Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Adoption Center/Archive1

message: Since it seems we've been given some good-faith leeway by the rest of Wikipedia, I think it'd only be fair for us 'status quo-ists' to give the 'mergists' something to measure our work by.  Show them some good faith too, you know?
Right now, there are 250 articles in the :Category:Pokémon stubs.  Of those, about 200 are pokémon species.  (The other 50 or so are video games, movies, locations, Digimon that have been given the wrong stub category, and a few minutae.)  I propose that those of use in this "revitalized Project Pokédex" get 50 stubs cleaned up per month.  So, by 20 July, we'd have 150 Pokémon stubs; by 20 August, we'd have 100 Pokémon stubs; and so on and so forth.
If this would work for everyone, I'd like to set that number as the 'official' yardstick to measure this 'adoption centers efforts by.
(Now that I'm not in my finals anymore, I can donate more time to this project, so we can get back on track.)  Almafeta 01:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Limit

message: *Possibly. In the spirit of progress, I've combined Horsea, Seadra and Kingdra ( which was later moved to Horsea, Seadra, Kingdra), to give an example of a possible layout. Please leave this intact for a while to give people the chance to comment on it. (note that any information not present here was also not present in the original three). For instance, I was surprised to find out that Kingdra is #230 rather than #118, a fact which would not be immediately obvious from the three separate articles. Radiant_* 15:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
*:I like it. Is there an instance where the evolved state has a different type than the basic? That could mess things up (categories and all). I made a small change before reading you comment not to change it (sorry). BrokenSegue 15:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge by evolution?

message: I have noticed that a few Pokémon, (Snorunt for example), have a list of all the attacks they can learn.  However, some may argue that they are not encyclopaediac.  Some cases, such as Mew, or even Pokémon only learning a move through Purification in Pokémon XD, deserve to have it mentioned.  Yanma is an interesting example of a more encyclopaediac way to write about the attacks.  So what are your opinions?
I'm not sure.  On one hand, I generally believe that when it comes to infortmation, more is better.  As long as it's verifiable and not trivial (stuff from fanfics, etc.), information is good.  On the other hand, huge lists of attacks and stats might give more ammunition to those who feel that the articles themselves aren't notable.  Ultimately, I would hope that attacks and game moves to be included should follow these two guidelines:
* It's probably best to include such things if they're universal to that pokemon, and appear in most or all of the various games featuring that pokemon.
* It would be greatly preferable if such information was included after the article has progressed past stub length already.  We don't want deletionists believing that we're including moves and attacks simply as filler to pad out the articles. 
That's my 2 cents on it, anyway.  Additional opinions would be more than welcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Here's how I've been doing it:
#If it has one movelist (like Hoothoot), I listed that movelist, with the ability types and their elements.
#If it has multiple movelists, but there was only a slight variation (like Slugma), I listed the first movelist, then summed up how they changed.
#If it has multiple movelists, and if how it changed can't be summed up in a few sentences or if just repeating again would be easier (like Stantler), I list each movelist and what game or games it was used in.
However, I've been excluding things like egg moves, TM/HM lists, Move Tutor lists, et cetera.  That's a lot of space and a lot of error-checking for little benefit, and would more be the realm of a dedicated pokéwiki.  Almafeta 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moves/Attacks

message: I logged out (so I wouldn't see 174 pokéarticles on my contributions page @_@) and added the PAC template to the top of most of the undone articles.  Doing that, I noticed that we might have a bit of work to do, even after we expand the stubs:
*Many articles copy and paste pokédex entries directly.  This is a copyvio, as far as I know.
*Some articles have inappropriate images -- for example, Ponyta is animated, while Tentacruel is based on a CCG card.
*There is more than a small bit of interwiki work to be done!  This might take a bit of work with people who are fluent in other languages, and it might be a bit rough as some languages inconsistently merge pokémon into lists and leave them as seperate articles.  (The French Wikipedia never had a Centre du adoption des Pokémons, unfortunately...)
But for now, let's just concentrate on expanding the stubs.  Almafeta 5 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)
:Both of the pictures you mentioned above have now been replaced with Ken Sugimori artwork by Luigi2.  I added most of the pictures that are now gradually being replaced, but I think it will be better if they all use Ken Sugimori artwork.  The choice of picture also came up on the Jynx article recently.  As for the copyvio, I think we should be able to place any informaion from the Pokédex into the intro to make it more encyclopaediac.  Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 22:24 (UTC)
::I put all the Pokédex information in the 'Biology' section, so that way we could also have information from other canon sources (animé, manga, CCG) in the same place.  Almafeta 11:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Work

message: Could someone look at the above template for me and see what's wrong with it?  It's in the machop article, but instead of being 80% of the space available to it, it's trying to use 80% of the full article's width, and thus isn't going to the left of the statblock.  Almafeta 11:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Template:Pokesectstub]]

message: Some of the latest stub improvements, such as works of User:ErezR and User:Tavris have included a wealth of imformation such as list of attacks, breedable moves, technical machine compatibility, type affinities offensively and defensively etc. While I am certain this information is accurate and it is admirable that the contributors went through the trouble to locate and upload it, I must express my concern that, as Andrew Lenahan - Starblind noted in the Moves/Attacks section above, that including information of such a specialised nature might lead other Wikipedians to accuse us of simply padding the articles to avoid their deletion (a.k.a the "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs" argument). What does everybody else think?
In fact, I thought about going over my contributions and modifying the Video Game Availability info so that only one location per game is listed. Think about it: since the in-game Pokedex automatically shows the player where a Pokemon nests after you encounter it once, why not list only the place most frequented by the Pokemon or the earliest a player can find it, and let the player work the rest out for himself? Sinistro 20:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Much Information?

message: Is anybody NOT happy with my reworked goals/stats proposal? (see "Goals Rewording" section on the main page for details)  The main point of it is to put the focus on monthly goals and de-emphasise the final goal.  If anybody *doesn't* think this is a good idea, please let me know.  If nobody objects within the next couple of days, I'll make it official (or as official as anything gets around here :) and move all the related discussion and alternate proposals from the main page to the talk page.  Speak now or forever fold your peas... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
*Fine by me.  Almafeta 11:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals rewording: going, going...