Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 20

message: Some crazy bots are keeping up adding inappropriate interwiki links.
1, 2,
3.
Every time I see this happening I keep on thinking "What the hell is going on here?"
I also brought it up to this page, I hope something can be done. TheBlazikenMaster 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In affect, they are right... They are probably going to the Nidoran♂ page, and being redirected to that list. Therefore, the interwiki links are being added on that page. Reedy Boy 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's the problem. I used a section redirect, I hope that will work. TheBlazikenMaster 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot problem 

message: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Sonic Mew 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of this policy are the lists currently violating? SpigotMap 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also curious: How are the lists any more indiscriminate information than full articles filled with Smogon's originally-researched metagameguide? You Can't See Me! 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the original full articles, this is the blessing of the Holy See.  You want IINFO, look at the originals. -Jéské(v^_^v) 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think we are making the lists? So we get rid of all the unnecessary info. Full articles clearly violated this. And no, it doesn't have a lot of information, if that's what you think, only some Dex info and little more. TheBlazikenMaster 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key problem with the lists 

message: We still need to find a way to get the images somehow. The lists suck without them. Common, nothing's impossible. I know there is a way, we just haven't found it yet. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is.  The Wikimedia Foundation's policy on free content is not negiotable.  Similar battles were fought on episode lists and were trumped by the WMF's policy. hbdragon88 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't negotiable. The problem is people conflating their interpretation of the policy with the policy itself. I've read it. It says nothing about "images may be used to provide visual information that could not be given any other way, except on lists where images must be removed immediately". It should be obvious that organizational changes in a group of articles shouldn't invalidate previously valid fair use claims. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think the images should come back, then? hbdragon88 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that our current fair use policy does prohibit images like those, so currently, I do not. But that can change, because it's just part of our policy, not the Foundation one which we are obligated to follow. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The link wouldn't work because the pics they link to would still be orphaned, and you'd have a redlink within a week. -Jéské(v^_^v) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To design using pictures of Pokémon is to be creating a derivative work and will still fall under copyright - it won't evade the fair use policy. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there is only one thing we can do. Either contact some people in the Pokémon Company of Japan or the company that translates Pokémon from Japanese in the United States. Someone from the pokémon company in Japan would be better idea, since it's made there. TheBlazikenMaster 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't use copyrighted images that only have permission to be used on Wikipedia (which appears to be what you are suggesting). I highly doubt that you would be able to convince Nintendo to release the images of all of the Pokémon under a free license which would even allow people to use the images for commercial reasons. FunPika 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, but we have no other choice. TheBlazikenMaster 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not. Therefore, the solution is changing the policy, not just thinking of how we can plausibly make it not apply in this specific instance. -Amarkov moo! 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know there is no deadline, but I still hope that I'll be able to see the images on 2008. TheBlazikenMaster 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it is an irrational fear of lawsuits. How often does Nintendo sue one of the countless fan sites that contain pictures of their characters (including ones from other franchises such as Mario, Legend of Zelda, etc.)? Unfortunately, we can't use the images unless we somehow change consensus. FunPika 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they did sue any of those fansites, it would be a Pyrrhic victory - they'd alienate all their fans. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the countless number of YouTube videos, yeah, I agree, it's ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a little more research and determined that people want as little fair use images as possible on Wikipedia. I may still be wrong though. FunPika 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your not wrong and see this for related answers to your questions. Though I'm sure that link has been brought up a lot. « FMF » 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has - Durin was on this talk page before he was scared off. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image discussion isn't over. 

