Talk:Torchic

message: There has been a lot of people here saying that this article shouldn't be a featured one. If you are one of those, please feel free to contribute to the discussion. But let me remind you about what it currently means that an article is featured.
# It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
# It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects [...].
# It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
# It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Badda-Bing Badda-Bong. That's it! No really! Write an article that fullfills those points and it has a great great potential to become a featured article.
The subject of the article doesn't matter! As long it is a subject that is substantial enough to justify its existence here on Wikipedia as an ordinary article (atleast I think that's the rule).
Please keep this in mind while you discuss if this article should be featured or not.
PureRumble 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that nobody responds to this message is proof enough that people who think Torchic or Bulbasaur or Lindsay Lohan or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi should not be Featured Article are really clueless as to what other criteria should be met by an FA candidate. It's easy to criticise, but to actually give a meaningful suggestion requires brain, which these people don't have. --87.162.1.152 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Featured Article? 

message: Currently the nihongo templates in paragraph two are incorrect, as the Latin text appears where the Japanese should (causing the strange font). However, there are two ways to change them, and I'm not sure which is best.
The Japanese name for Torchic, , is a portmanteau of  , a term for baby, and , a breed of Japanese bird, originally bred for fighting or hunting.
or
The Japanese name for Torchic, , is a portmanteau of  , a term for baby, and , a breed of Japanese bird, originally bred for fighting or hunting.
Which is better? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the strange font? And the second. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yay, first topic! ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare  to . Note that in the first one it appears smaller and uses a different font. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (But not in Internet Explorer apparently...) smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is my problem ; ) I've fixed it with the second version, thanks for the help Smur. (Like it'll make a difference since the walls are coming down on the stupid FAC ¬_¬) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nihongo 

message: Can we add the shiny picture somehow (To help keep featured article?) I dont know how, can someone help out?   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerasdfzxcvvcxz (talk • contribs) .
:Well the only significant shiny Torchic is the "Torchic Star" card, which features what appears to be a shiny Torchic, but I don't think it would help the article fabulously (the article would have to go into shiny Pokémon detail, which has very little to do with Torchic itself). Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need one! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, see this PokéBeach page for a near-rendition of the first 386 Shiny Pokémon! -- A. Exeunt 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article hasn't been up that long and its already been vandalized numerous time.  Should we consider semi-protection if it keep happening?  I've made four vandalism removals so far in about 5 minutes MelicansMatkin 00:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, many people are too immature to handle the Internet and such an excellent source as Wikipedia (due to the obvious amounts of vandalism over a pokemon, like with Bulbasaur; or sexual position FAs). Such immaturity, unfortunately, cannot be countered by sprotection, since we aren't allowed to sprotect frontpage articles. — Deckiller 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are, if they get about ten times the vandalism here. -Amarkov blahedits 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Bulbasaur was protected though?  Please correct me if I'm wrong MelicansMatkin 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, but it isn't on the front page. -Amarkov blahedits 00:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant while it was FA.  I seem to remember reading that in its talk page MelicansMatkin 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can be protected while on the frontpage, but they need like 100 times the amount of vandalism any other article needs. -Amarkov blahedits 00:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, it helped to clear up my confusion.  MelicansMatkin 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: Please remove and ban the user who put up the photo of the butt.
User:Sam72991
:: OMG Why did I let my kids do research on Wikipeida! 71.135.72.4 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  nice try, agent provocateur 72.36.251.234 05:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who put up that picture?

message: We should temporarily semi-protect the page. Those shock photos are very disturbing and I don't know what would happen if a young child were to see them. Jay Gatsby(talk) 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clearing various Internet things, they were removed a while ago. --86.130.21.79 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the shock images 

message: There seems to be a bit of a conflict about whether or not this should be a featured article, however please stop posting rude thoughtless comments on this talk page.  I must be honest though, I laughed a bit when I saw it...  *cough* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.131.52 (talk • contribs) 
:You're one to talk with those vandalism templates on your user page. Sign your posts with ~~~~
Blindman shady 03:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: The article on the front page should be something that will grap readers' attention. This isn't even a unique topic: "Torchic are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the Pokémon media franchise." So we're not even getting an article on Pokemon Creatures or Pokemon Franchise, we're hearing about 1/493rd of this franchise.
:Featured articles don't have to be on a particularly interesting topic. -Amarkov 
blahedits 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean other people won't. 68.227.214.59 04:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting???

