Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 19

message: Last TP archived on 7:08 UTC,29 July 2007. All unresolved comments that I found have been copy-pasted here, in addition to a cleaned-up version of the future focus articles segment. Feel free to copy-paste any I might have missed. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

message: === Next Pokémon Creature article ===
=== Next Miscellaneous article ===
Cleaned out to gut old discussions. Archived FFAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future focus articles

message: Cleaned out to gut old discussions. Archived FFAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Miscellaneous article 

message: I merged it into a list, I didn't include any anime appearance since they weren't important enough in my opinion. Maybe the Deoxys movie is important, I just copied the biological section, if that's the wrong way to do it, please tell me the best way to merge, I need to know the best way to merge (if I didn't merge this right) because I'm going to merge Huntail tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 00:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should copy the nihongo template. Descriptions that can be found in the picture usually aren't necessary. You should remove any references to sites with 'dex information. We need to switch over to quotes and the Template:Cite video game (I guess you can replace them if you want). Then just clean them as you see fit. TTN 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there are others too in my watchlist that haven't been merged yet, I decided to help on the merging instead of sitting on my ass doing nothing about it. Thanks for the info, I will try to keep that all in mind when I merge the Huntail article, and also when I merge Steelix. TheBlazikenMaster 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminds me I need to get to work on Pocket Monsters Special protagonists. Cheers. The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of sitting on our asses doing nothing, I'm starting to think this page needs an archive and pronto. :P Okay, actually there's been a lot of great work put into creating the lists. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you I'd merge Huntail today. But we still have a lot to merge. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Today I finished the following:
*Wailord
*Rhydon
and will do Gengar, after that I'm finished with all the pokémon on MY watchlist, but we still got long way to go. But we're almost there. TheBlazikenMaster 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think it deserves a chance since it is evolved form of the most notable pokémon. TheBlazikenMaster 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Plusle]] 

message: I finished the following merging today:
*Infernape
*Trapinch
*Tropius
*Arcanine
I will leave Raichu unmerged, since it's notable for being the evolution of the most notable pokémon. I think we need to discuss about Raichu before merging it. TheBlazikenMaster 13:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I finished the following:
*Wailord
*Rhydon
and will do Gengar, after that I'm finished with all the pokémon on MY watchlist, but we still got long way to go. But we're almost there. TheBlazikenMaster 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think it deserves a chance since it is evolved form of the most notable pokémon. TheBlazikenMaster 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnished merge

message: Basically, we should start actively focusing on getting certain articles unmerged from the list (like I am with Charizard) over getting them merged. The non-notable ones WILL get merged, so someone has to work against that with potentially notable ones. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get cracking 

message: I'm thinking we should all work on the lists in order so no images get missed. Anyone wanting to continue can start with List of Pokémon (61-80). Lets also try to stick with consistency. (Like first image, then pokemon template, paragraph description, then break.) Progress should probably be updated here so if any of us want to jump in, we know where to start from. -WarthogDemon 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating The Lists In Order 

message: I was looking through many of the seperate pokemon articles. Wormadam-Buizel (not sure which other ones) have a LOT of game-guide stuff on them, like "____ has high (Attribute), but amazingly low (other attribute). It is hard to level up, due to its limited movepool. However, it can learn the powerful attack...". I assume people are too busy watching the lists, or merging, but can we keep an eyes out for this? CrowstarVaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends! 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're right, there is too much game guide, which is exactly the reason why we are merging the articles into a list. TheBlazikenMaster 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, any guide-like material should be removed per WP:NOT. Content like that is not allowed. ;) -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know...that's why those seperate articles are being merged.--ZXCVBNM 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Guide-ness 

message: I posted a question here a couple of days ago and because individual Pokémon pages can go for a while without being checked, unless there is vandalism, I decided to bring it up here too.  Rather than reposting the question, I'll just provide the link so this talk page won't get clogged up with what may be repeat answers if users see one page and not the other.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of it being spelled "forme," might be a typo? The correct English spelling is "form" - it's the same as a verb and a noun. (e.g. "Deoxys's defense form" and "Deoxys separated to form clones.")--ZXCVBNM 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it might have been a typo, but it's spelled that way in almost every current player's guide.  Even the ones from Nintendo Power.  -SaturnYoshi THE VOICES 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to BabelFish, "forme" is the French word for "form".  Six of one, half-dozen of another. -Jéské (v^_^v) 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the official spelling, that's the one we have to use. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was explaining to the lower keyboard row that "forme" and "form" mean the same thing.  I wasn't saying, "use 'form', not 'forme'." -Jéské (v^_^v) 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never implied you were. Stupid online discussions. --The Raven's Apprentice (PokéNav|Trainer Card) 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question. 