message: I remembered something WP:D&D did for its monster articles - they uploaded their own illustrations of each of the monsters.  I don't know if it will help in this case, but if it will, that's an avenue you mught want to consider. -Jéské(v^_^v) 09:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To design using pictures of Pokémon is to be creating a derivative work and will still fall under copyright - it won't evade the fair use policy. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there is only one thing we can do. Either contact some people in the Pokémon Company of Japan or the company that translates Pokémon from Japanese in the United States. Someone from the pokémon company in Japan would be better idea, since it's made there. TheBlazikenMaster 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't use copyrighted images that only have permission to be used on Wikipedia (which appears to be what you are suggesting). I highly doubt that you would be able to convince Nintendo to release the images of all of the Pokémon under a free license which would even allow people to use the images for commercial reasons. FunPika 21:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, but we have no other choice. TheBlazikenMaster 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not. Therefore, the solution is changing the policy, not just thinking of how we can plausibly make it not apply in this specific instance. -Amarkov moo! 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know there is no deadline, but I still hope that I'll be able to see the images on 2008. TheBlazikenMaster 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it is an irrational fear of lawsuits. How often does Nintendo sue one of the countless fan sites that contain pictures of their characters (including ones from other franchises such as Mario, Legend of Zelda, etc.)? Unfortunately, we can't use the images unless we somehow change consensus. FunPika 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they did sue any of those fansites, it would be a Pyrrhic victory - they'd alienate all their fans. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the countless number of YouTube videos, yeah, I agree, it's ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a little more research and determined that people want as little fair use images as possible on Wikipedia. I may still be wrong though. FunPika 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your not wrong and see this for related answers to your questions. Though I'm sure that link has been brought up a lot. « FMF » 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has - Durin was on this talk page before he was scared off. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: Recently Sesshomaru moved a headnote, as you can see here. Because it doesn't follow this policy. As you probably know we have many headnotes in sections. So we should maybe help out? TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hatnote is part of the Manual of Style - a guideline - not policy. It seems counter-intuitive to me to expect readers to know to scroll to the top of a page when redirected to a list, I've raised that specific point on the relevant talk page.--Alf melmac 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we all want to keep Wikipedia as perfect as possible so I see no reason why WP:HATNOTE should be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's exactly the reason why I knew it was good to bring this up here. Since we need help from other people editing the list pages. TheBlazikenMaster 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline does not work well with these lists. There is no reason they can't go in the sections. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. SpigotMap 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has just been changed in TheBlazikenMaster's favour, see the very last section in the talk page of WP:HATNOTES. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: hm... funny, WP:N is just a guideline but it was a good enough reason to scrap all the species articles and put them into lists, which are now no longer allowed to contain fair-use images. but it's nice how the "well it's just a guideline" argument can work for specific interests.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONSENSE. In that case, common sense did not conflict with the guideline, here it does (asking a redirected user to scroll up to the top of the page is a common sense violation). As for the images, they were removed under the fair use policy. Policy, not guideline. Please stop making observations that sidetrack a conversation, Zapper. -59.164.117.243 16:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head notes on list pages. 

message: I'm working on relabeling the articles for Wiki 1.0 inclusion. Many minor articles were tagged as "Top Importance" while many of the main characters weren't even labeled. Feel free to jump in or give advice on which articles should be what priority. I figure main characters and the Pokemon, Pokemon Anime, and Pokemon Games articles be top priority, with the individual games, supporting characters, and some movies being high priority. Towns, minor movies, whatever else being mid priority. SpigotMap 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki 1.0 Inclusion 

message: Have fun! -Jéské(v^_^v) 03:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article's log, the page was deleted twice already. Shouldn't this have been speedied per G4? You Can't See Me! 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily; I've seen larger number of times an article has been deleted before even heading to AfD. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G4 doesn't apply if the current is radically different from the past incarnations. -Jéské(v^_^v) 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field Day 

message: Have your opinions here. All your votes or comments should be made there. No more edits should be made to this section. TheBlazikenMaster 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The out-of-date manual of style guide is being discussed for deletion. 

