Talk:Bulbasaur/Archive 2

message: The Italian version of this page has an image of a shiny Bulbasaur. Could this image either go here or shiny Pokémon? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shiny Pokémon is more relevant. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiny Bulbasaur 

message: I can see how the word Bulbasaur would be a portmanteau if it were a combination of bulb and dinosaur, but if it's merely a fusion of the words bulb and sauros, how is this a genuine portmanteau? By the same logic, Dinosaur, derived from combining the words dinos ("terrible") and saura ("lizard"), is a portmanteau. Heck, almost every scientific word is a portmanteau by that definition. I think you've either got the name's etymology wrong, or this is a classic case of misapplying fun terminology like portmanteau through arbitrary overuse. -Silence, 20:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to state the obvious, but it's not a simple fusion of bulb and sauros or else it would be bulbsauros.  --Doradus 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: u're arguing over semantics..... many words lose or gain letters when combined.  that's like saying Abrosaurus is not a fusion of habros and sauros b/c it's not Habrossauros  neway....  u'r prolly right Silence, but only half-way.  What we should change is sauros not "portmanteau."  Rather than misapply fun terminology, we misapplied fun Latin scientific-sounding naming conventions.  It's been changed for now since no one seemed to care enough about it to voice a contrary opinion. -Zappernapper 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portmanteau?

message: I am a user who mostly uses wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I don't fully understand how it works and I only contribute through grammatical corrections! However, I was under the impression that Main Page Featured articles were locked, this is why it surprised me when I clicked on the bulbasaur link from the page page at about 01:20 on 28th July to find that the contents of the article had been deleted and all that was left was a hugely offensive message. I would just like to know how this happened - surely it is possible to avoid this kind of thing, as it could cause a hugely damaging media-storm! Madmatt52 00:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles most certainly aren't locked as a rule. As for a "media-storm" because of some transient vandalism, Wikipedia would long ago have sunk without trace if such things were possible. As you get to know Wikipedia more you'll learn that vandalism is a common problem that we just live with. Revert the page and get on with your life is my advice. 86.136.2.158 01:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page Editing

message: : The front page currently says there are 401 pokemon while the article says 403. No idea which is correct. --72.224.4.179 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, 403 appears to be the correct number. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: now, there are 493 pokemon. good luck catching them all! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.255.62 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of the little bastards

message: I like the idea of having Pokemon featured on the main page on Wikipedia. Do you think more video game/video game characters could be featured in the future?
:Perfect Dark was Wikipedia's featured article on May 12, 2006. This is not the first video game article to be featured, but one in a line of many. 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not forget about Final Fantasy X that was featured recently. 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's awesome! H2P 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just can't believe there is a Pokemon on the front page. That's disturbing! :) Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You folks need to buy yourselves a sense of humor. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon on Wikipedia 

message: Geez how are these featured articles chosen?! Bulbasaur of all things?! NSD Student 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quiet. Bulbasaur is a god among Pokemon. --Captain Cornflake 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, strange. Oh, and someone put "FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAG" right in the midde of the artice, in the intro. Took it out.EAB 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do it, but I can't stand pokémon.They are strange but like I said, I didn't do it.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree. One could argue that by us questioning whether this article has merit for being "Featured" status is as much as important as making the article factually accurate.--293.xx.xxx.xx 06:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to nominate it for a Featured article review. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article?

message: Who the ---- is Jamie? This moron did something that corrupted the portal to the Bulbasaur article! Something about Bulbasaur being "------- ---" or some ---- like that. Whoever you are, "Jamie" or whatever", you are an IDIOT! Fix the portal!
He was probobly ------ that a Pokemon was the featured article. How is Wikipedia gonna convince the world that it's a legitimite source/Greatest Achievment of Mankind if we have ------- Bulbasaur on our front page?
:In case you haven't noticed, it isn't all over the page and it isn't the background either. I also didn't know people cared that much about the feature article, much less even read it. Besides, I thought wikipedia has already set itself as a reliable source of information. Just cause it isn't some dead guy/an old builduing doesn't mean it should be take off.
It isn't the only video game article that was a featured article. Can someone please fix the Bulbasaur article? Some immature moron changed all the "Bulbasaur"s into "ballsasaur". Idiot...
:What the ----- the problem with it being featured? Seriously. I really don't get it. Do people care about their precious encyclopedia that much? Oh wait, it ISN'T theirs.....EAB 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "THE ONLY PLACE YOU NERDS WILL SEE ONE OF THESE IS ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!!" 
heh, WHAT an assumption. Sh*t, I'm using long words, only geeks use long words. Iim goin to fall for a rough trick namd Jim.EAB 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of Vadalizing (sort of) someone posted something on this article saying that Ash's and May's Bulbasaur are in love which is never brought up in the english anime. (LatiRider 04:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiotic Vandalizing 

