Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 14

message: I was wondering if anyone here feels that this template is necessary: Template:Poke-prof. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, not by a long shot. Looks like a definite TfD candidate to me. I'll look into it. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professors Template 

message: Now that all the goals on the drive have been met and struck out, I think its due time we nominate Crawdaunt for GA. I've taken the liberty of doing so, and I'll watch the talk page, so be ready to make some changes if needbe. Also, start deciding on another drive, because we seem to be ready to get this one to GA and start on something new. Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 19:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yey! Another GA! *throws confetti* Jerichi~Profile~Talk~ 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally nominated the article for FA status. I no longer feel that it meets FA standards. I am withdrawing the nomination. Funpika 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Crawdaunt]] for GA

message: Does anyone think there should be a new focus category for video games? We only have "Species" and "Other" right now. I think the video games are very important to Pokemon and should have their own focus category. Funpika 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to say yes, but I have to wonder if it will make a difference, looking at the last two (and current, still) focuses: it took about five or six months for Crawdaunt to make it to GA, and who knows how long for Pokémon itself. It might be a good thing to do, but for it to really be worthwhile we need to figure out a way to get more people to actually work on the focus articles. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game focus category?  

message: Since I don't seem to see people praising the project, or praising it for its combined efforts. Looking back at around when I first came here, both the quality of the articles has been vastly improving (with a lot of FAs and GAs and As). Also, cruft has been reduced by a lot, and there was very little resistance to my merge of the towns.
So again, *thumbs up* - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Job 

message: We're linking to Pokemon Dungeon's Pokedex entry on all the pages that were created with the now deleted . Problem is, they don't work, because the site only has a GSC pokedex. Blah. -Amarkov moo! 15:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem?  Are there links where there shouldn't be any, or are there links that go to the wrong place?  --Brandon Dilbeck 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be any, because as I said, they have no Pokedex past GSC. -Amarkov moo! 00:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Dungeon links... 

message: I was wondering how necessary it is to have :Category:Genderless Pokémon.  --Brandon Dilbeck 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say more necessary than the other two gender categories, considering their relative size. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Genderless Pokémon 

message: I listed some of the things bothering me about one of our FAs, based on my objections to the Crawdaunt FA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Torchic#Critical issue: sourcing and comprehensiveness]] 

message: I think all WP articles about Pokemon should link to the corresponding pages at Bulbapedia ([]).  This is made by a comprehensive fan base called "Bulbasaur's Mysterious Garden" that is a big follower of Pokemon.  Bulbapedia is a wiki maintained much like this one, and is a big Pokemon encyclopedia.  Just a suggestion.  --Wykypydya 05:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't all the species articles already do that? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most do, at least. I have no interest in checking all 493. -Amarkov moo! 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure they all do. -Sukecchi 13:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, this encyclopedia misses information that they have, as well as their encyclopedia missing information that this one has (i.e. neither one is entirely complete but they probably make good complements).  An example is that the Arseus page has NO background info about Arseus being a "creator" Pokemon but that encyclopedia does.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think there would be some merit in having a bot go to the Pokemon List page and iterating through all the Pokemon articles, putting an external link to the corresponding Bulbapedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wykypydya (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: we're saying that all 493 species articles do link to Bulbapedia, check the bottom under "External links" -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulbapedia 

message: Okay. I need a list, with wikilinks, of each unconfirmed name and the corresponding Japanese name, if I'm going to protect these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need wikilinks for both names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Could an admin please move Staraptor to Mukuhawk?  I can't. -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Covered. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is it. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I (try to) do, by saying that the name was reported as such-and-such, as well as origins of the names. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I am tempted to tell everyone that they should prepare to be disappointed when it turns out all those are the real names and therefore all of this protection effort becomes wasted, and a lot of anons would be made livid in the process; why, if I were an anon and had a different personality I would've accused the admins of being corrupt anti-Pokemon bigots. ^_^  I myself would've advocated using the new names and semi-protecting them at those names, but I see consensus backed by valid reasoning above to protect them, so I'll roll with it. Anyway, if D/P is coming out in April, we probably shouldn't have to worry about naming uncertainties for too long. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Erik, I've reverted some names from outta left field, like "Reginormal" (Regigigas), "magmortor" (Booburn), and "Porygon3" (PorygonZ). -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this list is not helpful to me. I need to know which ones I need to protect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe people could - crazy idea, I know - actually add citations on List of Pokemon, to make it easier to sort the wheat from the chaff? Golly, I'm so wacky sometimes with my crazy policy-confirming ideas! 81.132.183.220 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say just move them allDSDark 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving them back.  We need an admin to move-prot them. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move them back to the english leaked names.DSDark 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't, since there is no reliable source for them, thus violating Wikipedia:Attribution.  -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why move them back if your just going to have to it again in a month —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSDark (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you not understanding that if we did that we are violating a major rule of Wikipedia? -Sukecchi 21:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because there's no official source (ie Nintendo) stating that these names are correct. Until that happens, this is no better than conjecture. HalfShadow 21:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least mention the reported English names on the article pages, as was done previously. That + the English names remaining on List of Pokemon = far less trouble, probably. Or just give up and save yourself the trouble; doesn't it actually advise on the 3RR page to take a break from Wikipedia if it's getting too frustrating? 81.132.183.220 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll not give up and abet violations of Wikipedia:Attribution. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Even idiots can be correct sometimes'. That doesn't make them an official source. HalfShadow 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello?  ever heard of Wikipedia:Attribution?  We can't use Serebii or its affiliate PokeExperto because it has an anonymous source, meaning there is no way to verify independently what he's posting! -Jeske (v^_^v) 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just trust everything you read on the Internet.  Would you trust this site?  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well brandon, of course i would trust a page you created with clearly legitimate photos, an overwhelming percentage of accurate information, excellent spelling and grammar, and of notable visibility within the community :P (i did get a kick out of it though).  Halfshadow, reducing serebii to an "idiot" does not invalidate the idea behind serebii being reliable due to corroboration. "Corroboration — If two or more independent originators agree, in a reliable manner, then the conclusions become more reliable. Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination." serebii and pokemon.com are independent orginators of content (the same would not be true of serebii and pokexperto (or gamefaqs and a wealth of other personal sites that rely on serebii) or pokemon.com and nintendo).  They agree consistently (+90%) regarding the wealth of pokemon data that's out there and are therefore reliable. Sites like brandon's are the ones WP:RS is explicitly forbiding, but to argue that they are even on par with serebii is a fallacy. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess

message: Okay, so Pokemon-games.com has a thing that lets you reveal new Pokémon. Problem is, it's only letting people reveal one a day. :\So... anyone wanna help? I clicked the one just to the right of "Tell a friend!" (and got Turtwig, of all things), although I'm not even sure if they're the same for everybody... >.>There are only 18 of them, so I'm not exactly sure if there's anything new either...Would this even work as a source, though, if there does happen to be something new? —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. -Jeske (v^_^v) 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, the commercial on that site has clips of battles...for whatever reason, the moves aren't in full caps but the Pokémon's names are. o.o—ウルタプ 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems, through the screenshots I've been seeing lately, that most of the text no longer has everything ALL CAPS, instead going to Sentence Case, except for battle commands, some other commands, and the Pokémon names. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 03:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to wait until Sunday :[—ウルタプ 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing with the pick a pokeball it doesn't matter which you pick the first will always be Turtwig and you can't pick again until two days after the first one and then two days again and so on. And there is a total of 18 pokeballs. DSDark 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling it'll just show all the ones we already know.—ウルタプ 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far that is happening. I was just able to open ball #2 and it had Chimchar in it. Funpika 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Betcha ten-to-one the next one'll be Piplup.  Even if it weren't a Pokémon we didn't already know, which looks pretty unlikely, would it be appropriate to link to a source that would require people to visit it every other day just to fact check?  --Brandon Dilbeck 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site times itself or something–I can't just tell my computer it's Tuesday. >>—ウルタプ 07:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it works like this: You open a Pokéball then the site records the time and your IP. The IP can't open another one until 24 hours and 1 minute later. Funpika 11:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that. I have a dynamic IP, and I revealed a Pokémon (Turtwig) yesterday. It said that I had to wait until tomorrow to reveal again. Ultraflame 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uses cookies, then. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted everything on my Hard Drive related to the site, and it reset the whole thing. Picked a differently-placed Poké Ball this time, got Turtwig again. Now that I know where the files downloaded from the site are located, I'll experiment later. Ultraflame 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On my Hard Drive, files related to the site (other than the Temporary Internet Files, where I found no Cookies that appeared to be from the site) appear to be in "C:\Documents and Settings\(user)\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\macromedia.com\support\flashplayer\sys\#www.pokemon-games.com" and "C:\Documents and Settings\(user)\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player\#SharedObjects\VWBGJPDW\www.pokemon-games.com\pokemondandp\_swf\pdp_pokeballs.swf". In the first folder, there is a file called "settings.sol", and in the latter, there is a file called "PokeballTest.sol". I don't appear to have any program that can open these files correctly. Ultraflame 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.pokemon-games.com/pokemondandp/_downloads/screensaver/pokemondandp_screensaver_pc.zip </br>
This screensaver was discovered in the source I guess. It might have some names on it we don't have...take a look. -Sukecchi 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It confirms Pachirisu, Drapion, and Cherrim. Everything else is old.—ウルタプ 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pokemon-games.com

