Wikipedia talk:Poképrosal

message: I would seem to be the only person who likes the articles specialized for each Pokémon just the way they are now, and who doesn't want a mass move-reorganization-etc.  -_-;  Almafeta 19:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you're not alone. As soon as a poll is created for this, I will be voting against the proposition. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the way it is now, some have even been nominated for deletion! While in those cases the Vfd has dissolved into "hold off until Wikipedia:Poképrosal's finished" I don't know what fate they will meet when this is over and they are unmerged... Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  Over a half-million articles in the English wikipedia, and to some people the idea of a page per Pokémon is so abhorrent that they intend on replacing 380 articles with 1 table and 5 sections each with 380 redirects to 1 page that has 380 tables and 1900 sections.  I just don't get it.  -_-;  Almafeta 08:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I agree. This is merging is just "busy work" to keep wikiaddicts doing something. Instead of doing merging, come to Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics and create content and fill in real content holes! Pcb21| Pete 09:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to make pages on the Pokemon universe, etc., its own Wikipedia Project (poke.wikipedia.org?), if people are going to continue to attempt to delete these pages or attempt to move them into ambiguation pages.  Almafeta 00:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meh...

message: One possible categorisation idea is to have them listed by type (Electric, Bird, Bug, etc.) on core pages, rather than the Category:  sections that link to them at the moment.
BUT the problem with this is that most if not all Pokemon are dual-type, and many can even learn attacks from multiple types other than their two core ones. So unless there is going to be a LOT of cross-linking, how will it be managed...? I really, really don't know. Master Thief Garrett 04:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: categorise by type? or by species?

message: Here is a flatter version:
I like this one better than the current "pseudo-template" in use for most of the Pokémon.  If I can find my copy of the Complete Kanto-Johto Reference, I'll start working on some of the Pokémon stubs 001-251. --Brian Ryans 15:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: :::No, the Jean-Luc Picard would belong to same category. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate on what Jean-Luc Picard has to do with only having POKéDEX details in Wikibooks. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a database of Star Trek characters, various other anime etc. Why is there a problem with this animes characters? --Cool Cat My Talk 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: Bottom of the page must have a link box linking to the entier contents of pokedex. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's obvious! But should it be a template so people just type  or whatnot, or does it have to be a copy-'n'-paste? Master Thief Garrett 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates I say, one template having all pokedex entries. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: Is the poll open or closed, as it states on Wikipedia:Poképrosal/Poll The poll will continue for one week from 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Open or Closed? 

message: I am against Poképrosal.  Poképrosal is controversial.  It has alienated me from the Pokémon franchise.  Notability policy concerning fiction is a semi-policy, or guideline.  The notability of the Pokémon is unclear and overlooked.  It is once said that the WP:FICT guidelines do not actually apply to Pokémon.  Pokémon is Nintendo's second best-selling franchise.  The majority who supported Poképrosal got it all wrong and overlooked the situation.  The foreign language Wikipedias still have separate articles of each individual Pokémon, and this Poképrosal only applied to English Wikipedia.  That is nonsense right there. I have seen enough of the controversial policy activity at Wikipedia as it is.  Even Mewtwo and Lucario got merged into the Poképrosal list, although they played very major roles in the media they appeared in.  I do not really like TTN, for that user is too strict in applying the policies.  There could also be a userbox saying "This user is against Poképrosal."  I am strongly against merging articles on individual Pokémon who appeared in the Super Smash Bros. series as playable characters to be merged into lists. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to challenge the Poképrosal idea 

message: Did anyone ever archive the old Pokemon pages? I looked around and I couldn't seem to find them, and the wikibooks link no longer exists. KimiNewt (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to see the old Pokemon pages such as Geodude, then go to their normal link, then at the top of the List you got redirected to, click the link that says "Redirected from Geodude" and then go to history, and pick the latest non-redirect version. --Blake (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive of the old Pokepages