message: I have sprotected the article. Currently there were about 3 vandals per minute, and the article was more often vandalized than not. I agree in principle with Raul that main page articles should not be protected, but i would go for an exception in this case. I have no problem with the article being unprotected in an hour or so to see if the vandal(s) have left. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one scary History log. I doubt we'll be getting another Pokémon on the front page after this. Highway Return to Oz... 07:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be right... hopefully, you are wrong. (Sorry if that sounded rude!)
If (when?) it gets unprotected, it might be worth it to report blatant vandals straight to WP:AIV at the same time they are given  warning. Admins may not block as it's out of process after first warning, but if they do vandalize a second time before an admin investigates, blocking will probably be immediate. Just a thought.--Chaser T 07:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotected 

message: Why is CNN mentioned in the lead section? What does CNN have to do with Pokemon? Are they leading experts on Pokemon or something? Seems like they've been used as an "authoritative source" to justify the statement in the lead section - really, CNN should only be mentioned in the reference attached to this statment. Carcharoth 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Carcharoth. I find the mention of CNN and Time to be awkward. It should simply say something like "Bulbasaur is considered one of the more popular and iconic Pokemon" and add a citation at the end that directs to the CNN and Time articles. Grammatically, the sentence is also awkward. Is there a special reason why the CNN/Time sentence is phrased that way? Punctured Bicycle 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "News reporters are supposed to be somewhat experts on anything they talk about" - <falls off chair and rolls about on the floor laughing - gets up and wipes tears of laughter from eyes> - are you serious?? Carcharoth 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: man, you should've been there when this "article" was up for FA like three or four times. This issue was brought up each time but was shot down by the fans. 149.142.103.63 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN and Pokemon? 

message: I believe bulbasaur is the plural form as well as singular, I'm not sure that edit was needed. --Impulse 16:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (16:18, 28 July 2006) (edit) (grammar nazi strikes)

message: How is this a quality encyclopedia read, good enough and notable enough to show on the main page. This isn't good PR.
:Ah well! We try to promote quality rather than content.--Oldak Quill 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: Someone has added very inappropriate pictures to this article. May I request that they be removed immediately? 
:Never mind. It's been fixed already. Thank you.
67.188.172.165 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. That image showed up on the front page. Xioyux 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Images like these are used on the Penis article, though in much smaller form. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spammer

message: Congrats, Bulbasaur!
Damn straight lol! (I do not actively play pokemon anymore, yet i still have very fond memories, bulbasaur being one of them =) ) (Daydreams21 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article of the Day

message: I didn't notice it mentioned specifically before, but this article is currently up on FARC. --SevereTireDamage 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulbasaur on Featured Article Review 

message: I don't know how this article got featured while being so bloated with information not directly related to Bulbasaur.  Maybe if this was a text encyclopedia and Bulbasaur was the only pokemon article or something, but this is ridiculous. All the info explaining generalities about Pokemon should be (and I think is) talked about elsewhere, in other articles. In addition, WP is not a gaming guide, so info on strategy is very, very iffy. Blueaster 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've killed off all the strategy info, at least. I have no idea how it got there without me noticing. -Amarkov blahedits 00:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Much Redundancy 

message: I've put Bulbasaur up for FAR again, due to the same sourcing problems that unfeatured Torchic and are still holding Charizard back. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR again 