message: I'm very impressed that the huge amount of Pokémon articles is being converted to list format. I was wondering which ones are staying as individual articles, and how that's being determined. Obviously independently notable ones like Pikachu, but should Golduck really have its own article? Andre (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see the main discussions up above, but only the ones capable of following the fiction guidelines are staying. The only definite is Pikachu at this point, and a few have been put on hold to see if they can obtain enough real world information. TTN 01:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it was sort of a case of TLDR, I'll look more closely up above. Andre (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! (Lists) 

message: Not sure if this has been discussed anywhere, but I think it would benefit these pages if the origins of the pokemon names were covered.  This is as valuable to the average reader as the original Japanese language name, as many people don't know that Pikachu means electric mouse or that Ho-Oh is a pallindrome of the Japanese name for "phoenix"  I think adding the name origins from the original pages, or something close to them, would help the average reader's understanding of the pokemon. 75.109.33.107 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR.  They are interesting, but they are original research.  I believe GameFAQs has a wonderful name origins FAQ that would provide the same level of coverage. hbdragon88 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But for some things, wouldn't it be obvious enough to say without having to invoke that? Nosepass. Buoysel. Spoink. Slowpoke. The entire Chimchar line. I can see about something like Lugia, but come on. Toastypk 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it's an obvious fact, it needs a citation.  Also, see this. hbdragon88 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One also has to consider whether or not it's worth putting the purported origins down for all the transliterated Pokes as well (Pachirisu, Pikachu, Gyarados, etc.) -Jéské (v^_^v) 23:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless an official source mentions it, even that is OR. TTN 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't advocating it; just saying that you'd need someone who knows how to read Japanese. -Jéské (v^_^v) 23:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Origins 

message: Just posting here for those who don't have the WP:VG on their watchlist.  I'm running a script that will check all external links on articles, the results are available for viewing at -links:Template:Pokeproject.  —Dispenser 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh, it's unacceptable how many of those links didn't work. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-ran the scan back a few days ago.  This time crawling through all the pages, the results are listed at WikiProject Video games.  Overall fewer warning, but more bad.  —Dispenser 01:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link checker 

message: After a ridiculous edit war, half of which I'm to blame for, a question has been raised with Ho-Oh. Apparently the name is similar/identical to the Japanese name of Fenghuang. Should Ho-Oh therefore be a disambig page? (And note that at this point I think it does; it just took me a while to completely understand what the user was talking about.) -WarthogDemon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is damn near identical (Hō'ō/Ho-Oh/Houou vs. Hō-ō), so a disambig or something similar is necessary due to confusion. -Jéské (v^_^v) 21:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find at least four, a headnote is everything needed, and there is already one on the list. TheBlazikenMaster 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ho-Oh 

message: Let's copy all of the individual Pokémon articles (the articles about each Pokémon as they were before being merged) and their images to the Pokémon Wikia so that people could still learn about Pokémon. As of now, that wiki barely has any information in it, and the easiest way to learn sourced and detailed information about Pokémon is to look in the article history pages, as I have been doing (people new to wikis won't know about this, however, so they miss out).--Qwetzalquoatal 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap I have an account there, and I don't even remember the site . . . sweet. Anyway, we'll first have to check if we have compatible liscences. We most likely can transfer information, but depending on the licenses they have, it'll affect how we do it. -WarthogDemon 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It uses the GNU license. There's also a Bulbapedia, which has about as much info as the Pokémon Wikia but has a much more active Special:Recentchanges.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The licenses at Bulbapedia aren't compatible and I'll have to see about the other site. (If the licenses aren't compatible that only means we have to significantly reword information we get from Wikipedia articles, instead of a lazy copy/paste.) -WarthogDemon 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've noticed that stuff from Wikipedia is copied onto Wikia all the time, including by Wikipedia admins and Wikia admins.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wiki seems pretty incomplete. Most pokémon don't have their articles there, I'd hardly call that a pokémon encyclopedia, Bulbapedia is perfectly fine. It's also easy to read, it's good it doesn't have same manual of styles since it's easier to read if you're a pokémon fan. TheBlazikenMaster 14:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, if we do decide to move pages over, the news of "big bad Wikipedia" might encourage growth over there. -WarthogDemon 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokémon Wikia 

message: I have re-created the Torchic article because it is a featured article, which means that it was once prominently displayed on the Main Page.--Qwetzalquoatal 06:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a featured article doesn't necessarily mean it's a keeper. This was already discussed (I believe) so I reverted it back. If you still want to bring it back up, I won't stop you though in this case. -WarthogDemon 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It isn't a featured article; it was defeatured several months ago, due largely because of the low quality of (and more or less lack of) sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Former FAs don't get preferential treatment.  Torchic wasn't even on the cusp for keeping standalone. -Jéské (v^_^v) 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchic 

