Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 17

message: I archived the talk page, which was getting long. I kept FFA. Feel free to re-add any important topics. Glad to see new faces, and I hope I can get back into this. Alvin6226  talk  03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I've restored the last four threads from the previous revision, all of which have been active as of yesterday. One of them is rather long. You Can't See Me! 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I was looking at the pages for certain event-only Pokemon, such as Mew and Celebi, and it occured to me that, while it says that they can be obtained at Nintendo events, it doesn't say where.  So, I thought that we could either put what event these guys are being given away at, or, if it conflicts with the "game-guide" policy, we could provide an external link to where readers could obtain that information.  So, if anyone knows a Web site where we can get that information, could someone put hyperlinks to it on each respective event legendary's page?Leprechaun Gamer 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck finding the Japanese person in charge of events, but www.pokemon-center.com might know where the American events are held. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would conflict, and most of these events were in the past.. Alvin6226  talk  03:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event Pokemon 

message: What do we do with character articles? I would venture that many articles on characters are less notable than some of the less notable Pokémon (simply because people will remember a certain Pokémon better than a person).
For instance, Wally (Pokémon) - not about a main character, and short. Could easily be merged.
Many others are notoriously short, and will not be expanded unless they are used in future animes, mangas, or video games.
Other comments:
Team Rocket (anime) could be merged into Team Rocket (that article is quite short), or renamed "List of Team Rocket members"; unmerge the three main guys from the article into Jessie, James, and Meowth if at all possible.
Also, may I say that I feel that Jessie, James, and Meowth are individually more notable than Giovanni is.
Anyway, those are some misc. comments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop incorrectly using the term "notable". I will quote WP:N - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Jumping to conclusions based on popularity is not a good idea. There's a very good reason the guideline separates itself from popularity: popularity does not imply reliable source coverage. Now with the ranting gone, I think that Wally should definitely be merged into a blanket character article. What that article would be I am unsure of. --Teggles 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Minor Characters in the Pokémon Games, perhaps? -Jeske (v^_^v) 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That isn't what we're suggesting, Vikrant.  Team Rocket (anime) will more likely than not remain safe. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A merge question that begs to be answered: 

message: How are we gonna put all the evolutions of Eevee to one page after merging is finished? Eevee has seven evolutions, that makes eight in total with Eevee. How the hell are we gonna merge the evolutions of Eevee? I know it isn't gonna be easy, I have a revision of the future that it will be a huge article. TheBlazikenMaster 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suspect a fork article or two might work. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's possible to have pages that look like separate articles stacked on top of each other and be respected pages. Check out Meta Knight, that's essentially the page on Meta Knight stacked on top of the page on his ship, The Halberd. If we disband You Can't See Me's structure for merged evo-line pages like on Porygon evolutionary line for the more straightforward system of eight big sections stacked upon each other in order (sorry YCSM), one per Eeveelution, we'll end up with what is merely a pretty long page, but one that should work, and surely long pages aren't frowned upon at WP. [[Check out Hubble Space Telescope) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but if people keep writing articles that follow the non-separate organization then Eeevee's gonna be inconsistent with the others.... and thank-you for providing another reason why it's prolly not the best scheme. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my plan for eevee -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutions of Eevee. 

message: I said I would remove all the OR, and I have. I also removed a couple sentences about where it's found, as I belive we determined that locations aren't encyclopedic unless the Pokemon being found there is somehow important. So, we now have the four sentence stub I predicted. The external links section is longer than the actual article. -Amarkov moo! 04:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... All of the reportedly unsourcable Biological Characteristics material you cut out came from Whismur's various dex entries. That's the sort of stuff that was actually supposed to stay. You Can't See Me! 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I was a bit aggressive. I'll go restore what I can find a source for. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've now done that. I still didn't find any sources for the second paragraph, but the first three sentences are indeed supported by Pokedexes. -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lessee here... The stuff about Whismur startling itself and breathing through its ears comes from its R, S, and E dex entries. I'd actually revert just a tiny bit more, but with the merger going on, I figure it's not worth it until the Wismur line comes together. For instance, Whismur was responsible for an in-game event (blocking the tunnel). Due to the infrequency of events triggered by specific, non-legendary monsters, I think that warrants mention. Perhaps its affinity for sound-based attacks also warrants a sentence of mention, similar to Hitmonchan's punches (though this is more of an evo line thing). Still, I think the rest of those edits were made with good judgement. You Can't See Me! 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually that stuff is worth keeping, regardless of the merger. i put it back, but the article was still pruned down. it's not right to leave articles in a condition that makes them appear less robust than they are... especially when the subject doesn't have much to discuss in the first place. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do this because of the merger, I did this because there are things in the article that do not need to be in the article. If a subject doesn't have much to discuss, we aren't under obligation to inflate what there is until it looks like there's something to discuss. -Amarkov moo! 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, there are so few things that can come to my mind when I think of Whismur anyway, so good thing you got rid of the unencyclopedic info. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say "Whismur", and all I can think of is a 1d8 aberration that is easy for a blind Nimmo cleric to defeat with both arms and his left leg tied behind his back.  I do know it did cause the halt of the tunnel project in Ru/Sa/Em, but otherwise he's unnotable.  Ah, well.  At least the Pokedex info was useful for me. -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Amarkov, i completely agree. articles that include ramblings on stuff not even relevant to the subject are prolly my biggest pet peeve. but the stuff you took out, that i put back, appeared encyclopedic to me. if you disagree perhaps we could take a closer look at each section and discuss it, but that might be more appropriate on the talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookee at [[Whismur]]. 