message: A lot of our articles, including the article I personally put at the top of the agenda, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, heavily rely on citations like Serebii.net. In the example of some of our game-related feature articles, the External Links are at a basic minumum - press, official sources, but not the fansites. This is the same case for citations. I know that in the case of our Featured Articles such as Bulbasaur, we rely on Episode Guides as citations and link to tactical data, but I'd prefer to follow examples of the FAs for Diamond and Pearl. What's your status, guys? - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that we use Serebii a lot on the D/P page? Funpika 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to imply anything, per se, but I'm looking to removing the fansite links on the External links, and killing the references that use fansites also. When the game comes out, we'll be able to make much more on the citations of text in-game (like Final Fantasy X has apparently legitimately done) and official sources / IGN. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been bold, and so I've removed Serebii.net from the Diamond and Pearl article's External links. Shall do the references too. FireRed and LeafGreen has it, it's gone. Stuffed Emerald's Psypoke and Serebii.net links. And finally, killed Serebii.net in the Battle Revolution page. Oddly, some other gaming articles don't use Serebii.net as an external link. Job done already, I guess? And, some articles urgently need a citation made - in the idea of Diamond and Pearl, I'll wait for the English release and find citations in it as appropriate. Time to replace some other citations! - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite citations 

message: User  has pointed out on Togepi's talk page that the Pokédex at Pokémon-Games.com (an official Pokémon site) has Togepi listed plainly as a Baby Pokémon and Togetic as a Basic Pokémon.  --Brandon Dilbeck 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So can Togepi's info box get unlock so it can be changed?DSDark 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stage was removed from the infobox altogether.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that?--DSDark 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In-universe information that the average person doesn't care about; not essential for understanding the Pokemon.  Has no relevence except to game playes, and even then I personally really woudln't care (much like the meaningless "species" types, height and wegith, etc.). Hbdragon88 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has no relevance except for CCG players. In the video games, stage is meaningless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about Togepi's stage 

message: They change a name because 'They saw it on one of dem dere web-site thingies' we change it back, often with a full description of why, and more often then not, they change the name again. HalfShadow 02:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to give them credit for trying to correct Wikipedia—it's likely that they're unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy or that they believe that the benefits of having correct (or what is probably correct) information outweigh the benefits of citing official sources.  But yeah, this is beginning to become a pain.  --Brandon Dilbeck 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says these guys even look at the page history? Chances are they just edit and never look at the history (meaning they don't see the summaries). Funpika 11:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That is one of the major reasons for my suggestion below. It certainly helped reduce, though not eliminate, Buizel/Mantyke issues. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm starting to wonder if some of these people can breathe unassisted. 

message: Just want to gauge interest and opinion on this matter.
Sign your position with **~~~~, then explain your reasoning in the main thread above this subsection( if you haven’t already - those of us who are already participating have made our positions clear).
This is NOT binding, you may switch sides at any time, and the results will not be interpretted as a consensus or lack thereof. It is merely a tool to focus the above discussion and give it perspective. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey/poll on new names

message: I noticed a template called "Serebiidex" on some of the species pages. Why does this exsist? By the looks of it we are 100% incapable of trusting Serebii (pretty much all we trust are Nintendo owned sites and the media). Shall I TFD it? Here is the template in action using Pikachu as an example: 

Funpika 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the information of Serebii's Pokédex pages are obtainable with the use of an official detailed game guide, and can be verified to be true when playing the games. Since it's difficult to find these game guides (or this type of detailed information in general) from offical sources, I think it should stay. Ultraflame 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...I think the Pokedex information is perfectly acceptable, and it can be verified by an official source, at least the first three generations can be verified, the fourth still needs a guide. -Sukecchi 22:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, there's no actual official source to verify the information there. It's first-hand research viewing. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and since we still obviously are not very fond of Serebii and fansites, I will now TFD it. Funpika 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any way to make the TFD notice less...disruptive?—ウルタプ 01:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Serebiidex]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Funpika 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Serebiidex}} 

