Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia's turning into a dirt clump. What's the problem with seperate, real quality pages? Not everyone knows about Bulbapedia. ~Guest
*You're right, that's why we have link at the bottom of the page. Stop complaining and just go there, Wikipedia is supposed to be general info for people that know little or nothing about the subject. TheBlazikenMaster 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the biggest reason it's in shambles is because the merges aren't complete. -WarthogDemon 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, they're trying to cut down on game guide and original research.  Give them the benefit of the doubt. -Jéské (v^_^v) 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What happened to the mudkip article? Surely that is more noteworthy due to the internet meme? DLS 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what a meme is but that's already been discussed on that article's talk page and apparently not important. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) The meme has been argued up-and-down on Talk:Mudkip, and consensus is, for right now, do not add to Mudkip's section. May I suggest List of Internet phenomena? -Jéské (v^_^v) 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mudkip meme is as old and stupid as "All your base." I don't get why you would want to keep posting about it. Stop wasting your time.--ZXCVBNM 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the prompt response, I was just asking a question. DLS 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. -WarthogDemon 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nolle perspiration. -Jéské (v^_^v) 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone tell me again what is wrong with 'original research?' I only saw a bunch of articles which were well written shining examples of midrange quality and now I see a bunch of articles getting penned up into this junk, also despite AYB being an old meme it was a famous one for sure and had an internet impact. Also, I see nothing about this being a game guide. It explains some of the apparently fleshed out details of each pokemon. If small characters from throw-away shows can have their own articles, then why not pokemon? Klichka 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Give an example of the "small characters from throwaway shows" having their own articles.  As for what is wrong with original research, see Wikipedia:No original research.  If we can't verify it through a reliable, independent source (Serebii does not count; don't even go there), then we can't have it in Wikipedia. -Jéské (v^_^v) 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, "Wikipedia:Other crap exists" explains that argument. It doesn't matter if a throwaway character gets a page, it's still unencyclopedic. Also, Wikipedia isn't an episode or game guide. The Pokemon anime has, basically, 4% plot and 96% "action," and as such, plot summaries shouldn't be on each Pokemon article. Check out Bulbapedia for the full information.--ZXCVBNM 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for not writing civilly. As we've told countless IP addresses Bulbapedia has Pokemon gameply information. Or if it doesn't you're free to add the information. -WarthogDemon 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply to Generic Anon post about the merger: A detailed article on every pokemon fails to meet wikipedias Notability guidelines. And it's not just one un-notable it's over 480 un-notable articles. Do TV shows have bios on 480 something characters all with their own article? And another thing, this isn't other articles, this is this article. You may have thought Wikipedia to be a comprehensive resource on all things pokemon, unfortunately this is not what wikipedia is, it's a source for finding out general info about any given subject. SpigotMap 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge isn't because anyone's power hungry or because Pokemon doesn't have a plot (it does), but because 480 pages is WAY too many for the characters of a single franchise/series. It doesn't matter how famous it is. I guess I was a little too harsh in my above post, but you can always go to Bulbapedia, which should be in the links section.--ZXCVBNM 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is shit what happened to all the pokemon having their own articles, this is just confusing most people don't know or care what numbers the pokemon are. 60.229.38.1 10:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like most people didn't care about the anime info for every single fricking one, the game guide, the redundant physical description, etc.  See WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did 69.226.213.112 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then go to Bulbapedia.  We are NOT a fan encyclopedia.  We are NOT a specific-subject encyclopedia.  We are a general encyclopedia.  If you don't like that, go elsewhere. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you didn't read at all. The seperate aticles had problems that violate Wikipedia's standards. Stop complaining. -Sukecchi 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sick of complains. Instead of complaining about what's happening here, make a change here. Oh and it was broke, but just out of curiously, would the article still have been merged even if all the fansite references would have changed into anime/game whatever references? TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read, understand, and comprehend everything that's been stated above, please, before you lambaste us.  The "arguments" you're giving remind me way too much of the (actual) arguments anons used to try and defend SIHULM - complete disregard of anecdotal evidence, an inability to accept the situation, and borderline civility. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because we get nothing in terms of reliable sources. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand what a true encyclopedia is. A true encyclopedia has proven facts, and proof of notability. If we could add every little detail, it would be messy and not very easy to read. TheBlazikenMaster 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These IPs are only proving my point. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled section

message: Alison gave us 30 days' worth of IP-reprieve, so I figured I'd start a thread here.  How are we going to make it so that they get the message that posting any info on the Mudkip meme here or at Mudskipper is a waste of time and guaranteed to get them warned and/or blocked for disruption?  I concur with Alison's protection statement - the fun ended when they threatened me and impersonated User:Ksy92003. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the meme phrase to Lupin's filter. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So I Herd U Liek Semy-Proteksion? 