message: Sorry, that was an accident - I was trying to revert it to the non-vandalized version of the page, but a Bot had already got it and I reverted to a vandalized version by mistake :). Just noting this here so that I'm not banned or anything, it was an accident. --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding this edit 

message: I don't think it's a good idea for fan-cruft to become featured articles. How do I familiarize myself with the featured article selection process, in order to influence it enough to make only serious articles featured candidates in the future? -- Mikeblas 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "fancruft" - It's a legitimate article on a fictional subject, and it cites the bulk of its facts. Also, and article's subject itself doesn't have to be "interesting" - but the article has to pass a process to see if it is well written. Cheers :). --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although if you do want to be involved in the featuring process for articles, this is the place to go to: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I'm not much familiar with how it's run myself, so just look around a little at how it's done. Cheers :). --Brandt Luke Zorn 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You will never get enough influence to be able to oppose a FAC and have it definitely fail. -Amarkov blahedits 05:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unfortunate that the need for Pokepedia has eluded the Pokepedians. -- Mikeblas 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You realize that based on your arguments a good number of Wikipedians are useless.  If Wikipedia shouldn't have any "fancruft" as you so liberally put it, then well I suppose all my contributions are null and void, as are a number of damn good Wikipedians I know. I don't know how many bloody times this can be said; subject matter is entirely irrelevant when it comes to FA.  Now please, for the love of all Wikipedia, build a bridge and get over it.  DoomsDay349 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm simply applying the definition that the WP:CRUFT essay gives. I don't think the minutia and trivia in this article is interesting to anyone aside from a Pokemon fan. The article cites lots of references, but they come down to be only a few sources. -- Mikeblas 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Features 

message: Almost 2 hours has passed since the last vandal (if I'm reading the dates and times correctly).
I was a bit shocked actually. I rushed to the front page to check if this still is the featured article of today. I checked the news.bbc.co.uk just to make sure that america hasn't disappeared or something else that would attract the attention of everyone (especially the vandalizors). But no, nothing :-/ So how come? PureRumble 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's only been about an hour. As for America, it's the middle of the night here. Or at least... really early in the morning.-- M C Y 1008 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the American vandalwave hasn't come yet it is sure bound to. --WikiSlasher 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had no idea the times in the history-section were UTC. So if your right then we should have a sh*t-storm comming in in about eight hours (yeah the time will be like 1pm in america and all the lazy vandalizors and pokemon-bathcers will have gotten out of bed :-P) PureRumble 09:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect we're also seeing a just-before-Christmas effect here, where people are more concerned with gathering around the family yule log than editing Wikipedia. Recent changes is noticeably quieter than usual. Which is great, because it means I'm only reverting vandalism about every two minutes, rather than every thirty seconds. Perhaps this should be a lesson to us all to ensure that the next time we want to make fancruft a featured article, Christmas is a really good time to do it. ;) Squeezeweasel 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just LOL! That's a really good idea :)! PureRumble 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the sake of record... everything is calm. 

message: Congratulations on getting featured article status. This featured article has a lot of references, but most appear to be either published articles in WP:RS reliable sources, such as main stream publications, which are about Pokemon rather than this specific one out of the 493 characters, or blogs or fansites which are how-to guides for playing the game and exploiting the characteristics of this Pokemon character. I was wondering if some one familiar with the quality of the references could show that there are, say 3 articles from mainstream publications in which this character is the primary subject of the article. This is in relation to a review of how standards for notability WP:N are upheld for things in the world (churches, shopping malls, TV masts, libraries, city streets, schools, professors) versus electronic things which may have more appeal to Wikipedia editors (such as TV show episodes and characters, video game characters, game weapons,  and game spaceships, game locations,  rock and rap songs and CDs) and  fictional things (movies, books, and the characters, scenes, ships, battles, etc. in them.) Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. Edison 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Torchic is a notable fictional character because it is an arguably main character in both the video games and anime.  Giving it full encyclopedic treatment would make it too large of a section on either of those pages.  In addition it is featured in a TCG and manga.  It fulfills the requirements at WP:FICT on being notable.  as for WP:RS, when writing about fiction it is acceptable to use primary sources for descriptive points, and there is no requirement i could find at WP:RS that stated sourced material had to be solely about the subject.  And as for your opinion of fansites, if a fansite is reputable, subject to indepenent fact-checking, corroborates with other independent sources, declares it's sources, and is stable it passes the requirements at WP:RS#Non-scholarly sources.  Labelling something a "fansite" does not make it uncredible. The reliable sources are being used for description, not analysis.  Although it does seem some of the refs are not porperly linking, i'll be contacting the person who put them in to see if he can straighten it out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:N]] and [[WP:RS]] questions