message: Our style guideline indicates that information about presence in the TCG should always be added. So, why is this? I mean, every single Pokemon has a card; unless a particular card is important, why does it matter? -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. Probably only particularly notable stuff like the Sneasel problem should be mentioned when it comes to cards.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the TCG sections were just some of the filler stuff required to de-stubbify certain monster articles. With everything all merged together, there won't be any need for those anymore. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Enough with the melodrama. This isn't The Days of Our Lives, it's a project aiming to provide a better encyclopedic coverage of Pokemon. I've had enough with your constant crap on seemingly every page, saying they're "surely" vandalizing or violating WP:POINT. We're trying to make this a better place. However, I don't think the information should be removed, at least, not all of it. This kind of redundancy is the least of our worries. It just doesn't need an entire section. --Teggles 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Zapper more than Vikrant, in part because Vikrant has an axe to grind in re merging.  However, I think notable controversies - cards or no (such as Uri Geller suing Nintendo over Kadabra) - should be noted only in the Criticism of Pokémon article and/or on the pokemon's section. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have the TCG sections 

message: Is :Category:Ash Ketchum's friend's Pokémon of any value? Also noticed :Category:Species article templates - this seems like a good candidate for a rename. --- RockMFR 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally say that the three friend cats should be CfD'd (per What Wikipedia is not).  All it is is collecting trivia. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the friend categories are bordering on ridiculous. the Species article templates might be able to use a rename, and needs to be populated (like with the variations of Pokeinfobox). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some categories needing attention 

message: A bunch of Pokémon images have had copyright tags removed because of this TfD discussion.  Am I right in assuming that nobody in this project was made aware of this discussion?  I wish things on Wikipedia weren't like this.  Now a bunch of images aren't declaring any copyright status. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no notice here about it. We didn't learn about it until Amarkov reported that the templates had been nuked. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note on the talk page of the admin who made the decision.  Please feel free to complain there.  --Brandon Dilbeck 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did you one better - I left a note on the talk page of the nominator. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a heads up, please do not complain to me. I merely closed the discussion. It wasn't my place to notify the WikiProject. As far as the deletion goes, I have replaced almost all of the tags with  and have deleted most of the templates by now. ^demon[omg plz] 02:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why didn't you say anything? -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm sometimes absentminded, and it honestly did not occur to me to check that it was mentioned here. Anyway, does anyone have an argument why it shouldn't be deleted? -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that they should be kept as legit fair-use templates, and that the TfD should be at the least redone so as to get input from the members of this project.  Also, an anon just chastised me for "failing to observe my watchlist".  I didn't know about it until it was too late! -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend posting at WP:DRV if you can come up with a legitimate undeletion rationale (Amarkov making the nomination might carry significantly more weight). Insufficient notice itself is probably not a good enough reason, but if you add to it the fact that the tags satisfy one of the conditions of the normal fair use tag (attribution of copyright holder) and allow for auto categorization of the images and then you carefully follow the culture of WP:DRV (it's not a vote, use some original reasoning in every post) and ask for "overturning and relisting at tfd" you might get them back. -N 06:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hell yeah, I agree 100%. I hate having to add nominations for deletion when there are only few days left, and it's far away from the beginning. TheBlazikenMaster 21:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so is someone going to submit this to DRV? as the creator of these templates i might be seen as having a biased opinion for keeping them. the largest reason for a review is that complaints of "over specialization" are groundless considering the fact that these templates added subcategories to :Category:Screenshots of television which has 33,000+ images in it and :Category:Screenshots of films which has 15,500+ images. both of these categories (along with the game-related categories) recommend users place an image in a subcategory if the present category is already very large. the second reason is that categories, unlike articles, may be kept for internal reasons. a category of pokemon images facilitates maintenance of those images. while the closing admin was mindful of keeping Game Covers, Lead Images, and Pokemon Maps - the deletions have depopulated every single other subcategory. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going ahead and doing it, all the images that were tagged by them are now being labelled as "copyright status unknown". (Check this out.) If the templates're not undeleted in 7 days, we're gonna have OrphanBot hell. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was anyone aware of this? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon_mystery_dungeon_code
Toastypk 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, there is no need to bring this to our attention, because it's already tagged. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's because I saw this and just did so. -Amarkov moo! 22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should get taken off. 