message: The lists of Pokemon are almost exclusively game guide material or in-universe information. They do a very poor job of asserting notability, and should probably be deleted.--Nydas(Talk) 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lists is a lot better than article filled of stuff that has fansites as sources instead of what the fansite is about. Anyway, I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with the lists. TheBlazikenMaster 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to just get them merged right now. They will be worked on as time goes on. TTN 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix the lists, then merge.--Nydas(Talk) 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles are in the exact same shape as the lists, so merging them doesn't reduce any quality. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining. If you have a problem with them, start fixing them. TTN 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles have a higher signal to noise ratio than the lists, which are almost pure fancruft. It should be easy to just adapt the article intro for the list while merging them.--Nydas(Talk) 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we could have changed the source from fansites to the games or the anime episode. But it isn't easy to revert what we have done. Also a lot of the pokémon aren't notable enough for their own article. Fancruft? How exactly is it a fancruft? I can mainly see biological info about the pokémon, how is that a fancruft? TheBlazikenMaster 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in-universe, like having specifications for fictional machines.--Nydas(Talk) 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously? By that logic, everyone and everything from Jabba The Hutt to Betty Boop to Homer Simpson to Neelix to Edward Elric to Severus Snape to Odie to Jack Bauer is fancruft. We have to have at LEAST a basic decription of these people and Pokemon; otherwise all articles would just be lists of names or one sentence articles. -WarthogDemon 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fancruft if the number of Jabba's henchmen or his yearly income was listed. These are 'facts' which play no role in the plot. Similarly, we don't need to know that Ekans eats eggs or sheds its skin.--Nydas(Talk) 07:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, they'll be fixed up eventually. This is an ongoing process that we can't just "fix" quickly. I really don't even know how this is going to work in the long run. The first step is to just get them merged. Sourcing them, fixing them, and all that stuff can come afterwards. TTN 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll attest to that.  The fact that the articles were in that state was one of the factors I'd cite in the Serebii mess earlier this year and the just-recently-ended Mudkipz Madness. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the list List of Pokémon (241-260) is still being vandalized by this "So I herd you liek mudkipz" bullshit. TheBlazikenMaster 21:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the users who were/are defending it are no longer trolling Ksy, Ac1983fan, and myself. I consider that negligible so long as the article is semi'd, because consensus is no meme per WP:RS. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The articles differentiate between appearances in the games, the anime, the card game and the manga, creating the bare bones of an out-of-universe perspective. The lists don't do this. When they do have out-of-universe info, it's mostly game guide stuff.--Nydas(Talk) 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I'm seeing this as being too simple, but what's wrong with the descriptions? For every notable character out there in any genre there HAS to be SOME in-world information. Otherwise we could only type, "Deanna Troi is a character on Star Trek: The Next Generation." and that's it. -WarthogDemon 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biological information (feeding strategies, etc) is just filler information which has almost no plot role. It's like listing Deanna Troi's dresses or the layout of her bedroom, rather than her role in the plot.--Nydas(Talk) 09:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's exactly it. Nydas, you still haven't proved that independent articles are better than the lists. All you have stated is that the list has too much gamecruft(which is not true, since there is only one line of that), or too much in-universe info (which is not true either since it's short entries). However it used to have a lot of gamecruft in the past, Nydas, prove your points, prove that the big articles was better. Claiming it has too much in-universe info doesn't prove anything. TheBlazikenMaster 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the independent articles, there was a better opportunity to state card distribution, anime appearances, and in which games they can be found. These lists have not yet proven an ability to sufficiently relate to the real world. You're arguing that these articles don't have too much in-universe information because they're short articles, but in-universe information is still too much when that's all that's being said. The current 21-40 article says this of Clefable: Clefable are also extremely timid, and rarely seen in the wild. They avoid all contact with outsiders. Even sensing the presence of others in the area (which is fairly easy thanks to their prodigious hearing) will cause it to run and hide immediately. They will, however, come into the open on quiet, moonlit nights to take a stroll on a lake. We're treating Clefable as if it were a real species, as if it were something that existed with a necessary consistency between all of the games (there are differences between the trainer games, snap, and ranger) and the anime. Just because this matches up with the in-game "pokemon encyclopedia" data does not make in encyclopedic for a real world article. Competitive play is part of the real world, and detailing its in-game strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps the means by which one could obtain such a pokemon in the games (saying "In the trainer pokemon games, one can only get a clefable from a trade, or from evolving it into a clefairy" is far better than talking about how they are extremely timid, and are rarely seen in the wild), would relate to the real world far more than this. The lists need to improve dramatically, and quickly.--Kento 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list detailing how/when you can catch certain pokemon, along with it's stats, could be viewed as awfully game guidish. SpigotMap 11:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a problem? It's only one or two paragraphs. Believe me, the articles had A LOT more of in-universe info, a whole section. TheBlazikenMaster 11:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A short description of the Pokemon in the lists would be more acceptable it seems. Lists of recurring characters don't have every episode they appeared in, what clothes they wear, their family tree, where they were born, etc. SpigotMap 11:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know how much the list of recurring characters really should be considered a model for these lists. These aren't recurring characters, they're supposed to be species. WIth recurring characters, there are personal histories, which we can't use, and there are individual personalities, which we can't use.--Kento 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand that, the lists basically look like a list composed of several small articles. It seems to me that the template currently used and a brief description of the pokemon would be sufficient. As of now, many of the pokemon have descriptions several paragraphs long and that just seems way overkill to just give an idea of the pokemon. SpigotMap 12:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You answered your own question, WarthogDemon, for fictional character descriptions there has to be SOME in-universe content, not ALL in-universe content.  There has to be out-of-universe information, and at the moment the list entries (based on Pokedex info) is entirely in-universe.  And before anyone asks, I'm afraid I don't have a better idea.  Sorry.  Bhamv 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it does. But still, some TV show characters that aren't notable enough for articles also have list of in-universe info only. Ever heard any of the List of recurring characters pages? They have no, or few out-of-universe info, this is similar to that. TheBlazikenMaster 09:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lists 