message: You need to at least to semi-protect it. I had to click "next 50" at least four times in the history to see an edit that was not on December 23. --75.21.40.198 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect this page!!! 

message: Some moments I was thinking that this day would never come to an end. But here we are! Torchic is no longer on the main page, and being there 24 hours had only positive results (except the vandalz (which can't really count as a result 'cause good wikipedians always keep reverting their changes ;-) )). We have had some good edit and some good discussions about what a featured article should be.
So, wikipedians! No matter if you consider FAs being overrun and invaded by the unbeatable pokémons is a good thing, or if this is something that ruins your sleep late at nights... I salute you, for a good 24-hours shift! Cheers! *Raising my glass of julmust and eating some chips*
PureRumble 00:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I get it... you do want peace forever, don't you? ;-) PureRumble 01:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I salute you for a good day of work! 

message: Does anyone think it would be a good idea to add small=yes to most of the templates at the top of this page as is done at Talk:Wikipedia? --WikiSlasher 05:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because I find it to be virtually unreadable, especially for the  header. I think skiptotoctalk is an adequate solution.  I'd also favor intergrating the Nintendo WikiProject somehow...either to a work group or something. Hbdragon88 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk template tags 

message: Hi, someone brought up this article at the Village Pump, citing it as an example of featured article on a "useless" subject, which of course confuses the point of featured articles. Nevertheless, some people cited some problems with the article that could be fixed to improve it further. The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Shame, really. – Þ  17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical commentary from Village Pump 

message: This article is pathetically sourced, and seems to fail WP:N miserably. I was looking at the references closely, and they don't stand up to scrutiny.
Some highlights:
*Many of the cited references don't even back up the claims made. For example, take the reference to ; this isn't cited as a source that Combusken is a flying Pokémon; it's cited as a source that it isn't a flying Pokémon. WTF?
*The claim of the origin of the name, a debatable linguistic analysis, is sourced to a Pokémon fansite.
*Reference #3 is directly to a Japanese-English dictionary, which makes no reference to Torchic at all.
*At least a third of the references (I gave up counting) are to poorly-written, not-at-all-analytical anime episode summaries on Serebii.
*The references to Gamespy, IGN, and Gamespot don't mention Torchic at all.
*The article is laden with references to primary sources for facts of questionable importance. How are any of the toys important? Nobody has seen fit to comment on them but Hasbro. How is the recall important? The only party to comment is the recalling party.
Additionally, this article doesn't have a single word on the creative process that led to the creation of Torchic, nor a single word of sourced analysis or critical reception.
I'm not sure if this is FA quality. I'm not sure if this is GA quality. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is obvious we have to nominate this article on WP:FAR. Changes should be made during the FAR period. If they are not then the article can progress into FARC and potentially have its FA status revoked. Funpika 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical issue: sourcing and comprehensiveness 

message: This article was promoted to GA in March 2006 and to FA in June 2006. It was removed from FA in April 2007. Removed FAs are not automatically reassessed as GA without a new GA nomination. You are welcome to nominate it again at WP:GAC. Gimmetrow 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... I'm confused. It passed GA before, so why does being promoted further mean that it's no longer be a GA? -Amarkov moo! 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article now is probably quite different from the article originally named GA over a year ago. Whatever issues caused the article to be removed from FA would likely disqualify from GA now, so a former GA status should not automatically be reinstated without a review. Renomination at WP:GAC is the appropriate way to have it reviewed. Gimmetrow 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, just wanted clarification. -Amarkov moo! 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed GA