware of the distinction. There's no need to harp on things like that unless it's necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was an apologetic correction, the only intent was to make clear to all other readers of this that there was a mis-labelling of it's status, I believe forstalling anyone thinking that it is a policy is necessary, no other intention, certainly not harping on. Sleep well.--Barnyard animals 08:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Guideline or no, WP:POKE follows it, and Bulbasaur clearly falls under their purview. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh cripes sake, A Man In Black said he thinks Bulbasaur fails that guideline, we weren't talking whether or not that group follows it or not, nor whether Bulbasaur falls under it's purview. What's your point there then Jeske? We should delete the article because merging has been tried and failed or what?--Barnyard animals 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Actually, the article was filibustered from a merge. I would prefer to see it in its relevant list article rather than as a standalone, because, #001 or not, its notability hasn't been established. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT might be a policy, or a guideline, or a strawberry tart. Who cares? It's a good idea.

Basically, the problem is that notability isn't established, which is a highfalutin' Wikipedia way of saying we have no sources for this article. We still don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you wouldn't mind me correcting anyone who tried to assert that a strawberry tart is a wikipedia policy :)--Barnyard animals 10:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

of course WP:N is only a guideline as well... and there was a long time beforehand when it was just an essay. as for Bulbasaur itself - you know, AMIB, that we always have the Time article and the games. Scary enough, we now even have a book that delves superficially into strategies with specific pokemon. WP:NOT says we aren't a how-to, but we also aren't paper and that little gem explicitly states that articles on game strategies are well within the realm of wikipedia. add to that, summary is not forbidden. someone just decided that it was. WP:NOT#PLOT supports this. Summary just merely should not be the only thing you have to say about the subject. oh... and WP:SS anyone? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

oh and btw... that little banter back and forth about consensus... many people disagreed with the lists... and have left the project because of the unilateral actions taken by a small but active group of editors. there may be consensus among who's left here... but that's not saying much. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I seem to remember a time in the distant past when WP:PACthis project was an excited, hopeful place. We were all working together to a common goal. Now all we have are arguments and diatribes. How thoroughly depressing. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break No. 1

Should we just go ahead and redirect this and Charizard already? Both of them lack any assertion of real world notability, and there are only a small number of actual users that would defend them. While we're on that, does Mewtwo have anything to establish notability, and is the Deoxys NASA promotion enough to warrant the article? TTN 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you asleep during the reams and reams of discussion over this last time? There was an awful lot of it, and there was no consensus whatsoever to merge. It became a completely circular discussion going nowhere. Do you really want to dredge that up again? —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember one side having an argument based upon policies and guidelines, while the other used "filibustering", as Jéské Couriano described it. Using two trivial reviews to assert notability was not even close to a case. The article would to have five percent of the quality of: Jabba the Hutt, Jason Voorhees, Padmé Amidala, Felix the Cat, and Palpatine to even stand a chance. TTN 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I read of the conversations, I'm reminded of User:NYScholar trying to remove the Nobel Prize image. You kept reiterating your arguments in hopes WP:PCP would crumble, and they did. Now it's time to put up or shut up. I'd say if you haven't found reliable sources by NOW, then there's no chance in hell there will be reliable sources anytime soon. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"You kept"? to whom are you referring? Both you and TTN are over zealously interpreting guidelines. Merging imposes a needless restriction on the content. There is no policy that 'demands' that this page be merged. The refusal to engage in any productive discussion, constant reverts back to your versions, and now turning it into a discussion about merging in my view shows you and TTN feel you own the article.--Barnyard animals 08:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Celestianpower, not you. And the "needless restriction" cuts both ways here. The only dog I have is policy - I'm not a member of the PCP because it conflicts with my D&D stuff, and I don't want to be one because it's starting to look like the United States Congress. The articles were merged because, individually, the only one that is notable is Pikachu itself, and, sourcewise, the only one that can survive w/o primary sources (i.e. the games, anime, and manga) is, again, Pikachu. Celestian and the editors who fought to keep Bulbasaur separate need to find adequate sources for it, and soon.