message: Here at WikiProject Pokémon, we're used to seeing bullshit being added to articles, each and every day.  That is why I want to take this time to introduce or reintroduce you all to adding warnings to editors who spew BS into articles.  Specifically, I want to point you to this page, which draws out each of the available warning templates you can put in an editor's talk page.  Some of the ones I think are useful for us are test (for those little edit tests), vand (for downright page-destroying stuff), delete (for content deleters), unsor (an important one for when people don't cite sources), and error (for made up BS introduced to articles).  Remember to escalate these warnings as editors continue to mess up our lovely encyclopedia.  Thank you for your time.  --Brandon Dilbeck 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page warning templates 

message: I just discovered a special page titled Special:Recentchangeslinked, which dispalys all recent changes.  So Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Pokémon_games shows all changes to all articles liked in .  And Special:Recentchangeslinked/List_of_Pokémon would be nice to monitor all changes to the species articles. This sure beats watchlisting every article. hbdragon88 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watching the articles 

message: :Category:Pokémon Maps (soon to be moved to :Category:Pokémon maps) has quite a few images missing copyright tags and other similar problems. This is probably related to the recent deletion of the specific Pokemon image templates. Might want to check it out if you have time. --- RockMFR 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed the discussion above. Oh well, an extra reminder can't hurt. --- RockMFR 01:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Pokémon Maps 

message: I just noticed that Pokemon.com seems to be using three digit season-inclusive episode numbers for all episodes. (For example, the first episode of season 1'd be episode 101.) As it's supposed to be the official Pokémon USA site, shouldn't we be adhering to its style in writing US episode numbers? Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode numbers 

message: The recently deleted Pokémon copyright templates are now on DRV here. --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 07:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we already have a vote against. Where is everybody?! --The Raven's Apprentice(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what should be done is going through :Category:Pokémon lead images and putting  in place of the deletion tag and then replacing the image. I've done some of it already, but I've got to sign off for now.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's to be done in the meanwhile, but we should be commenting in the DRV. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed too that OrpanBot went through a lot of articles. By the way what does DRV stand for? TheBlazikenMaster 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion review. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raven, your link leads to the TfD discussion, not the DRV discussion. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk of blunders. It does now. --The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACK!  Why didn't anyone list this on the Noticeboard???  It's important that we list any relevant discussions on it.  A good way to keep up to date with discussions is to watch the Noticeboard page.  --Brandon Dilbeck 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one that thinks so, I agree with you, it pisses me off when I don't get to know about pokémon related deletion/reviews whatever until it's too late. I mean common people, the noticeboard is there for a reason. TheBlazikenMaster 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, good point, Brandon. I'll try to remember that next time. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV 

message: I'm new to this what is all this HTML your using so confusing Oh, also, I just joined this project ;). 
( Ihave every one of the colour or gem games.) Vancyon 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal messages got to my talk page. And I'd recommend you see Wikipedia:Welcome. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card) 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravens Apprentice o.O 

message: I got an idea to make a task force of this project dedicated to the species merge (as well as working to make each species worthy of its own article). 2 articles that are in this task force's scope would be List of Pokémon (1-20) and Pidgey evolutionary line. A draft of this task force is at User:Funpika/Drafts/Species. What do you think of this idea? Funpika 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's interesting, it might be effective in illustrating how much of a consensus to do a merge there actually is. I would be willing to sign up if it's put into effect. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 01:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new task force can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species. FunPika 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species task force idea.  