message: You say that "the problem won't go away" by ignoring it. So what? Why is it so important to you that this article doesn't exist? Surely the encyclopedia would benefit if we stopped arguing about this? We'd all be able to invest our time in more productive persuits. We've spent I don't know how much time discussing this and we've got precisely nowhere. What's the point? What harm is Bulbasaur doing to Wikipedia, exactly? It's for situations like this that WP:IAR was created: when the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. This is certainly preventing us from improving the encyclopedia, for we can't both discuss and write articles. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you recreate the Bulbasaur article, and it is brought to AfD, claiming it is not notable under WP:FICT, and should either be merged into the relevant list or deleted, what will be your reasoning for keeping the article? Consensus will not accept WP:IAR as a valid reason for keeping the article, and the closing administrator will shut down that argument in any case. If you truly wish the article to be created, then perhaps your time would be better invested searching for sources to satisfy WP:FICT. I am sure all parties would be more than happy to contribute to the article if it satisfied that criterion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've had months to do so.  They have either not looked, or have come up bupkus. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a section on the talk page specific for problems, there were no further objections added then, the least TTN could have done was to tag the article as needing attention before making the edits that caused this thread. AManInBlack ahs kindly provided feedback and I have been making improvements since then, based on his feedback, when my attention has not been brought here instead.--Barnyard animals 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you seriously just use the harmless excuse? Hmm, why don't we just have articles on all of the Pokemon? They only help... TTN 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why Don't you have articles on all the pokemon? This isn't a deletion discussion, unless I'm mistaken, and I must ask, what harm could possibly come from this? --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You watch all 492 of those articles.  Tell me how it feels after a few months. A lot of those articles were rarely watched for vandalism and were constantly crammed with game guide crap. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are saying that because the field of articles are too big to watch over, that in itself is a good enough excuse not to have them. I pitty those people dealing with the elementary tables.--Barnyard animals 05:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't that they were too big to keep an eye on, it's that some of the lesser-known Pokes were getting vandalized, and remained vandalized for a few weeks. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have had them added to the anti-vandal bots listings then, plenty of people in the IRC channels watch for vandalism such as that.--Barnyard animals 06:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can't be added to anti-vandal bots.  They work on strings of text used as vandalism, and the types of vandalism they got would also flag innocent articles. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check with a bot operator in an anti-vandalism IRC channel and they will tell you how to do that.--Barnyard animals 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies a problem - I do not know how to use IRC, and I use IE7. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:VoABot II#About VoABot II mentions that it "is useful against both for long-term steady vandalism of certain pages or vandalbot attacks on many random pages", can I suggest leaving the operator a note on User talk:Voice of All if there are any such articles still an issue.--Barnyard animals 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, if you'll pardon the expression, Bulbasaur has gone nowhere.--Barnyard animals 06:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the people arguing for it have found squat in the way of sources.  You'd be better off adding Ling-Ling to Pikachu's page as a notable parody. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that Sephiroth BC is under the impression that is has been redirected or deleted and I'm arguing for the article's re-instatement, when the case is I'm arguing that TTN cuts were too excessive and should be discussed.--Barnyard animals 06:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, my point still stands. Answer the question - what argument would you construct should this article go to AfD? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would construct none, there would be no point - opinions from accounts that are new are generally disregarded in AfD discussions, as for others I guess that would depend on the reason the nominator gave for the AfD.--Barnyard animals 07:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's bullshit.  ALL users, anons included, can give valid arguments in an AfD.  Only if your account is a sockpuppet account meant for stacking or the account's an SPA is an argument discounted. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 09:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion may well be considered bullshit, I'll stand by it though. There is a small section on the AfD page that says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight." Which does imply to me, either by fault of the writing or my interpretation, that whether bad faith or not, they are discounted, but I'm not hung up about it and think that's another discussion, for another day.--Barnyard animals 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary Section Break No. 2

message: I might not be part of this discussion, but I'm sick of reading it. So I brought this article to discussion. Policies/essays arguments won't solve anything, so this is the best way to stop the discussion. I know we're all sick of this long discussion. Once the discussion is finished, we will start discussing something new, I promise. Charizard needs the same attention as Bulbasaur got too much of. TheBlazikenMaster 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should just withdraw that. As there are so many people that are ignorant of the standards, or that just choose to ignore them, the best possible result you can get is no consenus. That won't do much. If you want, an WP:RfC may be better. TTN 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right, maybe you should try to do something that would work out. TheBlazikenMaster 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second TTN's opinion, and would gladly participate in a Bulbasaur RfC. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do that then. I don't want to screw anything else up, like I did with this nomination. TheBlazikenMaster 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do I. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: I know how to merge articles for a single pokémon, but I don't have a clue how to merge this. Should I mark it for AfD? I'm really confused how to merge this. TheBlazikenMaster 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge the three separately, and redirect it to the list. TTN 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gastly evolutionary line‎]] 

message: Why are there not any pictures of the Pokemon anymore? Wouldn't pictures be increcibly useful to someone who wants to get a general idea of, say, what a Pokemon looks like? I'm guessing that they were removed for legal reasons, right? --Phantom Kirby 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a thread on this above, if you hadn't noticed.  Answers are there. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I can agree that the Elite 4's article was going too far. However from what I can see (from looking at some lists outside this project's scope) it looks like the way fair use criteria 3a is being interpreted has the same result of lists being disallowed in criteria 9 (they are not) which would explain our lack of Pokémon images. FunPika 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: :::Here's my Wikiball. A bit better, and modified a bit in Photoshop. LMK what you think.  RaidonMakoto 01:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, its up. Totally Barnstar worthy, eh? XD [/sarcasm] RaidonMakoto 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can still be deleted as a copyvio unless someone tells me what that old piece of art that the pokeball is based off is. *continues trying to make some improvements to the project* FunPika 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the old one is either based on the Sugimori art for the Premier Ball, or it is based off of the Pokeball, and changed to be white in Photoshop. I'm going with the latter. RaidonMakoto 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaziken had mentioned an old piece of art similar to a Pokeball but made well before the creation of Pokemon earlier. FunPika 02:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't discussing a particular one. I was speaking of circle that has a line in middle of the circle. Yeah, that's it. TheBlazikenMaster 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's pretty much all my image is, so I think its good. However, can we use Pikachu as our symbol instead of the Wikiball for now? If we have fairuse in the Wiki page about Pikachu, I think we can use him as the symbol for WikiProject Pokemon and in the userboxes. RaidonMakoto 02:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would fail criteria 9. Fair use images are strictly only allowed in the ARTICLE namespace. FunPika 02:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, that sucks. Well then, we're in kind of a predicament here... RaidonMakoto 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but the fair use policy/guideline has thought of everything (look for the phrase "Derivative works", I think that is what would screw us over). FunPika 11:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole debacle just solidifies to me that wikipedia is still neurotic about copyrights. Shouldn't there be a middle ground here? Toastypk 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Wikimedia is completely paranoid of lawsuits. That is why we have this stricter-than-law fair use policy. FunPika 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Very cool! I'm glad that was settled, this project doesn't need more drama! :D SpigotMap 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone told the deleter that since the image was simply "a circle with a diameter through it and a small circle in the middle", why didn't they delete "the first subdivision of a Sierpinski triangle" as well? In short, Link, Zelda, and Ganon saved the ball. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was the Wikiball's creator commons:User:Damian Yerrick who told commons:User:Majorly that. FunPika 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give the lady a Pikachu! -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 1 

message: I still am disappointed in missing the nomination on the article about Ash's mother, damn it. I wasn't even noted here. Please people use the noticeboard, I'm sick of losing important Pokémon-related nominations. I could have added my opinion on Ash's mother, but did NEVER get the chance, because I wasn't warned or anything. Not on this WikiProject. Please at least let us know if there is something up for deletion.
I would have wanted the article about Ash's mother to be a redirect, I couldn't do anything, since I wasn't told about the nomination about Ash's mother. Well, I added a recent nomination. But I was THAT close in missing the nomination on Bulbapedia, when there is a nomination regarding something pokémon related, use the notice board, please. I can't get over it for not having be able to know about the nomination of Ash's mother before it was too late. TheBlazikenMaster 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier if a bot existed to try to find pages. It could go through all of the current discussion areas (XFD, FAC, etc.) and check the nominated page's talk page for Template:Pokeproject. If it finds that template then it edits Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard to inform editors of the discussion. We should still go through discussion areas ourselves sometimes in case there is a Pokemon related page nominated that wasn't tagged with . Do you think we should make a request on WP:BOTREQ for such a bot to be created? Or is there someone in this project that can make a bot themselves and start a BRFA? User:Pokébot (do NOT create that account!) could be a potential name. FunPika 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah please do, I can't take any more nominations that I'm not aware of until it's too late. TheBlazikenMaster 17:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't know an article on Ash's Mom even existed, much less it was nominated for an award. RaidonMakoto 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nominated for DELETION, not for an award. FunPika 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because you looked into the right deletion log. It was spelled without capitalized K. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia ketchum TheBlazikenMaster 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard|Use the noticeboard people.]] 