message: well the portal has gotten it's first facelift, and that was to better section the subpages so there isn't one crowded page that users have to sift through.  It's the same layout used by the science portal, and i liked it so much i stole it.  There's still a lot to do, as much of the info from the main page was just relocated.  The categories section still needs an update; the to-do list is vague and should prolly better implement boxes to display info in an aesthetically pleasing fashion; the topics box needs to be better organized/cleaned/utilized/updated; the updates section should be providing external links to relevant pages (i'd love to link to wikinews, but there seems to be a dearth of pokemon related articles, perhaps they don't cover game releases?) prolly best at nintendo and pokemon.com's DP section; plus i added a tab, Portal:Pokémon/Understanding Pokémon, to take some load from the loaded topics box, ideally it will link to relevant mechanic pages and possibly include sample leads. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the new way that the Selected Pokémon section works. Especially since I had specific Pokémon in mind considering the upcoming English release of Diamond and Pearl. Funpika 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, having a fair use image (two of them in this case) on a non-article namespace is permitted now? I don't think that's the case. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also not a good idea that you've strayed off the portal implementation that not even our parent project seems to do. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon portal 

message: Nobody seems to care much about Torchic's FAR nomination. It hasn't been improved much since then. Funpika 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People don't like it because it's sourced mostly to fansites. We don't have other sources, so what exactly would be done? -Amarkov moo! 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deal with it as a minor part of a larger subject. I've been talking around the edges of this, and Torchic and Bulbasaur passing FAC did a lot to make me reconsider, but we need to deal with the fact that we don't have any good sources from which to build individual Pokémon articles, and figure out what to do about that (other than ignore the problem). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's obvious, but it also doesn't do anything about losing Torchic as a FA, which is what I think the complaint was. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems we want to lose a Featured Article.  

message: So, I think we've reached a consensus that not all pokemon are notable, and that some of them ought to be compiled. Now, while you decide in the above heading how they should be organized, let's talk about content here.
So, uh, yeah... What should be noted under a pokemon's header? In my opinion, that would be:
*Infobox info
*Pokedex info, supplemented with info recieved from other in-game sources (Mew, for example, had extra information from Cinnebar Mansion). If possible, non-conflicting anime/manga/TCG flavor text information can be put in as well.
*Basic in-game information.
:*That would be, pointing out its best and worst stats as generally as possible (Alakazam is fast and can use special attacks with potency, but in exchange has low defenses and physical attack), without going into Smogon terms and/or specific numbers (Alakazam has an incredibly high base Speed of 120 and base Special Attack of 135, making it an excellent Special Sweeper. Its downside is that it only has 45 base Defense, which means it will usually faint after taking a strong hit). 
:*If its ability is particularly noteworthy (Shedinja's Wonder Guard, for example), if it has any signature moves (Lugia's Aeroblast), or if in any way it has some unique in-game quality (Pikachu's Light Ball, Ditto's ability to breed with everything), that ought to be noted.
*Important events in the game centered around the pokemon, like the Slowpoke Tail incident in GSC and Kyogre/Groudon/Rayquaza's roles in RSE.
*Notable apperances in the anime/manga</br>You Can't See Me! 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Should Be Noted?

message: Look PokemonElite2000.com the cards confirm Monferno, Infernape, Prinplup, Grotle, Torterra, Magnezone, and Riolu. --DSDark 00:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is as good as sourcing can get, unfortunately. It's a fansite seed pack, which is essentially a press release for fansites. The cards are legit and identical on each site, and each site is citing PUSA as their source (as opposed to anonymous sources). We can start moving the ones that are confirmed in the PE2K/Pokebeach/etc. articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All well and good, but while PE2K/PokéBeach DO have cards confirming Torterra/Infernape/Magnezone, I don’t see Grotle/Monferno/Prinplup/Riolu at either. So why are they being cited there? --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking why are they being counted as confirmed? If so, it's because they have the "Evolves from ______" which shows their name. -Sukecchi 11:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Leaked English Names Confirmed via TCG 

message: Is there anyway that more uniform pictures could be used, or not have the pixel amount specified?--Tempest115 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon Images 

message: I can't find it. Anyone got it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, just made 'em:  and . Use the second one to tag images. —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no source" image template for Pokémon images? 