message: I've noticed that there are too many on lots of Pokemon, with very similar "Pokedex" entries from numerous sites.  Something should be done to get rid of unnecessary external links on Pokemon pages, so the articles aren't "link dumps".  Miles Blues 05:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good point.  I would wager that a lot of those links contain redundant information and that not all of them are necessary.  --Brandon Dilbeck 05:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just form a consensus about removing them right here, then go and remove them. --The Raven's Apprentice 05:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially links to Smogon for "Tactical Data" on most pokemon; that's not very encyclopedic. Perhaps Serebii or Psypoke could stay because they have any relevant information handy, but I doubt both are needed.  +  
- :::I'll be back to my normal level of editing soon. Keep it up 'till then! You Can't See Me! 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the point of external links is to build on the Wikipedia article with sites that branch out into further information on the subject.  So because Wikipedia doesn't have tactical information, people looking for can be directed to where that can be found. --Sonic Mew 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That is exactly correct.  Which is why there need to be some external links - but not 4 containing pretty much the same info - one to Serebii, one to Smogon, one to Psypoke, one to Bulbapedia, and one to Pokemon Dungeon is way too much.  For each article, only one of those links should be there.  Right now, all Pokemon articles are link dumps, used to advertise Pokemon sites. I propose getting rid of the following links for sure: Bulbapedia (not as complete as the others), PokemonDungeon (it's the exact same as Serebii, but Serebii is updated unlike Dungeon), Psypoke (other sites like Serebii have much more info), Smogon (most of their links are broken for some reason).Miles Blues 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's best to use Bulbapedia, since a lot of external links link to other encyclopedias. Bulpapedia get's updated as soon as someone notices something missing or incorrect unlike SPP. TheBlazikenMaster 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with replacing Serebii, PokéDungeon and Bulbapedia with just Serebii. Bulbapedia's usually incomplete. Either way, there should be just one link out there, not three. But does Smogon stay? Its got informaton not included in the other pages, but I don't think it's very encylopedic to include it. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 03:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can agree that Serebii is easily the most complete, and was around much earlier than the other sites - it seems some of them may possibly have taken the info from Serebii.  Bulbapedia is way too incomplete to be linked to in the majority of Pokemon articles.  Smogon's site has been down for a while now, and I have no idea whne it's returning.  No matter, broken links should not be in articles.  We should come up with some sort of method as to removing all of the unnecessary links... or just go to a couple Pokemon's pages per day and remove the links. Miles Blues 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest keeping links to Bulbapedia in certain instances, such as on Squirtle's page, where it links to the Bulbapedia article specifically about ASh's Squirtle.  Otherwise, we should remove all Bulbapedia links. Miles Blues 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but not everyone agree that Serebii.net has the best information. Psypoke is also kept up to date and has great info. Al right, it's been decided, I don't agree to use SPP I'd rather use Psypoke, but since most people perfer SPP we should use that. I just thought Bulbipedia would be more acceptable since it's the only site on these you listed that's external link of the main article.TheBlazikenMaster 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I removed yesterday. with an edit summary of "Rm Bulba link-- is that required?" I still haven't been contested, it seems. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: An 8th Generation Pokémon.
Thought I'd post this one here first. It's a classic. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 05:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, thanks for that, but I figure that future submissions should be posted on my Keeper's talk page instead of here. Anyone can come up with a wacky new evolution Pokemon and name as well as theoretical names for future generation versions, let me try: Abomasnow evolves into Barakaboma, or maybe a Pokemon with a fat rump should be called Obisasu. I think it qualifies as a Keeper, but not spectacularly. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related point, why is there an obsession on Tracey's page with people saying his Scyther evolved into a Scizor and even this "Sciben"? --Sonic Mew 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either it's a new vandal fad or it's just this user under a variety of IP addresses. I caught him adding the Scizor fanfict once. But I'd still go with "fad", I think there's two vandal houses clashing or something, this guy's userpage got vulgarly vandalised a bunch of times by two different IPs. And i did add it to the Keepers talk page, Erik. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Along wih a bunch of other incidents of stupidity. You really should be watching the page. --The Raven's Apprentice 03:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like there's a lot of interesting stuff being posted around here... I'll have to sift through and arrange them as Keepers in my own time. But I thought BJAODN was deleted? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the BJAODN page? HOW DARE THEE SUCH BLASPHEME, INFIDEL! 'Tis still very much there. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just remember glancing at a discussion recently where someone had deleted "subpages" of the BJAODN collection because of GFDL issues, and it was a giant controversy. If the joke empire is still around, I think I have my own submission for it... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting bad jokes coz of GDFL issues?! OMG. Anyways, I can't imagine anyone deleting the whole thing, there'd be a mass rebellion. Remember the UBX wars last year? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 03:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See, there was a rebellion. And you oughta update the Keepers' page, Erik, the Kosmo saga is evolving into a story keeper. (Check the Talk Page.) Chers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one for [[User:Erik the Appreciator/Keepers|Erik's collection]] 

