Wikipedia talk:Pokémon test

message: You know, all these doofy minor human characters in Pokémon are slated to be merged; it's just that there's so many of them that it's slow going.
If you want a long-lasting example, I would suggest sticking with Bellsprout; I don't think I'll be able to get that merged any time soon, unlike Karen (Pokémon). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Karen (Pokémon)]] 

message: Some credit would have been nice, you know. User:Hiding/Pokemon test. Hiding Talk 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit? 

message: I wrote this essay and I'll keep it the way I like, thanks
:If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]] 

message: Have the quoted users been asked permission to post their usages of the Pokémon test? If not, it may cause offense to be taken. --Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of the Pokémon test in action 

message: Might this be seen as a version of the Straw Man logical fallacy? humblefool® 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Man 

message: Look at the multitude of Drake & Josh related articles, eg. Treehouse (Drake & Josh episode). If ever a range of articles brought Wikipedia to shame, those articles do, even more so than the Pokémon articles do. --Ezeu 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow, how embarrassing!  I think that hardly deserves its own article!  Look at the airdate: "January 21th, 2007".  lol  --Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drake & Josh test 

message: Last month, there was this (now archived) discussion at the Pokémon Collaborative Project.  The discussion was mainly about the questionable notability of nearly all of the Pokémon species and that much of the material in the articles should be considered cruft.  A proportion of the members of the WikiProject are convinced that all the articles about Pokémon should be merged, and to that effect, a prototype merged list was created.  This activity precisely counters the argument of the Pokémon test.  It is interesting that many people may continue to cite the Pokémon test in AfD discussions without realizing how increasingly doubtful the notablilty of each Pokémon is.  I just thought that this might be an interesting point to add to the essay.  --Brandon Dilbeck 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a collection of outcomes of AFDs for pokemons? If fans who usuallu don't watch deletion debates come swooping in to say KEEP like fans of other projects do (sometimes in response to canvassing via newsletters or IRC alerts) then they would all be kept. If they were judged on their merits in accord with WP:N or WP:ATT then only the more notable would be kept. And I expect the nominator might be castigated for WP:POINT or for disruptive editing, however justified the nom. Touch someone's hobby and you touch a hornet's nest.  Edison 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Everything is someone's hobby. I seriously doubt you'd be castigated or anything. A long time ago I made a proposal to merge pokemon stubs, and the reaction by pokemon-fans was generally very nice and constructive, and this resulted in many pokearticles being improved. Compare this with the nastiness that used to occur when anyone nominated a school article for deletion, I think you'll see that, ironically and unexpectedly, pokemon-fans are more civil and mature than people who go to school. >Radiant< 08:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Er, in any case, the Pokemon creature articles are getting merged soon (for the most part). Regardless that the Pokemon Test was moot from the beginning, should it at least be noted on this page that the 493 articles will soon be reduced in less-than-half? You Can't See Me! 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, I thought of this myself too. The Pokemon articles are in limbo right now, with lists of Pokemon and lots of merging going on.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon test may soon be moot 

message: Aside from the fact that most similar pages do not have random citations of arbitrary users that mention the page, the quotes are probably misleading in that I suspect at least two of the quoted users of sarcasm here. I'd be in favor of removing them. Why do you need an example of citing a page anyway? We all know how to cite pages. >Radiant< 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes some sense, I dunno... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples = good? 

message: I've noticed from time to time that in deletion discussions people sometimes tend to make an argument very similar to the Pokemon test, referencing the fact that every episode of The Simpsons has it's own argument. Is there grounds for mention? Calgary 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons argument

message: What Is the POKEMON IN THIS WIKIPEDIA?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wha?! 

message: This essay implies it is a fallacy to set up equal standards, but gave no reasons. Honestly, who'd really agree to an essay that says "once upon a time, this idiot used the Pokemon test, and then this other idiot used it too. The moral of the story is that equal standards are wrong." 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  horizontal bar 

message: Why are each of the cited examples regarding sometihng that is WAAAAAY less notable then any Pokemon?  For example: a stop on a train line?!  And this doesn't even appear to be referencing a large train line, like Chicago, but rather some small train line in a non-major city and each individual stop on that line.   Even in Chicago or New York, there is hardly anything notable about most individual subway stops.  Yet, walk into a room of 100 people, and 100 of those people will have heard of Pikachu, 99 will have heard of Nidoran, and at least half will have heard of any random Pokemon from Gen1 or Gen2.   The amount of people who will have heard of this train stop, unless they both live in that town AND frequently take that train from that line, will be 0.  All of the other examples are similarly extremely less notable then Pokemon.  If these are the common types of arguments that are made, where anyone reading the comment can clearly see that they are referring to something obscure or something far less well know then the "other article" they invoke as reasoning for it, then this article explaining that is not at all necessary, because, well, anyone reading it will automatically know that their argument is not legitimate due to the citing of a far more famous thing in their alleged "comparison".                     ~Rayvn  11:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This page makes no sense