message: I'd hate to bring this up again, but no one seems to be listening to my earlier comment. Lugia, our current focus specie article, has been merged into List of Pokémon (241-260) and I don't know how to fix that. For one thing it is our current focus article, and at least until such time that it isn't, it should stay as an article. Second, I thought we agreed to keep Lugia and a few other articles for the time being, so that we can discuss why they should or should not be merged. So, either we revert the merge and keep it its own article for a while, or we change the current focus article to something else, and either way, we talk about what we're doing.Leprechaun Gamer 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change the current focus article - we're not trying to fix individual articles anymore, but lists and other Pokemon pages. Why bother reverting the merge if it's going to be merged later? I don't think anyone pays attention to the focus articles.--ZXCVBNM 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lugia again 

message: I know this is kind of weird, but is there any thought of Poliwhirl having its own article. I, doing research on charizard, have now hit 2 full references to Poliwhirl, one noting that "For example, the Pokemon named Poliwhirl has a belly decorated with a little whirl--Tajiri's memory of the transparent skin of a tadpole with its coiled innards visible beneath." (Time magazine), and a second noting it as a Popular Pokemon (with Pikachu no less) "Pokemon creatures such as Pikachu (a yellow catlike mite) and Poliwhirl (a disk with bulging eyes) were soon presiding over a media juggernaut, including an animated TV show and trading cards, and appearing on everything from cell phones to hot-dog packages."
I believe it is said somewhere that Poliwhirl was one of the first Pokemon created, and the creator of Pokemon's favorite, or maybe that is fan speculation? Either way, it is something to consider, given the huge number of places Poliwhirl used to featured, and the possibility of being Tajiri's favorite Pokemon. Heck, Poliwhirl is larger than Pikachu and centered on time magazine at one point,http://www.dogasu.bulbagarden.net/features/time01.jpgBalladofwindfishes 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources you found are obvious. Poliwhirl still isn't notable, since it's only a small character in a fictional universe. Possibly more famous than others since it was one of the originals, but still not notable. You could always add to Bulbapedia though. I doubt that Poliwhirl is more famous just because it's on the cover of Time. --ZXCVBNM 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you find some sources, and out-of-universe info, it's probably best to include it in our list. It can have its own article if and ONLY if it gets a lot of real life info. Otherwise the list is the right place. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this Travel site for Japan, Poliwhirl (Along with Pikachu and Charmander, both are also up for articles more or less, with charizard instead of charmander) were the mascots for the Pokemon center in Japan back in the day http://web-japan.org/trends00/honbun/tj000118.html
Also noted is that Red from the Manga started with a Poliwhirl and it plays a large role in that.
Poliwhirl was included in the first set of Pokemon plush toys, which included Pikachu, Eevee, Charizard, and Snorlax.
another TIME (Asian Branch) interview which shows some favoritism to the little guy- 
TIME: Are the Pokémon names related to those insects? 
Tajiri: Yeah. Like Nyoromo [Poliwhirl in the U.S.]. It looks like a tadpole. There's little whirls on it because I remembered that when you pick up a tadpole, you can see its intestines because it's transparent.
 
It also seems to be noted elsewhere that Poliwhirl is infact Tajiri's favorite Pokemon, and the Pokemon he wanted to represent the series, rather than Pikachu, but I havn't been able to find sources other than a good dozen forums.Balladofwindfishes 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poliwhirl