message: Isn't it worth note that although it was a 3rd gen. pokemon, its first appearance was in the first episode?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonrc2 (talk • contribs). 
:Not unless it is out-and-out confirmed. Next! -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAAAAAAAAAAAT... Ho-Oh was a second generation Pokemon, it was on the cover of Pokemon Gold. And yeah, that is confirmed like hell. It's right in the episodeNinja337 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* The bird in the first episode may have looked like a Ho-Oh, but there is nothing official to say that it is.  Also, there are a few physical differences between Ho-Oh and the mystery bird (and not even Ho-Oh's shiny is all gold).  These differences are the bigger concern, not the similarities.  Get me something official that says it was Ho-Oh, and we'll talk.  Until then, NEXT! -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it's confirmed to be Ho-Oh in later appearances. 71.203.209.0 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ash flat-out states it to be Ho-oh, and refers to it as the Pokémon he saw in the early episode. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's later confirmed flat-out that the pokemon is Ho-oh. I'm really getting fed up with random people trying to claim that anything that is obvious to any two year old, especially after it's confirmed, is original research. It's simply ridiculous. The Pokemon is Ho-oh. This was known for some time BEFORE the episode confirmed it. It was probably gold because back then Ho-Oh wasn't completed by the designers. Stop trying to make an argument out of everything and put it in the article.User: Muramasa itachi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.167.143 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No; Lugia wasn't in the games until Gold/Silver/Crystal. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ho-oh

message: As "List of Pokémon" is currently arbitrarily divided into twenty-five subarticles, I propose merging all twenty-five articles into a single one. —Typhlosion 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that would be nothing short of impossible because there are 20 in each article, meaning there are almost 500 Pokes to fit into one article.  One-liners and/or galleries do not work for list articles around here, and we'd like these articles to at least be accesible to people who still use dial-up.  Besides, we already have one. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Way WAY too big. -WarthogDemon 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we at least merge them into Kanto/Johto, ect sections? DragonDance 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still too large (151/100/135/112). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I have requested a checkuser to try and root out the sleeping socks in the drawer; this Mudkip $#!+ really has to end. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my hidden message IS decreasing the rate, reverting is the easiest way. TheBlazikenMaster 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because this page is semi-protected, Blaziken.  I'm requesting the RFCU because these accounts have only meme edits to their name, whether here or on Mudskipper, which is also semi'd. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be true, but still. I used many hidden messages, and it worked well on stopping a lot of repeated info in articles. Whether semi protected or not. TheBlazikenMaster 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The results are in: No sleepers detected. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Full-prot for 72 hours.  This is starting to cross the line into blatant disregard of the hidden comment and blatant disregard of the consequences. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe you think the hidden comment ain't working, you might be right. But I make sure it's telling the truth, I give each person a warning that adds that crap. TheBlazikenMaster 23:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And those warnings are starting to get vandalized by the users that get them.  It's turning into a Rodney Riot situation, and we're the Koreans. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy to spot people trying to avoid their own warnings. Just choose the user talk namespace in "My contributions". TheBlazikenMaster 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always; PwnzerTank twisted his last warning's words to make it look like the warner was encouraging him to disrupt the article. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The feature (top) is there so you will know if you're the one making the latest chance. Well, nothing's gonna stop this, so we have to live with that, and fight it instead. TheBlazikenMaster 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Pokemon- people are going to vandalise the pages no matter what, unfortunatly some more than others. When have vandals ever not had blatant disregard for the rules? Ageofe 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism is about a meme, not Pokemon. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if it's Pokémon? This might never end, but I can give a good example of vandalism that met its end because of the message. I haven't seen crap about Will Smith's death for months now. TheBlazikenMaster 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew! Reading your comment made me think for a moment that Will Smith actually died recently, so I had to check his article to see otherwise. ^_^; And I'm assuming it was the result of full-fledged consensus not to ever mention this meme anywhere on Wikipedia. I hadn't been following that when the issue was making its initial rounds, but I'm looking at the relevant discussions on my own time. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCU 

message: After the protection expires, users need to to start sourcing the article. Alternatively an admin can add the  tag.Bless sins 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I think that, for the sake of everyone who has not heard of it, that for each section, we add a link to Bulbapedia article for that pokemon DragonDance 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be a tad overdoing it, unless somehow the link to Bulbapedia at the bottom of each list isn't enough. -WarthogDemon 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Bulbapedia 

message: I think it improves the article to have the boxart images from G/S/C here, as it gives a face to those Pokémon. They fit well in the other articles; what does everyone else think? - MK ( talk/contribs ) 07:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxart 

message: Given how many people are suggesting we add SIHULM, I'm going to state ALL the reasons why we can't add it:
:*Not sure where it came from - We have several users saying 4chan, while others are saying that it came from a PM on DeviantART.  We don't have evidence either way. According to user:Muramasa itachi and User:Skion (Talk:Mudkip/Archive02), it was originally a DeviantART PM invitation; Muramasa's details about it above make me confident about that.
:*Troll - Mudkip's talkpage had to be semi-protected because anons (and registered users; see Mr. itachi above) were trolling in defense of it, and after an unprotection request for the original article was denied, the anon that requested it replied with personal attacks and trolling.  I have been threatened, and Ksy has had six personal attacks laid on him and been impersonated.
:*WP:NOT - There is ample evidence that the only reason people want this in the article is to spread the word.
:*No reliable sources - Nobody, anon or registered, has appeared with reliable sources.  Serebii, 4chan, other wikis, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. are not reliable sources for Wikipedia because they are anonymous (making it impossible to trace a statement made there to its source), they do not engage in content reviewing to make sure only truth is in there, and items there are prone to rapid change.
::*While we're at it, MySpace also fails as a reliable source, as do other blogs.
:*Vandalism - While there are some good-faith efforts here, the meme has also been seen on Saturday, Axolotl, :Mudkip (the redirect, that is), and Mudskipper, none of which have been good-faith so far as I've seen.  All of those articles and this one are semi-protected because of this.
:*Suspension of assumption - this is a behavior issue with those defending it; most of them instantly assume bad faith on the parts of those who don't want it in the article.
I gess yuo dont leik mudkips  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.212.58 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIHULM