Talk:Charizard

message: Should someone put in the article that Charizard won #1 in this IGN Poll http://www.ign.com/top/pokemon/1 ? 173.186.19.164 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGN Poll 

message: This article seems to have been hacked by someone; look at the first sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.92.119 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hacked

message: I found this statement on the page directly below the image of Charizard at the top right:
"Charzard's [sic] original sprite had purple wing membranes and he was originally fire/poison type. Charzard also had yellow eyes and a violet flame."
I removed it, as it was improperly located and had no citation, and I couldn't find an online source that confirmed it. If anyone knows of a reliable source for it, feel free to add the information back in. -742mph (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Prototype Charizard concept

message: In this edit I removed the section on competitive usage because, although done in good faith, it was chock-full of in-game jargon that is completely inaccessible to readers who are unfamiliar with the game. Also, Wikipedia is not a game guide. I will further note that I found out after my reversion that another editor had done the same on the basis that the content was game-guide-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game jargon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=91965
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616131955/http://www.cpsc.gov:80/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04195.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04195.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Charizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005013748/http://www.makefive.com/categories/entertainment/television/best-pokemon/charizard to http://www.makefive.com/categories/entertainment/television/best-pokemon/charizard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714161821/http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/2.2756/pondering-pokemon-1.255952 to http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/2.2756/pondering-pokemon-1.255952
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100324151424/http://www.ugo.com/games/super-smash-bros-characters-charizard to http://www.ugo.com/games/super-smash-bros-characters-charizard
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018171825/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8988499 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=8988499
*Added  tag to http://www.dailycardinal.com/arts/if-records-were-pokemon-bands-would-only-improve-1.2124211
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should I put a section of Competitive history? Galefuun (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your original edit because it wasn't formatted properly or in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style. I believe that an "in competitive play" section would be interesting, although I don't believe it works as its own heading, rather a sub-heading under Characteristics. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 03:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitive Play? 

message: Hello,
This section seems filled with conjecture and rather emotive/subjective language. Just FYI.
Kind Regards 203.221.127.156 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitive Battling 

message: Tagging @Greenish Pickle!, @QuicoleJR, @Pokelego999, @Zxcvbnm, @AirshipJungleman29 as the participants in the Good article reassessment from last week.
I'm.. generally confused as to everything that happened there. The article was kept as a GA on the grounds that "Delisting good articles is done when it is determined that the original review was incorrect or no longer applies.", but that's just not the case - per WP:GAR, "is a process used to review and improve good articles that may no longer meet the good article criteria. GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted." And the nominator's concerns were partially ignored - in fact, a good chunk of them still apply.
Particularly, I'm concerned about the verifiability of some sections of the article. The Reception section has a cleanup tag specifically for this purpose - by my guess, about half of it is cited to lists of "top 10 coolest pokémon" and the like - is that really the type of sourcing we want to use? But these issues go deeper into the article - for example, there's an entire section of plot that really seems to be toeing the line of WP:MOSFICT - a lot of it is interpretation and analysis that seems to fall afoul of WP:OR. Compare that to the section about the video games directly above it, which doesn't go nearly as in-depth about the plot and (to me at least) feels much more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Also, the section "Competitive battling" is entirely cited to the previously mentioned listicles and a fanzine. 
I don't think this article is necessarily bad by any means but it does need a sprucing up, for sure. casualdejekyll 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm not entirely sure why Greenish Pickle! decided to close the discussion (to be perfectly honest I hadn't noticed), but I have no objection to you renominating it. For what it's worth, the only issue I can see is the WP:MOSFICT issue; if the "listicles" are from reliable sources, I don't see a reason to remove them. Greenish Pickle! referred to "scholarly sources" without providing specifics in their nomination, so if those were found the article could certainly be improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone who is passionate about this topic should try cleaning up the article before renominating anything. Just stripping it of GA status won't really accomplish much. By and large, the problem lies in Reception needing a rewrite.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

text: The GA Reassessment closed before I was able to add anything further to the conversation, but my points still stand and I still agree. I think Charizard has what it takes for GA Status, but the article needs some touch-ups and rewrites, namely things like "Patch up sourcing state in Reception" and fixes/changes on various sections (For instance, Competitive Battling doesn't seem too notable by and large, especially since none of the other Pokemon articles have this section) I'd make changes myself, but I'm pressed for time these days, so I'm not sure I'm too well equipped to handle fixing a Good Article.  Pokelego999 (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article reassessment reassessment?