message: Here is a direct quote from Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20):
This is just a suggestion.  Many people seem to be overly upset over the loss of individual articles for each Pokemon.  If all the extra information is being put in Bulbapedia anyway, why not put an External Link section at the bottom of every article that is a List of Pokemon and list Bulbapedia as an external source?
And, if you really don't like Bulbapedia that much, then help make Bulbapedia a better place.  Every Pokemon discussion article has at least one complainer over this matter.  I wasn't on board with this decision either, but it really defeats the purpose of having Bulbapedia if you are going to repeat that stuff here.SuperChencho 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with him that we should move our stuff to Bulbapedia and reword it to fit CC-By-NC-SA stipulations, but I am unfamiliar with Bulbapedia and, again, this comes into conflict with my work off-Wiki, so I can't do much.  So, to make it seem a bit official Support the endeavor. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 03:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that is just the thing that would be done in the ideal world. We should just make sure to pay heed to the different licenses behind Wikipedia and Bulbapedia, which disallows us to copy and paste content between wikis. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for establishing that, that'll be a big help too. Only question: Would it be better to have a link to the individual Bulbapedia Pokemon specie article in each individual Pokemon section on these lists? Like having the Bulbasaur section have a link to Bulbapedia's Bulbasaur page, Drowzee's section links to the Drowee Bulbapedia article, and so on... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that would be considered link spam. SpigotMap 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so. These links are to calm down all the complaining. External links are useful, they are supposed to link to other useful encyclopedias, that's what Bulbapedia link does. So no, in my opinion it's not linkspam, instead it's helpful. TheBlazikenMaster 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one bulbapedia link on all the list pages is okay. However, having 20 bulbapedia links on every list page? That's going a little overboard and I'm willing to bet it could infact be used as link spam. SpigotMap 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell the guys that add links to other encyclopedia links (a lot of articles have links to other encyclopedias related to the subject) too. TheBlazikenMaster 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add them then, but they will be removed. There is no need for 20 links to bulbapedia in every list. SpigotMap 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, I already explained to you why we need it, so prove me wrong before saying it's unnecessary. TheBlazikenMaster 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, a more important question about links in all the Pokemon sections is how the links themselves should look. Regardless of how it might be considered "linkspam", it may not be disruptive or ugly if the links themselves look like [1] somewhere in Bulbasaur's section, [2] in Ivysaur, [3] in Venusaur, and so on. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice. A link stating "Bulbasaur's entry on Bulbapedia" and so on for every pokemon would not. SpigotMap 22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SuperChencho got an idea to get rid of this "DON'T MERGE THE ARTICLES!!!!" madness. 

message: Hate to bring up an old topic again. I'm mainly watching/cleaning up the movie articles, but I'd like to get involved with the merging or at least know what the current plan is on merging. Is there a list of the pokemon planned to have their own articles? Is the plans for having evolutionary line articles still in effect or are they all going to the merge lists? It seems to me some people are too partial to certain pokemon even if they aren't notable. I'd think it to be much cleaner to just put most of the pokemon in the lists, and a few notable pokemon have their own articles. Notable being Pokemon that the general public might have heard of, and pokemon that have been featured a lot outside of the game. Even if the Pokemon had a large role in the games/anime, if it had no effect outside of the game, I wouldn't think it to be notable to the average person. Some pokemon have full articles, sure, but that still doesn't make them notable enough to not merge them, it just means someone spent a lot of time to write a long article. Just my thoughts and questions. SpigotMap 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if there's a list of keepers per se. Pikachu has already been given the green light for keeping; Bulbasaur is being considered but will probably be merged. Mostly we're just finishing up everything and then discussing that. I'm actually wondering about a legendary pokemon and if it should be kept but I'm going to hunt around first because it might not have enough to merit unmergedness. -WarthogDemon 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lists, again 

message: I have proposed that the expanded versions of Pokémon Red and Blue (Pokémon Yellow and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen) be merged into the main article. Please discuss on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of new versions of Pokémon Red and Blue 

message: Guys, is it just me, or is our project page seriously out of date?  I am new here and am still trying to figure out the way things work, but I think it's important that we establish what needs to be done around here.  There is no mention of the multiple mergers that we got going on among Pokemon articles.  The project's focus still lists Lugia and Pokemon Evolution as our subjects of focus.
Just a thoughtSuperChencho 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the entire page is pretty much out of date. Nothing is even said about the mergers. A good section needs to be written about what we are doing with the lists and what to do with the articles after a list entry is finished, etc. What is and isn't appropriate for list entries. SpigotMap 06:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would volunteer to write it, but I don't know any of the requirments myself. I've just been writing the summaries based off the type of information found in the compleated ones. Ageofe 15:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I've added an "article of the week" section in place of the Focus articles. I'm afraid to make it a subpage since it won't get any visibility. However, the winner will be added to the top of the project page.--ZXCVBNM 01:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Page 

message: Hi guys, I'm just an observer to this project, haven't really contributed anything, but some time ago I remember browsing through the pokemon articles and got very excited when I saw the "evolutionary line" series of articles.  They were less cluttered than the list articles and can be organized with bigger pictures, etc.  What happened to this concept, and why were they all merged with the cluttered lists?
I propose that the list articles be the "hub" articles to the evolutionary line articles, or scrapped and reorganized together.. all those Pokemon crushed up against each other looks a little.. I don't know, strange.  Whose idea was that, and who got rid of the evolutionary lines?
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents... DeusExMachina 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am relatively new as well, but I can tell you that the guys in the PokeProject have discussed their heads out about this, and it was decided to merge the articles.  You see, there are two factions in the Pokemon universe.  They are the fanboys and the haters.  The fanboys want each and every Pokemon to have their own article.  Now, that would be all fine and dandy if each Pokemon had their own sufficient verifiable information to warrant an article without becoming a game guide or manual (some of them do, like Pikachu or Jynx).  They are then thus treated as minor videogame characters and lumped together.  The other faction, haters, take it upon themselves to disfigure the articles because of their unwarranted, unbridled hatred toward Pokemon, and it is easier to protect 25 articles from vandalism than it is for 500. Believe me, I have the 25 pages in my watchlist, and there is always some social outcast with nothing else to do than to type cuss words in these articles ~ SuperChencho 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evolutionary lines were decided against because that would lead to more vandal targets and simply rehashing the unneeded information, at least from what I saw of them. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they're not needed. That would just lead to the same problem as before, and the list format is fine.--ZXCVBNM 05:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Line articles instead/complementary to List of articles 