message: There's a debate going on at Talk:Mudkip, my TP, and User talk:75.68.162.162 over a 4chan meme, and it's starting to get heated.  I was wondering if you guys would chip in a couple pennies and make sure the shit doesn't hit the fan? -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so I herd you liek mudkips? hbdragon88 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Out of curiosity, what is the meme about?  --Brandon Dilbeck 22:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hering bout lieking mudkips. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag teh damn image for dleetion nad submit all tihs crap to Erik's collcetion. This should pleese him, its BJAODN stnadrad. Chears, The Raven's Apprentice 06:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, what image? I seriously need a Wikibreak. o.O --The Raven's Apprentice 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone got a fire extinguisher? 

message: Pokémon (species). This way, Pokémon types, Pokémon game mechanics, and Pokémon game features could (for the most part) be merged into this article. The only parts of any of those articles that couldn't be merged are game goals, gym leaders, Starter Pokémon, Pokémon battles, Items, Holding items, Pokédex, and Pokémon trades. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the word "species"—that word's attributed to each of the individual makes and models of Pokémon.  The similar Digimon article is Digimon (creature); maybe Pokémon (creature) is an acceptable title.  --Brandon Dilbeck 06:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, it sounds like a good idea to have an article for the generic Pokémon creature, and an overview may be a good approach to this, but I wouldn't suggest a merge of those articles because there really is a lot of information in them.  Just the list of Pokémon types is pretty big and comprehensive.  --Brandon Dilbeck 06:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: Now that the image tag DRV is scheduled to close on "Endorse" in around 18 hours, Pomte's come up with a solution so obvious that we should have discovered it ourselves. He says the existing, generic templates could easily support parameters for changing the categories. That's bound to solve the problems of several WikiProjects. Thoughts? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could still change. The guy who started the TFD even wants an overturn and relist now. I myself changed to overturn and relist after seeing that. FunPika 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't.  Pgk closed as "endorsed". -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As expected, which is why I tried bringing up an alternative (first post in the thread). Either that or we make one Pokémon image tag and use parameters for different kinds of pokeimages. Thoughts? --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The templates problem 

message: Just a question, what will happen to all the Pokemon GA's and FA's when they are merged? Will they be delisted or something else? 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delisted, I think. What used to be those articles'll just be parts of lists. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there is still any Pokemon specie FAs, Bulbasaur and Torchic have likely been delisted by now. There's still some GAs in the species, including Mewtwo, who's specifically meant to have his own article. But generally, a Pokemon formerly of GA status that will end up merged into an evo-line article would mean that that article should have a much easier time getting to and keeping GA status itself. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get it. Why Mewtwo? Charizard is away more notable than Mewtwo. So is Raichu. By notable I mean sourcable, not exactly favorite. Just because he appeared in a game with mix of Nintendo characters? A movie, and a TV-movie doesn't make it notable in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But primary appearances in SSBM, a movie, a TV-movie, a TV-special, and the whole series of RPGs makes it very likely Mewtwo can retain its own article based on sourcing. The first two primary appearances of Mewtwo I listed here have likely been the subject of a fair amount of reliable second-party commentary, which is what articles can use as sources uncontroversially, so Mewtwo seems better sourceable than most of the other species. I never said Mewtwo was more sourceable than Charizard and Raichu, but if those latter two truly have better sourcing available than Mewtwo, then by all means give them their own pages as well. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: regarding Bulbasaur and Torchic, it would seem to me that they may have enough info to be considered too long for merging per WP:SS. i might be wrong, but if there is enough substance they will prolly stay their own articles. another example is Eevee. There is too much verifiable information to fit it nicely into a section on a list. the same will prolly be true for these. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, there shouldn't be any merging just for the sake of merging, especially if there'll be info cut out that is presented just fine as part of an unmerged page. By that logic, merging Gligar and Gliscor still seems extremely appealing. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Merges. 

message: This isn't directly related to the Project, but I created a directory in my userspace of all the Pokémon userboxes I've seen on Wikipedia. (Oh, and Brandon, I moved that PokéDex template you created into my userspace per UBM; please don't murder me for that.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userboxes