As a side note, the only article I can actually be accused of "owning" is List of Pokemon (241-260), and that is only because of meme madness. Will Sceptre, Blaziken, and Alison can back me up on that charge. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whereas a recent (nine days ago) article about Japanese anime "destroying American society" (Oregon Daily Emeral) posted a cartoon of Pikachu, in the text, Bulbasaur, Charmander and Squirtle are mentioned, in that order. The editor appears to be using the names in a such a way that people will know what they are. The have been prior discussions about which are the notable Pokemons, if I fail to quickly find another source to go into the article along with the Timeasia article giving the opinion that he is one "of the three more popular Pokémon" that is no reason to now change the discussion on cuts to article into a redirect request.--Barnyard animals 09:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Washington Post" entertainments article "My son Andrew, an 8-year-old connoisseur of Pikachu, Bulbasaur, Squirtle and the other pint-size, squeaking, beeping creations in the Pokemon universe", Virtual FormGuide - a racing site - a horse has been named "Bulbasaur", Houston Chronicle talking about the company who brought you "a squadron of battling fluff balls with hilarious names (Jigglypuff, Squirtle, Bulbasaur)". Bulbasaur is notable enough for those.--Barnyard animals 09:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article Potter takes on Pokémon has "Pikachu, Bulbasaur and their kin are about to be swept aside by a new fad - Harry Potter collectable cards." Herald Tribune (Florida) article opens with "Just when I'd figured out the difference between Bulbasaur, Wartortle and the other Pokemon characters", CBBC Newsround article second para is "In Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team you become a Pokemon and have to rescue others, like Pikachu, Squirtle and Bulbasaur, from the dungeon." Even a silly Valentine's present/horoscope section of The Daily Orange (independent newpaper of Syracuse, New York) names this character - 'if you got a teddy bear' then their advice is "Your latest attempt to "Catch 'em all" will once again be foiled by that wily Bulbasaur. And you were positive that the Spanish Fly would work. Shit." (which doesn't mention any other Pokemon at all) maybe I'm missing the joke there. - --Barnyard animals 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only things those show are that it's mentioned every once and a while. Those sites cannot be used to back the notion that it is the most popular unless they actually state it. Even then, that one sentence can be included in the list entry. The article doesn't have enough real world information, so you need to provide some (see the articles I listed up there for the amount that you'll need), or it needs to be redirected. TTN 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They prove perfectly adequately that the topic is notable, as Jeske was asking for. It shows that when Pokemon are named exempli gratia, Bulbasaur is used. The BBC article naming only two exemplia gratia are Pikachu and Bulbasaur. Exactly as I said, you immediately look to how they can't be used in the article, despite them proving notability.--Barnyard animals 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They prove that it is recognizable, but not notable. You need significant coverage, not just a random mention along with two other Pokemon. Please look over the featured articles I listed up there to see the kind of information required. TTN 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered Link before when you asked 'which featured article....?' looking at it again still has a large number of references from Nintendo, gameplay sites and the like, and very little different in my opinion on the quality of cites than this article used already, lets get back to the discussion of what, if any more there is to be cut from the article instead of derailing it with redirect threats. "The kind of information required" again sounds like a polite Chinese politician, the notability guideline is not an axe over content--Barnyard animals 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Jabba the Hutt, Jason Voorhees, Padmé Amidala, Felix the Cat, and Palpatine. Link is a pretty bad FA, so it is not a good example. Even then, it still has actual information detailing how the character was created, developed, and received. It doesn't assert notability by having trivial articles with "...Mario, Link, and *other Nintendo character". There is not one reference for Bulbasaur that has anything from the creators, a professional reviewer (not some writer making a joke or just referencing some major pop-culture icon), or anything of that nature. That is why we need to have standards (or "political bullshit" as you're calling it). TTN 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All those featured articles are film characters - three of which are connected to George Lucas, I would be very surprised if there were a dearth of information to make a featured article. It seems, from what you're saying, that you'd like me to wave a magic wand and create a featured article, when I'd rather just stop edits like this, which no matter how well intentioned, removed the cite for ALL the actors. Someone else could easily go and remove the rest of that paragraph as uncited, without anyone else having grounds for complaint, and you'd get closer to your vision of only the information you insist is acceptable, and you'd be happy, but I call that vandalism by the back door. Yes indeed a iconic cat that is over 70 years old, good comaprison, not. Link is a totally appropriate article to compare it with, it has the same levels of citation of the Bulbasaur, with the added benefit that IGN did a few interviews: that's double standards. Standards, ah there's the rub. The main opposition seems to be from the supporters of WP:FICT which is being contested in many places, by many editors, including an RfC being requested. IAR is about protecting the enclopedia from the rules destroying the encylopedia and I'll stand by that policy about all this until a better consensus has been found on WP:FICT.--Barnyard animals 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If You're having problems agreeing, it's time to invoke the WP:IGNORE policy and focus on improving the articles, even if they may not seem notable, or whatever. The general spirit of Wikipedia has always been to be a free encyclopedia, and while I agree that not all articles are notable, this hard-nosed use to policies and guidelines seems to be doing more and more harm to wikipedia's articles. I've seen it in various places, mostly in places where the article has an extremely low interest rank (For example, Pregnancy fetishism). It's really sad to see it's managed to reach here too, and frankly, the merging of all the Pokemon into short lists was a bad move.

Now, I'm not saying, lets go be wiki-tards and have articles about every topic every thought about, including your pet dog and the miles on your car, but in cases like this, where the beat down of these rules are harming what makes Wikipedia unique and interesting. It's just a suggestion, but I think it's food for thought. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If You're having problems agreeing, it's time to invoke the WP:IGNORE policy and focus on improving the articles, even if they may not seem notable, or whatever.

People aren't saying "This article's subject isn't notable, so I refuse to improve the article." People are saying "This article's subject isn't notable, so there aren't the requisite sources to improve the article." We're still at that point, after...fuck, hasn't it been years now? Ignoring the problem isn't making it go away. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto AMiB. We can't improve an article sourced to fansites even fans mistrust, primary sources, or the kid sitting in the back of the class drawing endowed Pokes on his desk. We need reliable secondary or tertiary sources. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference in the quality of the cites in the Featured Article Link (like it or not), that's double standards, rules and policies reflect what we do, and are created that way round, not this way, there is a solid attempt to use them to stop any discussion on improvement to the article in deference to having one person's idea of what's acceptable (which I believe they intend to use as a step to just redirecting anyway). No sources, no sources, you say, go look hard at that link article and prove to me that they are more acceptable, show me the editorial pedigree of the authors of the interview that I may know they are verifiable before I go cut Link to shreds in a TTN like edit in frustration at discourse being blocked. Thanks for your view of the kind of people who would put what you'd call OR into the article - I'm sure the kid at the back of the class drawing big willies on Pikachus will be most proud: Primary sources are acceptable, as attested in the answers to the question about TV episodes that was recently asked at the noticeboard for verifiability. Cites are there for any material that is contested, or likely to be contested, and for direct quotes, is anyone seriously contesting the information? Again - the rules reflect what we do, not to beat the others editors up with, contested rules even more so. I have been making genuine efforts to improve the article but have to keep stopping to jump through your hoops, how is that in the collaborative spirit of this endeavour.-Barnyard animals 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the sources provided for Bulbasaur are of any quality? Do any of the sources have the creators talking about the "character's" development? How many are from reputable sources that are actually known for their reviews? How many of the sources even talk about the creature directly? How many of those are more than a joke or random comment?

Link, while crappy, has information from the creator, from reviewers (I think), and from other places. Bulbasaur has nothing to compare to that. Feel free to compare sources if you feel like it. You and the guy that seems to want to keep this around only because he brought it up to our old, crappy FA standards are the only ones arguing, so I don't know why we're even bothering with this discussion. TTN 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The quality of cites for Bulbasaur and Link are of no different quality, I said that already, crappy or not. Not that I've noticed, but the absence of data is no preclusion to article's existence. None and neither are the ones in Link. I found two and stopped counting, how many fits your prescription? We know you don't like what you consider a joke (I personally don't think it is, having seen Miranda and her fruitbowl hairdos). The reviewers apppear in an IGN article, which by your own standards you say is inadmissable. You have found nothing that compares with it. I expect a scicence article to have science text book cites - I expect an article on film to have reviews from Newspapers and Magazines that carry film reviews, I expect an article on a sportsperson to cite sporting publications and websites interested in that subject - I do not expect the game articles to have cites above and beyond the subject of the article. Now I have a least perfunctually answered your questions - why did you remove the cite that gave the names of the wiki-linked voice actors?.--Barnyard animals 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take a look at the sources that provide real world information in both articles. As you can see, Link gets its information from the creators, while Bulbasaur gets it from half-assed articles that aren't meant to provide anything that would actually be included in something like this. If you cannot find information comparable to that, you have no case. Why exactly do we want to list some random Spanish voice actor? This is the English Wikipedia, so unless we're going to list them all (WP:NOT#IINFO), it has no relevance. Only the English and the original voice actors are relevant.

Bulbasaur
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/1122/cover2.html - Claims that it is popular and provides "amazing" detail of the localization process
http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/TV/9910/05/pokemon/ - It's a joke. That is all. It doesn't provide a damn thing.
The sources that you provided - None can actually be included in the article, so yeah...

Link
http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/230403.shtml - Interview with the creator
http://news.digitaltrends.com/featured_article58.html - Another interview
http://www.totalvideogames.com/news/The_Miyamoto_Interview_3946_0_1.htm - Take a wild guess
http://cube.ign.com/articles/514/514589p1.html - ...Interview
http://cube.ign.com/articles/617/617000p1.html - ...
http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/0898.shtml - And it's an interview
http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/140503.shtml - ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by TTN (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 October 2007

You did not answer the question I asked, again. They may well have interviews with the creator, they are nowhere near reliable sources as WP:FICT 'demands'. The first site is a fan site dedicated to the creator, would we accept such a like cite for a popular musician? - No we wouldn't. What information specific to Link does the second cite give about Link does the second cite give? None, it talks about the Mario and Link characters as a generic thing. No-one writes stuff for the express purpose of being used here, any talk of such is nonsense. If you accept IGN there why are you not accepting IGN as ok to use as refs in Bulbasaur (two cites). I was proving notability when asked to, the sources I provided do not have to go into the article, unless that guideline has been changed behind my back. Again I ask why did you remove the cite that gave the names of the wiki-linked voice actors?--Barnyard animals 05:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are archives of the interviews (you can see the original source in them somewhere). That is another reason why Link is a crappy FA, and why you should not even think about using it as a base. The only sources that matter in this discussion are the ones that provide real world information that pertains only to the character (voice actors and stuff are real world, but most characters have them, so they do not add to anything). If you had IGN sources that provided real world information, then they would be worthwhile. That site is user based like this one, so it is not a reliable source. TTN 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it is second hand reporting and one issue is how it linked in the reference itself. Saying that, it raises the issue of double standards being applied as and when editors see fit to do so. It's a Featured Article about a fictional character that 'started life' in a game, no matter how crappy you believe it to be, that is a good enough benchmark for me. The fact that those citations in the Link article provide information of the standard you insist are obligatory does not make the sources (in themselves) less reliable on another article, what is sauce for the goose... (OK geese, settle down, it's just an expression). I do not have access to two recent magazines that came up in a quick search for such an interview, and not having the sources online does not preclude the possibility of that information exisisting, nor being written in the future. As a side point - If there are any Japanese members of the project who could search for フシギダネ杉森建 and フシギダネ田尻智 we might know whether there currently is any further information of the level you're talking about. I would think it likely that more information about things that originated in another language country would appear in that country's own language. I understand the preference is to have an English source for the English Wikipedia, but foreign language citations have been acceptable where the data has not been translated elsewhere. I would still like an answer as to why you removed the cite that provided the names of all five voice actors when you decided the Spanish voice actor was not worth a mention (it is not worth mentioning at all, even given the two Japanese and two English speaking voice actors are female and the Spanish is male? - I find it informative that whoever was in charge of that bit of the Spanish 'production' chose an actor of a different gender than were chosen for the Japanese and English versions).--Barnyard animals 09:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break No. 2

You say that "the problem won't go away" by ignoring it. So what? Why is it so important to you that this article doesn't exist? Surely the encyclopedia would benefit if we stopped arguing about this? We'd all be able to invest our time in more productive persuits. We've spent I don't know how much time discussing this and we've got precisely nowhere. What's the point? What harm is Bulbasaur doing to Wikipedia, exactly? It's for situations like this that WP:IAR was created: when the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. This is certainly preventing us from improving the encyclopedia, for we can't both discuss and write articles. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So if you recreate the Bulbasaur article, and it is brought to AfD, claiming it is not notable under WP:FICT, and should either be merged into the relevant list or deleted, what will be your reasoning for keeping the article? Consensus will not accept WP:IAR as a valid reason for keeping the article, and the closing administrator will shut down that argument in any case. If you truly wish the article to be created, then perhaps your time would be better invested searching for sources to satisfy WP:FICT. I am sure all parties would be more than happy to contribute to the article if it satisfied that criterion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They've had months to do so. They have either not looked, or have come up bupkus. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a section on the talk page specific for problems, there were no further objections added then, the least TTN could have done was to tag the article as needing attention before making the edits that caused this thread. AManInBlack ahs kindly provided feedback and I have been making improvements since then, based on his feedback, when my attention has not been brought here instead.--Barnyard animals 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you seriously just use the harmless excuse? Hmm, why don't we just have articles on all of the Pokemon? They only help... TTN 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Don't you have articles on all the pokemon? This isn't a deletion discussion, unless I'm mistaken, and I must ask, what harm could possibly come from this? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You watch all 492 of those articles. Tell me how it feels after a few months. A lot of those articles were rarely watched for vandalism and were constantly crammed with game guide crap. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that because the field of articles are too big to watch over, that in itself is a good enough excuse not to have them. I pitty those people dealing with the elementary tables.--Barnyard animals 05:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that they were too big to keep an eye on, it's that some of the lesser-known Pokes were getting vandalized, and remained vandalized for a few weeks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have had them added to the anti-vandal bots listings then, plenty of people in the IRC channels watch for vandalism such as that.--Barnyard animals 06:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles can't be added to anti-vandal bots. They work on strings of text used as vandalism, and the types of vandalism they got would also flag innocent articles. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please check with a bot operator in an anti-vandalism IRC channel and they will tell you how to do that.--Barnyard animals 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Therein lies a problem - I do not know how to use IRC, and I use IE7. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VoABot II#About VoABot II mentions that it "is useful against both for long-term steady vandalism of certain pages or vandalbot attacks on many random pages", can I suggest leaving the operator a note on User talk:Voice of All if there are any such articles still an issue.--Barnyard animals 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that this this discussion is going nowhere really, I'll again ask if the Bulbasaur article is recreated, what argument will sustain it in an AfD? WP:IAR will not, and that has been the only argument brought up in favor of creating the article. So long as WP:FICT is unsatisfied, the result will be delete or merge. If no solid reason can be given to satisfy WP:FICT, then there's really no purpose in continuing this discussion besides making a point. We all have better things to do than sit in this endless argument. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, if you'll pardon the expression, Bulbasaur has gone nowhere.--Barnyard animals 06:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because the people arguing for it have found squat in the way of sources. You'd be better off adding Ling-Ling to Pikachu's page as a notable parody. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sephiroth BC is under the impression that is has been redirected or deleted and I'm arguing for the article's re-instatement, when the case is I'm arguing that TTN cuts were too excessive and should be discussed.--Barnyard animals 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, my point still stands. Answer the question - what argument would you construct should this article go to AfD? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would construct none, there would be no point - opinions from accounts that are new are generally disregarded in AfD discussions, as for others I guess that would depend on the reason the nominator gave for the AfD.--Barnyard animals 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's bullshit. ALL users, anons included, can give valid arguments in an AfD. Only if your account is a sockpuppet account meant for stacking or the account's an SPA is an argument discounted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion may well be considered bullshit, I'll stand by it though. There is a small section on the AfD page that says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Which does imply to me, either by fault of the writing or my interpretation, that whether bad faith or not, they are discounted, but I'm not hung up about it and think that's another discussion, for another day.--Barnyard animals 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the links to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's just an essay, not even a guideline, and its content is certainly not universally accepted. Please, by all means, take it to AfD and see what they say, but otherwise, leave out the links to essays. It really doesn't help. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that watching large amounts of articles can be difficult, but I cannot, for the life of me, see why someone cannot create a wikibot designed to do that for you; for example, it could email you the list of changes at the end of the day, or perhaps create a special watch page for you that just lists changes to these articles.

Yes, sometimes articles go for weeks at a time without anyone removing vandalism, but that will, and does, happen with all articles that are not watched much. For example, just the other day I removed some from Ace the Bat-Hound. I wasn't watching the article, I just happen to be passing through.

If you really feel that this is a major problem with these articles, ask someone who's skilled in wiki-code to create a wikibot for this matter. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD

I might not be part of this discussion, but I'm sick of reading it. So I brought this article to discussion. Policies/essays arguments won't solve anything, so this is the best way to stop the discussion. I know we're all sick of this long discussion. Once the discussion is finished, we will start discussing something new, I promise. Charizard needs the same attention as Bulbasaur got too much of. TheBlazikenMaster 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You should just withdraw that. As there are so many people that are ignorant of the standards, or that just choose to ignore them, the best possible result you can get is no consenus. That won't do much. If you want, an WP:RfC may be better. TTN 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, maybe you should try to do something that would work out. TheBlazikenMaster 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I second TTN's opinion, and would gladly participate in a Bulbasaur RfC. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Do that then. I don't want to screw anything else up, like I did with this nomination. TheBlazikenMaster 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So, um, yeah

It might have gotten lost somewhere in all the chatter, but Bulbasaur still sucks. I started writing another long post about why, but got distracted by a combination of new music and the same old damned problems with the article. If you'd like to see what I did write, see Talk:Bulbasaur#Attention: Blah blah blah (Problems mark 2). Even if you don't care about Bulbasaur, check it out: I wrote a haiku. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please look into Charizard, AMIB? I have feeling that article is also suffering from the same problem. TheBlazikenMaster 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. Essentially the same deal. They're similar articles in similar condition with similar problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanna know exactly what's wrong with Charizard. I might be able to fix it. TheBlazikenMaster 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Quick review, don't expect this to get everything. (Looking at these articles is sort of depressing.)

The lead is awkward and choppy, much like Bulbasaur.
I see proper names of longform works not italicized.
Name origin isn't sourced.
Why is the Pokedex trivia in the lead? Why is it in the article at all?
Lots of references to "evolving" but no links to an article that explains it.
"In the anime of the franchise, Charizard is arguably the strongest Pokémon that the main character, Ash Ketchum, has, surpassing both Pikachu and Sceptile." ,(-_-), That sentence makes Kirby depressed, and there are plenty more like it.
The references still suck for the same old reasons.

There's probably a bunch more but that's a start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, BA left a few days ago, so is everybody up for redirecting now? TTN 12:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Just because a user has left the project (and we don't know whether they've left, gone temporarily, or what) doesn't mean their arguments are null. It doesn't mean you have a consensus. —Celestianpower ^háblame 14:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

We have already played the BS "no consensus" game. Until you provide real world information, the only consensus is found in our policies and guidelines (No, what you have provided is trivial, and generic, so it does not count). If we want to go by numbers, there are more than enough people for redirecting. TTN 14:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect already. We have been discussing this for way too long. TheBlazikenMaster 15:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, it's getting stupid. If the article can't pass wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has no real world notability, it should be merged, just like every other pokemon. If we play favorites and let certain pokemon stay for whatever reasons, then everyone's favorite pokemon will have to stay, then we might as well demerge everything and go back to the old way of having 500 crappy articles. Spigot Map 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand our position. We believe that Bulbasaur in particular is deserving of an article, for the reasons stated repeatedly. Check the archives.

As to TTN, some of use believe it follows policies, some don't. That's no consensus. Sure, they don't follow policy in your opinion, and with your interpretation of policy, but there's another opposing view. Thus, no consensus. If you want to get a final consensus, take it to a wider audience, through RfC or somesuch. —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Name your reliable sources, then. The argument you copped last time was that it was a former FA - and I notice that you refused to defend another former FA. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, Meowth and Kricketot both need either reliable sources or to be merged. Yet I see nobody defending them... Maybe Bulbasaur's camp is being rather Bulba-centric? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My arguments had nothing to do with that. I didn't even mention it, I don't think. And you interpret policy one way, I another. To get resolution on the issue, you need external involvement, in my view.

As to whether we're being too "Bulba-centric", we're just responding to others. I'd much rather not talk about Bulbasaur at all. Your "camp", as you put it, brought the issue up; we were happy with an unmerged Bulbasaur, as it's been for years. Plus, please don't tell me what I should spend my time on and what not. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't targeting you specifically when I made the mention about the arguments made last time. I do recall a few people saying that it should be kept unmerged because it was a former FA. However, time has passed and no reliable sources (needed to satisfy WP:V) have popped up. I'm not saying you haven't been looking, but if there were reliable sources for it you should have been able to find and cite them by now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been months since I chimed in here last, and I haven't educated myself on this matter, but I just came up with an idea that's either so stupid it'll work, or just stupid and worthy of mocking. Why not just revert back to the version that passed FA? The Hybrid T/C 23:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it was reviewed, everyone realized that featuring it was a big mistake, so no it wouldn't be such a good idea. TheBlazikenMaster 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any version of the article will not be up to par. The FA standards were much more slack back then. Articles like Goomba and Lakitu were also FAs once, but now they're also sections of a list. TTN 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bye The Hybrid T/C 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gastly evolutionary line‎

I know how to merge articles for a single pokémon, but I don't have a clue how to merge this. Should I mark it for AfD? I'm really confused how to merge this. TheBlazikenMaster 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge the three separately, and redirect it to the list. TTN 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are there not any pictures of the Pokemon anymore? Wouldn't pictures be increcibly useful to someone who wants to get a general idea of, say, what a Pokemon looks like? I'm guessing that they were removed for legal reasons, right? --Phantom Kirby 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a thread on this above, if you hadn't noticed. Answers are there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

...And Betacommand just killed them from the List of Elite Four members. Good for him. I did think it was kind of excessive to have a huge image for, say, Bertha, when the writing only consisted of a paragraph of information. Speaking of which, the infoboxes make the sections way too long. Should they be removed? hbdragon88 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that the Elite 4's article was going too far. However from what I can see (from looking at some lists outside this project's scope) it looks like the way fair use criteria 3a is being interpreted has the same result of lists being disallowed in criteria 9 (they are not) which would explain our lack of Pokémon images. FunPika 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The end of the wikiball...

Yet another problem for this project...the wikiball (which the project uses a lot) got deleted off the Wikimedia Commons as a copyvio. [1]) The image has NOT been orphaned as of writing. Checkusage FunPika 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All it says is that its snafued. It would help if they identified why its a copyright violation, as the image appeared to have been made by someone, and not taken from another source. RaidonMakoto 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well...it WAS based off a Pokeball, something copyrighted by Nintendo. Also, at least from my end that checkusage page shows every page that wikiball is redlinked on. FunPika 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Still, its not using the exact image that Nintendo has created, it may be based off it, but the coloring is even wrong. Its also non-existent in my Userbox. How would we go about arguing it complies with fair use policy? RaidonMakoto 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention, I could attempt to make a new one if needed. RaidonMakoto 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Wikipedia is taking copyright violation way too seriously. And also fails to realize that borrowing stuff from other media, and use it is ok sometimes.

Besides, how is it a copyright violation? There has been small piece of art in similar style as the PokéBall long before Pokémon even began in Japan. TheBlazikenMaster 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a recolored Pokéball with a W on it. It was obviously too similar. A bot had orphaned the image from SOME, but not ALL pages. It does not comply with the fair use policy as we can't use fair use images outside of mainspace...and we use the wikiball almost entirely in the other namespaces. The only instances of a wikiball in mainspace would be thanks to templates, and still template space isn't the mainspace. FunPika 00:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting something. Pokémon stubs. Sure, they are there as part of templates, but templates add stuff to articles in the mainspace, so it still counts. TheBlazikenMaster 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions screws us over. Please note that page is linked to in criteria 9 of fair use criteria. FunPika 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we got bigger things to worry about. For example the lack of images on the lists. TheBlazikenMaster 00:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but for the time being things will be a little screwed up around here. Have you looked at the project's talk page template? Looks a little ugly without an image... FunPika 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

unindent* I am working on a new non-copyvio image to use at least temporarily in place of the wikiball. I will most likely release the new non-copyvio image into the public domain. FunPika 00:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I can also work on something if it ends up you need something. I'm an experienced pixel artist, and know how to manipulate things like Pokemon Sprites and stuff. RaidonMakoto 01:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

unindent*Also, TBM, I did see someone mention us making our own sprites or pictures for the list pages. If you need any help, while I can't draw Pokemon all that well, I am a moderator and veteran at the Pokemon Elite 2000 Forums, so I can organize something there, as they have MANY experienced graphics artists that would be more than willing to help out at the Pokemon Project on Wikipedia. RaidonMakoto 01:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to upload a temporary image at Image:Pokeproject.png. If you or someone at the Pokemon Elite 2000 forum creates a non copyvio/fairuse image then you can upload it there. The temp image isn't really that good. :P Also, most likely sprites we make ourselves would be fair use still. FunPika 01:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears the D&D Project had to remove them. We could always take the GameShark route and design monsters that you can tell are supposed to be Pokemon, but are noticably different that they don't fall under fair use. I'll see what I can do about the ball. RaidonMakoto 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what do you mean? d20s aren't copyrighted, and that's what the WP:D&D uses for its stubs, etc. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, when do you intend to upload the new Wikiball? RaidonMakoto 01:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how can we have countless DVD covers on movie articles if we can't have pokémon on the lists? Movies are as copyrighted as pokémon are. TheBlazikenMaster 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder why that is... Who do we complain to about this sort of this? RaidonMakoto 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I had uploaded it under Image:Pokeprojectsymbol.PNG but it wouldn't upload right after 2 tries. I am G7ing it. FunPika 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just upload it to Imageshack for now, and I'll take a look at it. RaidonMakoto 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I got rid of the G7 request. It works now. FunPika 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

XD, Looks great. I have an idea, since we apparently have Pikachu for fair use, can we use that in the userbox until I make something? RaidonMakoto 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1

Here's my Wikiball. A bit better, and modified a bit in Photoshop. LMK what you think.

RaidonMakoto 01:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, its up. Totally Barnstar worthy, eh? XD [/sarcasm] RaidonMakoto 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It can still be deleted as a copyvio unless someone tells me what that old piece of art that the pokeball is based off is. *continues trying to make some improvements to the project* FunPika 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the old one is either based on the Sugimori art for the Premier Ball, or it is based off of the Pokeball, and changed to be white in Photoshop. I'm going with the latter. RaidonMakoto 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blaziken had mentioned an old piece of art similar to a Pokeball but made well before the creation of Pokemon earlier. FunPika 02:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing a particular one. I was speaking of circle that has a line in middle of the circle. Yeah, that's it. TheBlazikenMaster 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much all my image is, so I think its good. However, can we use Pikachu as our symbol instead of the Wikiball for now? If we have fairuse in the Wiki page about Pikachu, I think we can use him as the symbol for WikiProject Pokemon and in the userboxes. RaidonMakoto 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That would fail criteria 9. Fair use images are strictly only allowed in the ARTICLE namespace. FunPika 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks. Well then, we're in kind of a predicament here... RaidonMakoto 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It could always be claimed that the image, is, in fact, a parody of the Master ball, which, IIRC, is purple and white, with an 'm' on it. (thus the wikiball has the 'm' turned upside down). According to US law, it's a work of it's own, and can be copyrighted or released into public domain, etc. Forgive me if this has ready been stated, or such. I'm not really sure if this holds up to wikimedia's copyright rules, but that all I can suggest right now. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 04:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fair use policy/guideline has thought of everything (look for the phrase "Derivative works", I think that is what would screw us over). FunPika 11:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole debacle just solidifies to me that wikipedia is still neurotic about copyrights. Shouldn't there be a middle ground here? Toastypk 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikimedia is completely paranoid of lawsuits. That is why we have this stricter-than-law fair use policy. FunPika 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikiball is back! :D FunPika 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Very cool! I'm glad that was settled, this project doesn't need more drama! :D Spigot Map 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone told the deleter that since the image was simply "a circle with a diameter through it and a small circle in the middle", why didn't they delete "the first subdivision of a Sierpinski triangle" as well? In short, Link, Zelda, and Ganon saved the ball. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was the Wikiball's creator commons:User:Damian Yerrick who told commons:User:Majorly that. FunPika 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Give the lady a Pikachu! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Use the noticeboard people.