message: I just want to double check myself. Information regarding Nintendo events do not belong in these lists, correct? -WarthogDemon 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Event Information 

message: Any individual page on a Pokémon will fail WP:NOTE. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 14:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a joke right? The few Pokemon such as Pikachu clearly have enough real world information. -WarthogDemon 14:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag on Pikachu, stop beating a dead horse. SpigotMap 18:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you hate an article doesn't mean it should be merged. Pikachu is clearly more famous than all the other Pokemon, so don't try to merge it.--ZXCVBNM 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge '''ALL''' Pokémon articles 

message: Real members of this project, this is an IP, most of the times IPs are people that don't know crap about Wikipedia. I really believe the IP didn't mean to vandalize (just look carefully at the summaries), so instead of only having warnings, you should try to explain to whoever reverted the images why the images disappeared, believe me, you hate to get into trouble without knowing why you are in trouble. TheBlazikenMaster 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that IP might have been used for a real long time, but I still think somebody needs to clear things up for this IP, I would do it myself, but as you could see in my profile, I'm taking vocation from stuff like that.  TheBlazikenMaster 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, WD is already giving friendly edit summaries, that should take care of it. TheBlazikenMaster 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User_talk:74.67.159.96|74.67.159.96]] 

message: Hi, I'm trying to clean up and source Pokemon Yellow, unfortunately I don't have the instruction booklet for any of the version anymore... does someone have them, scanned or something, so that I could finish up my sourcing? David Fuchs (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yellow's instruction booklet is almost exactly the same as Red and Blue's booklets.  The only real difference is the Pokedex in back. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 19:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I guess Red and Blue would be fine- but I still don't have those versions either... (blast the yard sales!) David Fuchs (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone have the Yellow Instruction Booklet? 

message: To all those of this WikiProject, I'm reporting that the articles above have been fully-protected.  I'm also asking that you watchlist BOTH of them (even though Mudskipper isn't a Pokémon), because both, prior to protection, were being attacked by the "So i herd you liek Mudkipz" (sic) meme, and I don't doubt they'll be attacked again when the protection is downgraded (both were semi'd) in two weeks.
If you want more information on what's been going on, see Talk:Mudkip/Archive02, talk to me, talk to User:Ksy92003, or talk with User:Alison. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 19:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Pokémon (241-260)|241-260]] and [[Mudskipper]] 

message: Does this project have any use for User:Jayvdb/List_of_Pokemon_Afd ?  If so, go for it. John Vandenberg 12:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just updated it with recent AFDs within the past few months, as well as the lost Serebii.net one.  I find it an interesting record of how things have chagned – how we used to have articles on every individual city, for instance, and for each Pokémon; minor characters.  I didn't know that Palkia, Dialga, and Bellsprout had been nominated before. hbdragon88 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Yea, it was the way that consensus had "changed" that intrigued me sufficiently to do some digging.  Feel free to move the page under this project. John Vandenberg 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also updated the page with the Porygon line, D&P, 21-40 II, and Chaos Black. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 08:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the flurry of activity on that page by members of this project, I have moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/AFD history.  Enjoy, and please don't let it be deleted; that would be too ironic :-) John Vandenberg 02:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd history 

message: ...hasn't been edited for two months now. Is it safe to remove it from my watchlist? TheBlazikenMaster 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Noticeboard]] 

message: Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)#Merger proposal.  I have already rebutted; thoughts? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See this 

message: Hey guys! 
Could the Poké Ball article be sourced more thouroughly? Like with in-text citations and stuff? Thanks in advance! Zouavman Le Zouave 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poké Ball 

message: I'm talking about those that aren't merged. Redirecting isn't enough, those with blank entry should have "Main article:", if someone wanted to merged, they'd have problems having to put the Pokémon's name to the search box, finding the Pokémon, going to that article's history and having to see the last unredirected article. This is NOT what merging means, Remember this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia has no deadline, so don't speed up too much. Redirecting to blank sections is like a motorbiker in so much hurry that he just rides his motorbike to a rock, seriously. I had to bring this to attention because List of Pokémon (301-320) suffers from this. TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the problem that you don't know how to undo them or that you just haven't bothered to undo them? TTN 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I will undo them. I shouldn't have been so damn lazy. TheBlazikenMaster 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done with List of Pokémon (301-320)‎, if nobody else will, I will find more of these tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restore some of the "merged" articles. 

message: Sharpedo still redirects to an empty section, along with other pokémon on that page, please fix it. TheBlazikenMaster 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem hasn't been resolved. 

message: This article is having the same problem, you clearly paid no attention to what I said. There is a difference between merging and redirecting to blank section. Until there is actually content, there should be  tag and a full article. We are trying to merge, not redirect as much as we can. This is really important, merging is harder, a lot harder if you just redirect to a blank section. You guys seriously need to read about merging articles, and please reply and face your opinion on this, I did make this section for a reason, because I know what merging is and I know that the articles have been merged improperly. TheBlazikenMaster 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the problem that you don't know how to undo them or that you just haven't bothered to undo them? TTN 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I will undo them. I shouldn't have been so damn lazy. TheBlazikenMaster 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done with List of Pokémon (301-320)‎, if nobody else will, I will find more of these tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common I really need you guys 

message: How about 4 pictures of five pokemon each? We could have one picture, the list of the five right below. And then the second picture, the list of the five below, and so on. Would that work? -WarthogDemon 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to do that would be to combine the images, which would still be against the policy. TTN 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twas what I was suggesting and damn. Worth a shot asking at any rate. I suppose descrips will be the only way to go then. -WarthogDemon 05:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh. One question I would be concerned about though: If we're having main article images for Pikachu and Mewtwo, would their images be put independently in their shortened list entries as well? Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 06:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Solution? 

message: What's with that? I'd like to understand why this is being done.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's information in the two most recent archives, but the largest thing is WP:WAF. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers of individual Pokemon articles into lists of Pokemon... 

message: Someone needs to keep an eye on the list redirects, at least until the request for protection goes through.  I just spent a half-hour reverting edits that ILikePikachu used to negate the redirects.  Secondly, I note that said user has a beef against the merging. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged articles 

message: It seems that with the massive amounts of edits a day across all the lists that this cruft is working its way in. Just to clarify, I think general consensus is no game locations and only Anime appearances which are a major role in the plot of the series. Information on evolution also seems to be overkill as evolutions are listed on the template for each pokemon. Also the s are either getting worked out/deleted or text is being placed below them. Just some things to look for I guess while editing/watching the lists. SpigotMap 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if its a location for Red Gyarados, or a special Pokemon that can only be obtained one way? I mean, assuming the information wasn't speculation for one of the newer legandaries- would it still be Game Guide? Ageofe 00:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree with Ageofe. If a monster does something significant (Snorlax blocking your path, Poochyena chasing Birch around, Red Gyarados) or has some significance tied to an area (Unowns and their ruins, Whismur blocking construction in the Verdanturf tunnel), that ought to at least be given a passing mention. I don't necessarily agree, however, that this should apply to every monster that can only be obtained one way; giveaways (Lapras in RBYFL, Beldum in RSE) don't really bear much significance. Perhaps the issue then is not game locations, but rather game event influence. For the record, although I support the merge, I feel that a bit too much is being taken out of some profiles. You Can't See Me! 00:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I completely agree with leaving things like that in. But, for instance, I removed a snorlax section that went something like "Snorlax is found blocking path XXX south of XXXtown, awaken it by using pokeflute and it will attack you after which you can capture it." When "Snorlax is often seen blocking roads" would do just fine. SpigotMap 01:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason for mentioning what roads it blocks would be if it was a notable event in the series. As far as anime appearances, unless it played a major role in the plot, I don't see any reasoning for mentioning. SpigotMap 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Locations and Anime Appearances. 

message: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there is a proposed guideline on sources in articles in the scope of WP:VG. For example, all Pokémon are in this scope. Your edits and comments are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VG Sources Guideline Proposal 

message: Hi all, I just thought that it's possible & would be a good idea if we use just one template to cover everything Pokémon-related.  With so many templates, all of them being relatively small, it would be great for easy navigation.  I'm thinking on putting this on all the articles, but I'd love your feedback first.
Thanks, ætərnal ðrAعon → 10:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's great! Strange that nobody has thought of this before. I think the tv series, films and video games section are accurate, but the character section could use some tweaking. Take a look at the article List of Pokémon characters. Also, I think the Handheld video games and Console video games should be on the top of the list (below creators), not as one of the last. Again, great template! I say we use it. - Face 10:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too big, but what the hell! I like it, especially since it has hide option. TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.  Maybe under the category of species, I just put a link to the central page of List of Pokémon.  The lists of species are too bulky, so I guess that I'll keep the Pokémon list template and redirect it to the smaller lists. ætərnal ðrAعon → 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And another thing I forgot: I designed it so it would be much more sleek and less bulky, keeping only the necessary things.  I noticed that the first proposition mentioned by "You Can't See Me" was way too big and bulky and pretty much had everything down to the last detail.  I noticed that there were also a few articles on individual Pokémon such as Pikachu still roaming around so I put them there too.  For now, looks like HBdragon is kinda outnumbered in opinion so unless there's some big reason soon, I might as well put it in. ætərnal ðrAعon → 07:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, WP:PNSD.  Everybody else is all "I like it" but no-one has given a reason why the templates should be merged, or even why it's better to have them all merged together when their current apart-ness is just fine. hbdragon88 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you read the first reason I put up? Anyways, this is the third time I've had a run-in with HBdragon because you've disagreed with an idea I've had, but anyway, the reasons were that a)navigation is a pain, b)all the templates fall under the single category, c) the TV series, video games and films all share the same concept, and d) this is just a base template which can use the species template as an offshoot.  If you like, take a look at the EVA template which basically does the same thing as what I intended with this template: focuses on the media as a whole rather than the in-series universe. ætərnal ðrAعon → 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many templates

message: Do we really need the Legendary Pokemon template anymore? I mean, the only ones that still have pages are Mewtwo, Deoxys, and (for some strange reason) the Regis.Leprechaun Gamer 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's time that that template gets shot in the brain. It's clearly not needed anymore. That template would be too messy while on the list pages, and it would also have something that we don't want, redirects to the same page. Plus the text won't turn bold when we're in the section of that particular legend. TheBlazikenMaster 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Burn the template if its usefulness has ended.  If it means a TfD debate, so be it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  Not needed at all, I guess we can put the "List of Pokémon" template into those articles on Mewtwo and others even though they're not lists.  It won't make much sense, but then again species with individual articles are part of the lists anyway. ætərnal ðrAعon → 07:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legendary Pokemon 

message: Common, I'm very disappointed that the images had to go, I bet there is a good reason for that, but there must be a solution to add images. Believe it or not, there is nothing uncylopedic about them, nothing. They describe the creatures like they're supposed to. I have been trying to think, but I can't think of anything, so please help me find a solution. TheBlazikenMaster 20:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lists are useless without the images. 

message: This new version of the Pokedex really isn't something I like. It's short, uninformative, and doesn't even let know the user about what it looks like or anything. It's lousy.
Like before, we should have them on seperate pages. PRhyu 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you prepared to watchlist almost 500 pages and revert every incident of vandalism on them, as well as find reliable sources, cut down on fancruft, and substantially rewrite each article to fit WP:WAF?  If you aren't, then don't complain. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate pages

message: If anyone wishes to help make a consensus on the numbering of the episodes, please voice on the talk page. Going by air date has been the standard, but apparently, someone wants to make wikipedia official, he states "we most do this". Also, input is needed on the lettering of the episodes. Thanks! SpigotMap 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Pokémon episodes]] 

message: what's with the lack of images for the pokemon?DSDark 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go up the page and read the relevant sections. It's explained (though not quite solved yet). -WarthogDemon 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone tried looking in the game guides for suitable scans at all? I imagine that they may have suitable "group shots" if they detail the stats of each single one. TTN 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, those would be fair use as well. As it stands, anything more then one fair use image per list would probably be removed. SpigotMap 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not just Pokemon, Naruto is pretty hard pressed also, and i'm suprised that Digimon haven't had thier images deleted yet. I don't really think there is a way around this one- its probably best just to try and do as much with the articles as they are. We'll just end up argueing over which Pokemon deserve images or how they images look. Ageofe 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know there is a way around this one. We just have to find a solution. Remember: Nothing's impossible. We just gotta keep trying. TheBlazikenMaster 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll say it again, the Pokemon images are just being used as an illustration of the characters in question. Can that honestly be worth legal trouble? They're needed for articles that talk about the characters in question. If Nintendo were to make a legal threat about the images, which I severely doubt they're going to do to something like a reference tool, then maybe this can be brought up. But right now, this whole wondering about images vs no images is really just a waste. Toastypk 18:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it's pure bullshit to me. But what can we do? We should contact an admin and ask him/her to change the policy. Without the images people can get all the wrong ideas. TheBlazikenMaster 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I know that the merge has been going rather slowly; that's not what I mean. I noticed that in an effort to speed up the merge, focus has gone from salvaging and refining the more important information (namely Dex info) into just getting down whatever is possible so that one can proceed with the redirect. Take Slowbro for example:
Slowbro (ヤドラン, Yadoran in original Japanese language versions) are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise – a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. They are #80 in the National Pokédex.
Slowbro's name is a portmanteau of slow (as in "slow-witted") and bro (as in "brother", probably relating to the fraternal relationship it shares with the Shellder on its tail). Its Japanese name is most likely derived from 宿借り yadokari (hermit crab). The Shellder which bites on its tail sucks on the aforementioned syrup, and so it is hard to remove. Also toxins which leak from the bite pass into Slowbro, which numbs its immunity to pain even more.
Of all that, only the last two sentences are what we intended to keep while everything else is what we intended to get rid of - Name origin and templated paragraph. I haven't been personally involved in the merge for quite a while now, but for those of you who are, please don't rush. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline; take your time and put quality over quantity. You Can't See Me! 05:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging a bit too quickly... 

message: I have noticed that in past several days unregistered users used the lists to make a good moveset, but that's not encyclopedic at all. Can we do something about this? TheBlazikenMaster 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert and warn with the uw-trivia template; then start going to vandalism warnings if those are ignored.  We are NOT a game guide.  If need be, link them to Bulbapedia in the trivia warning. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  movesets.