message: I've probably helped quite a few people but also frustrated quite a few people with my attitude, and for that I am sorry. I hope that you all continue editing Wikipedia and enjoy doing so, and keep up the good work. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't leave, you are a great editor of Wikipedia. We will miss you. I promise you might be gone, but you will never be forgotten. TheBlazikenMaster 12:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bye 

message: Just to let you guys know I noticed that this article has been created. I won't do anything to it, instead I wanna ask more of an expert on the policies what to do about it. Discuss. TheBlazikenMaster 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article was deleted per G4. Coreycubed 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Delia Ketchum]] 

message: I was just wondering why all the Pokemon are jammed into huge lists now, rather than having their proper, individual pages.
They are far more documented and notable than a vast plethora of our other articles and could be comprehensively defended in a delete dispute. So what happened?
--Tefalstar 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted here from Talk:Pokémon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As stated above by hbdragon88 under "Key problem with the lists", "The original articles fail WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no conceivable information at all on real-world character development or impact that these characters had in the real world. At all." Actually, wouldn't that mean all those lists also suffer from the same problems and should be soft redirected to its own wiki like Digimon? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what? That's not such a bad idea. In fact it's a great idea. But we need some expert on this. Someone should make a template. This will slow down the complaints a lot. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think lists deserve as many images as articles. After all lists are articles too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Pokemon articals 

message: Click here, and reply to that section. And do all you can to clean it up. See the talk page for more info. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article about the big TV show needs attention from all Pokémon fans available on Wikipedia. 

message: No Pokemon articles have ever been featured? I thought I quite distinctly remembered Bulbasaur being featured at one point... does nobody else? Or has something occured since to undo its status? 76.10.156.22 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things have occurred since to cause their FA status to be revoked. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured articles

message: Hey guys, Pikachu is up for Good Article reassessment again... help would be appreciated! -Malkinann (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pikachu]] GA reassessment

message: I think that we should, judging from the fact that he isn't even a registered user, doesn't have any contributions, and, well, isn't a registered user. Someone must have put his name on there as a joke or something. ♠♦♣♥ 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, account doesn't exist, went ahead and removed. SpigotMap 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should We Remove [[user:Crazy Will|Crazy Will]] from the partic. list? 

message: Click here to join the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pokémon Master]] is being discussed for merging. 

message: I decided I'd create a userbox for people who sympathize with (but do or will not join) the PCP.  Tell me what you think.
-Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applicable for people who don't have the time to contribute in any meaningful way? (like me) Bhamv (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Applicable for people who don't have time to contribute in a meaningful way or who edit the articles but do not join the PCP. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New UBX 

message: Back from a wikibreak and checking. -WarthogDemon 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean has copyright law changed so that including images of every single pokemon suddenly qualifies as fair use? No, you'll be disappointed to learn that it hasn't; this "problem" still remains.You should contact the US Supreme Court. Or maybe Disney; I hear they're good at manipulating copyright law TheBilly (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, okay. No need to be aggressive; just checking about what's been going on since I was last here. -WarthogDemon 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I apologize if that seemed uncalled for; I was merely expressing the opinion that there's no problem to solve except the law :) TheBilly (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has The Image Problem Been Solved? 

message: I thought members of this project might be interested in the current work on the Pokémon Master article, and the current discussion on merging it into the Pokemon Trainer article. As you can see, the current discussion on the talk page has been limited to only a few editors including myself, and so I thought this article could use more attention from especially interested editors TheBilly (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Master 

message: On the list of good articles on the Main project page, it says that there are like seven or something "good articles", including Pikachu, Golduck, Mewtwo and a few others. However, on the official tally right below that "good article list", it says that there are only 2 "good" articles. I have looked up at least one of them, and it had its Good Article status revoked. It was once a good article, but now it isn't. (the Pikachu Article) Should we include these on a new list, or simply remove them from the old list? --Superpika66 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated it, currently appear to be 2 good articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of good articles 

message: I am trying to get Pokémon Yellow moved to it's correct title of Pokémon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition (see the talk page for proof that this is the correct name of the game). So please express your support for the move since the articles should be as accurate as possible, starting with the titles of articles. TJ Spyke 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon Yellow