I still am disappointed in missing the nomination on the article about Ash's mother, damn it. I wasn't even noted here. Please people use the noticeboard, I'm sick of losing important Pokémon-related nominations. I could have added my opinion on Ash's mother, but did NEVER get the chance, because I wasn't warned or anything. Not on this WikiProject. Please at least let us know if there is something up for deletion.

I would have wanted the article about Ash's mother to be a redirect, I couldn't do anything, since I wasn't told about the nomination about Ash's mother. Well, I added a recent nomination. But I was THAT close in missing the nomination on Bulbapedia, when there is a nomination regarding something pokémon related, use the notice board, please. I can't get over it for not having be able to know about the nomination of Ash's mother before it was too late. TheBlazikenMaster 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier if a bot existed to try to find pages. It could go through all of the current discussion areas (XFD, FAC, etc.) and check the nominated page's talk page for Template:Pokeproject. If it finds that template then it edits Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard to inform editors of the discussion. We should still go through discussion areas ourselves sometimes in case there is a Pokemon related page nominated that wasn't tagged with {{Pokeproject}}. Do you think we should make a request on WP:BOTREQ for such a bot to be created? Or is there someone in this project that can make a bot themselves and start a BRFA? User:Pokébot (do NOT create that account!) could be a potential name. FunPika 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah please do, I can't take any more nominations that I'm not aware of until it's too late. TheBlazikenMaster 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know an article on Ash's Mom even existed, much less it was nominated for an award. RaidonMakoto 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It was nominated for DELETION, not for an award. FunPika 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what nomination? The deletion log shows an AFD debate that never existed. And, if I remember correctly, it was only a redirect to the main Ash Ketchum article, so there wasn't much that was deleted. I have contacted Anthony.bradbury about it, though. hbdragon88 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you looked into the right deletion log. It was spelled without capitalized K. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia ketchum TheBlazikenMaster 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bye

I've probably helped quite a few people but also frustrated quite a few people with my attitude, and for that I am sorry. I hope that you all continue editing Wikipedia and enjoy doing so, and keep up the good work. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't leave, you are a great editor of Wikipedia. We will miss you. I promise you might be gone, but you will never be forgotten. TheBlazikenMaster 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delia Ketchum

Just to let you guys know I noticed that this article has been created. I won't do anything to it, instead I wanna ask more of an expert on the policies what to do about it. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article was deleted per G4. Coreycubed 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Individual Pokemon articals

I was just wondering why all the Pokemon are jammed into huge lists now, rather than having their proper, individual pages.

They are far more documented and notable than a vast plethora of our other articles and could be comprehensively defended in a delete dispute. So what happened?

--Tefalstar 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted here from Talk:Pokémon. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above by hbdragon88 under "Key problem with the lists", "The original articles fail WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no conceivable information at all on real-world character development or impact that these characters had in the real world. At all." Actually, wouldn't that mean all those lists also suffer from the same problems and should be soft redirected to its own wiki like Digimon? _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what? That's not such a bad idea. In fact it's a great idea. But we need some expert on this. Someone should make a template. This will slow down the complaints a lot. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we were to actually enforce policy, we'd probably wipe out at least a tenth of the encyclopedia (see my userpage for details). There is just so much that consists of solely of plot elements. The question I have is: yes, it's a list, but a list looks little better than an individual article. That is one of the reasons why my involvement here is to the video game articles, instead of the species ones. I am proud of my revamping of the Colosseum plot and the rework of the changes section in Emerald. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think lists deserve as many images as articles. After all lists are articles too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article about the big TV show needs attention from all Pokémon fans available on Wikipedia.

Click here, and reply to that section. And do all you can to clean it up. See the talk page for more info. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This is simply a direction to another discussion. Please discuss this on the proper place. Because there is no need or point of discussing the exact same thing on two places.

Featured articles

No Pokemon articles have ever been featured? I thought I quite distinctly remembered Bulbasaur being featured at one point... does nobody else? Or has something occured since to undo its status? 76.10.156.22 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Things have occurred since to cause their FA status to be revoked. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pikachu GA reassessment

Hey guys, Pikachu is up for Good Article reassessment again... help would be appreciated! -Malkinann (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should We Remove Crazy Will from the partic. list?

I think that we should, judging from the fact that he isn't even a registered user, doesn't have any contributions, and, well, isn't a registered user. Someone must have put his name on there as a joke or something. ♠♦♣♥ 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, account doesn't exist, went ahead and removed. Spigot Map 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon Master is being discussed for merging.

Click here to join the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New UBX

I decided I'd create a userbox for people who sympathize with (but do or will not join) the PCP. Tell me what you think.

This user sympathizes with (but is not part of) WikiProject Pokémon.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Applicable for people who don't have the time to contribute in any meaningful way? (like me) Bhamv (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Applicable for people who don't have time to contribute in a meaningful way or who edit the articles but do not join the PCP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Has The Image Problem Been Solved?