message: I find it odd that the Bulbasaur article got a Featured Article label, but the Pokemon article didn't. Any thoughts on the matter?  Sicerely,  Kevin 20 5 23 26 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: Why is the Super Smash Brothers: Melee reference under the "In the Pokemon Video Games"? Last time I checked, Melee isn't a Pokemon game.  Sincerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 01:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same reason the SSBM reference is under that heading in Ditto. The Super Smash series is anything-goes with respect to Nintendo games (NOTE: Solid Snake and (possibly) Sonic the Hedgehog are the exception rather than the rule).-Jeske (v^_^v) 04:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think what he meant was since the heading says the section about Pokemon video games, SSBM shouldn't really be a subheading. Perhaps "In video games" is more appropriate? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melee reference 

message: Some Pokémon articles like Bulbasaur's start of with Insert Pokémon name here are the first/one of 493 Pokémon creatures/species, whereas some others use is instead of are. I'm confused about what to use. FMB 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say "is" in reference to the whole specie, but I'm not sure. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say "is" is right. For example, "Metapod are one of the 493 Pokémon species..." just sounds awkward and wrong to me, but it can be found in many articles and with 493 individual ones there sure is a lot of work to be done :) FMB 01:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went ahead and fixed "are" to "is" on Metapod, Weedle and Kakuna's page. "Is" is fine, right? Because if that's the case, I'll try to fix it on other Pokemon pages. --Koheiman 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: Link to psuedo-discussion is here.  Looking at it, there is no consensus to merge this to a list. Any such decision should be made here on the article talk page anyway, where the editors of the article can see it. Last, Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason such information should not exist, regardless of someone's personal opinion about "cruft".  pschemp | talk 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please give a reason to let us keep this article - i.e. start finding sources. -Jéské (v^_^v) 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I say don't merge. If it is merged, significant information will need to be removed from this article which is a bad thing   Rob 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, most pokemon already have been merged. You can look up the name of any pokemon and it will probably be in a list just like bulbasaur is. Bulbasaur is no exception. 24.15.53.225 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone keeps saying that, but never does it. I don't personally see any superfluous "stuff" in the article. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 16:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps your right. I re-read the article several times, and the anime section just contains every notable appearance- although i'm still unsure about the concept/creation section...but even if that was taken out, the article would have enough information to be worthy of not being merged. What do other people think should be taken out of the article? Ageofe 14:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Concept/Creation section was created in direct response to criticisms made at WT:POKE. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Upon its review on October 19, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
::had an obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.  According to WP:Neutral point of view, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria.   I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far.— Yamanbaiia 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means - failed because of "edit-warring".--Alf melmac 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I removed something that seemed obviously wrong and unrelated to the current dispute. However, if anybody can provide a reliable source that describes a genuine debate between scientists about the biological classification of this computer character then I will replace the material. Tim Vickers 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit to protected page

message: In fixing one of the problems identified by AMIB "The second paragraph of Conception and Creation has nothing to do with conception or creation.", I moved it to the relevant section. This information was in the version that TTN left it in, after this and the subsequent edit, indeed it was there in a later revert he made to my edits, he reverted me again in  this recent edit with the edit summary "There is no need to give a random Spanish voice actor (there are probably hundreds to list), and a list of DVDs and a one episode character fall under WP:NOT#IINFO.)", the edit also removed the end of a sentence: "(at different times), although Ash’s was featured for a much longer period." which, again he had previously left in, as did I in further cutting the plot summary from his version. Instead of using the episodes to tell a 'plot', I made it into a short list of four of the episodes and two of the DVDs that Ash' Bulbasaur has appeared in, with two other episodes that other characters had a Bulbasaur in, leaving the previous cites, which are surely sufficient to verify the character's appearance in the 'real world' episodes as well as giving a link to those who do want to know the story around the character, even if the writing there is 'flaky' . I have to say that either TTN or I are getting tendentious and a bit gamey.--Barnyard animals 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: Per the quick-fail criteria of GA reviewing, any article (such as this one) with cleanup or expansion banners must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating. If you feel this decision is in error you may seek a reassessement. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 03:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick-failed Good Article nomination