message: Please help the earlier discussion by making your opinions known in the new survey/poll about including the new names in articles. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll above

message: I have requested an RFC on this merger idea and directed contributors to Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on list article 

message: you know, reading AMIB's comment, "Remember, poker strategy is the subject of many different independent publications, whereas Pokémon strategy, not so much," i realized something.  Now, he's made comments along these lines several times before, but it was never quite worded this way.  I've been having similarly themed policy discussions with the chess project about their category on chess openings.  Now, aside from discussion of whether it is the place of wikipedia to discuss game strategy at all, let's just look at what the requirements to include strategy would require.  Basically, the requirements at WP:RS/WP:ATT (they're trying to straighten out the mess) say the source needs to be subject to independent fact-checking (someone besides the author needs to be verifying) unless the author is a well-known expert in their field (and even then, caution should be exercised) and aspects of NPOV, corroboration, and attributability are essentially secondary traits, but still very important.  
Now the issue at hand is how that conflicts with wikipedia's other goals, basically the idea of providing free (as in libre) content.  The concept of wiki is that everyone freely cooperates to create something, whether that is information or a motorcycle, today that concept is what's behind YouTube and Google - user-created content is becoming a large omnipresent force.  This comment on a fairly unrelated subject is counterintuitive to a process that relies heavily on an essentially unfree product.  Newscasts, scholarly journals, and periodicals are all non-libre yet the trends today are pushing those out: wikinews, digg, wikipedia, blogs, youtube are all things that are replacing these resources we depend upon heavily and in fact demand. So wikipedia wants libre content for all, but we still need money-making companies out there to supply us with that information?  Not going to happen, all we'll be left with is governement census data.  To always demand content that is subject to the rigors of current resources is unrealistic when wiki concepts do nothing to promote those rigors and are in turn forcing those resources into the history books. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be a money-making company, just a credible publisher. Wikipedia rests its credibility on the credibility of its sources, because Wikipedia cannot have a traditional peer-review or editorial review process because it doesn't require or check credentials. Thus, our sources need to be ones that have peer review or editorial review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my point is that the idea of user-created content is slowly supplanting traditional sources. and user-created content hitorically isn't as reliable. the vanguard ethos encourages content similar to wikipedia's and discourages that which is not (free collaboration).  eventually we'll all be relying on what is being relied up and there will be fewer and fewer indpendent sources with are "verifiable".  if this community encouraged practices like authentication or credentials it would make more sense to require information from sources that also did.  but we don't and likewise encourage content to be created that doesn't (forks, mirrors, youtube), we're encouraging creation of content we wouldn't use. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jimbo's ideals are what wiki is all about (not wikipedia, but the idea uf user created content), wikipedia is just one example of a trend for user created content. if ur in the states - Nickelodeon, Discovery, National Geographic, and LOGO all have implemented segments where viewer content is what makes up the programming, and then there's that channel which is entirely user-created (can't remember it's name).  I wasn't likening Wikipedia to them, i was trying to say that the libre ideal of wikipedia encourages this kind of non-traditional media.  while that may not be a bad thing, this non-traditional media is where a large amount of information now exists and it seems odd that we are encouraging the growth of something we're supposed to avoid. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ok... "to the history books" was a little flowery.  ur right that no one will ever 100% trust wikipedia becasue of its volatile nature, but the thing is that wikipedia's ideals are discouraging reliable sources by imposing upon them a libre foundation that isn't yet completely feasible for resourcing the kind of independent fact checking we want.  The business model of "wiki-nomics" is one that all media companies are well aware of and if they can't figure out how to implement this new model into their current one they'll be left behind.  That is the goal of libre, to force free content. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, we're still more worried about applying the ideals of this project to this project, and one of those ideals is a proper foundation of sources that do have editorial or peer review. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ok... gamefaqs has an editorial and peer review process... peers read the material and contact the author who then makes corrections and uploads a new version.  Corrections are made much more frequently than at other sites, but that's also prolly because they're more inaccurate.  I know this thread is a major tangent to the one above, that's why i didn't say my piece there.  Perhaps it would be best if i move this discussion somewhere else? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is, that isn't an editorial process. If it's accepted (and acceptance makes no judgement on quality or accuracy), then it is there. There is no way to force the author to change it if they don't feel like it. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: GameFAQs editorial process consists of making sure the page isn't 32K of "DICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKSDICKS", and authors are under no obligation to make modifications based on corrections or suggestions. Just because someone can edit a page doesn't mean that there is an editorial process. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflicting goals of wikipedia 

message: Yup. *chews a blade of grass* -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to explain what the removal candidacy phase is?  *chews an ear of corn*  --Brandon Dilbeck 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're !voting on if it should be un-featured. *chews a palm tree* -Amarkov moo! 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you must mean this thing here. *chews on fried Farfetch'd* --Brandon Dilbeck 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, second section. *chews on Snorlax, is squished* -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's screwed, i recon maybe.  *Chews on illithid, gets mind eaten* -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchic has entered the removal candidacy phase