Back from a wikibreak and checking. -WarthogDemon 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean has copyright law changed so that including images of every single pokemon suddenly qualifies as fair use? No, you'll be disappointed to learn that it hasn't; this "problem" still remains.

You should contact the US Supreme Court. Or maybe Disney; I hear they're good at manipulating copyright law TheBilly (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, okay. No need to be aggressive; just checking about what's been going on since I was last here. -WarthogDemon 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I apologize if that seemed uncalled for; I was merely expressing the opinion that there's no problem to solve except the law :) TheBilly (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Master

I thought members of this project might be interested in the current work on the Pokémon Master article, and the current discussion on merging it into the Pokemon Trainer article. As you can see, the current discussion on the talk page has been limited to only a few editors including myself, and so I thought this article could use more attention from especially interested editors TheBilly (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

list of good articles

On the list of good articles on the Main project page, it says that there are like seven or something "good articles", including Pikachu, Golduck, Mewtwo and a few others. However, on the official tally right below that "good article list", it says that there are only 2 "good" articles. I have looked up at least one of them, and it had its Good Article status revoked. It was once a good article, but now it isn't. (the Pikachu Article) Should we include these on a new list, or simply remove them from the old list? --Superpika66 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC) (PS sorry, I forgot to sign in)

I updated it, currently appear to be 2 good articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon Yellow

I am trying to get Pokémon Yellow moved to it's correct title of Pokémon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition (see the talk page for proof that this is the correct name of the game). So please express your support for the move since the articles should be as accurate as possible, starting with the titles of articles. TJ Spyke 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of English and Japanese names

Why is the current format, which is:

English name (Katakana romanization of katakana, Actual Japanese name in Japanese) ...

is used in the articles about the actual Pokemon? I understand this is a holdout from Bulbapedia. Yet, I find the format to be somewhat unclear.

The English and Japanese names ought to be separated so that they need to be identified.

I support this format:

English name, known as Actual Japanese name (Katakana romanization of katakana) in Japan, ...

It puts as little as possible within the nihongo template and clearly identifies the actual Japanese name according to the format of the nihongo template.

Of course if the name is the same in the Japanese and English versions, the following ought to be used:

Name (Katakana romanization of katakana) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey you, welcome back :). Well, as I already said in the discussion over here - List of Pokémon (481-493)...

katakana IS the real japanese name. There's only one correct romanization on Wikipedia. Per MOS:JP, that's "Revised Hepburn". All articles should use that. It's correct and consistent to write the japanese name in katakana, then the name in romaji per the official guidelines, and then nothing else. We shouldn't be making up extra names for them. Just look at the Pokemon entries at ja.wikipedia.org. The only place you see the romanized names is in the infobox under "英語名" (kanji reading "eigo na", which means "English name")
This is an English-language encyclopedia. It's written for English speakers. The pokemon's japanese name is just a little tidbit of information. It's just a curiosity. Writing their names in the format English name, Japanese name (kana, romaji) is confusing to English speakers. Japanese words are supposed to be relegated to parenthetical statements all throughout Wikipedia, because English-speakers don't know Japanese. Only the English name should come before the parenthesis, because the other information is meant to be presented as mostly unimportant. It's like saying "If you, like 98% of people, have no idea what this means, goes ahead and ignore it and move on". Pokemon articles are not for fans, they're for everyone. They should not be written for Pokemon fans who are japan-savvy, they should be written for absolutely anyone, who is easily confused by each pokemon having two names, one of which looks butchered.
Unless there's good evidence that a Pokemon's japanese name represents an English word (or french, or etc) such as in the case of Charizard (Lizardon), there's no need to transliterate their name BACK from katakana into yet another form. These fan-transliterations are original research and are forbidden per WP:NOR, a core wikipedia principle.
Even if you can successfully argue that these names are their "actual japanese name", the problem isn't mostly about facts here, it's about style and encyclopedic quality. Like I said, it's confusing, it's not very important, and it's not English, but this IS an English encyclopedia. TheBilly (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... 1. As I have said earlier, Pokemon names are written as "foreign" type names. There is no kanji used, and the katakana script, usually used for "foreign" words, is always used to write Pokemon names. 2. I don't see how separating the Japanese names into separate clauses violates this. The accounts are meant to be written for everyone, yes. But they are also meant to be comprehensive. The Japanese names are more important than the other foreign names because those Japanese names are the original names. I argue that having a separate clause does not focus a significant amount of attention on the Japanese name itself as opposed to the English name. 3. I'll use "Ghos" as an example since I know from seeing the Japanese intro that the official name, as written in English characters, is "Ghos." - Ghos is the actual name, ゴース is "Ghos" written in katakana, and "Gōsu" is how "ゴース" would be transliterated in Hepburn romanization. BUT "Ghos" is the original name. The only reason we use MOS template with Pokemon articles is because a Japanese group created the characters. The names themselves are not really "Japanese." 4. There has to be an official guide book with each of the Pokemon names written in roman characters. I do not believe that it matters "Unless there's good evidence that a Pokemon's japanese name represents an English word (or french, or etc)" - If the official guidebook or source says the name is "Ghos" (as written in roman characters), that is the name.

Now, if there is a discrepancy between official Japanese sources in terms of the spelling of the name, we would have to determine which source is to be used.

This has to do with the MOS, so I will later post this to the MOS as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)