Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

With the ammount of enthusiasm surrounding my editing of the Pokemon Trading Card Game article (which has been less than amazing), I'm beginning to wonder if the TCG deserves its own project, or sub-project under the PCP.

Let me know your thoughts so we can discuss this. Spinach Dip 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, such a project would include exactly two articles: Pokémon Trading Card Game and List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets. Maybe if there was more to work on? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is more to work on. It's all been neglected for far too long.

For starters; The main page should be brought up to GA status at least. Pokemon organized Play needs MAJOR editing. 23 Sets need articles. Energy card, Pokemon card, and Trainer Card can all be improved. There's at least two spin-off articles that are needed from the main page. Every article needs references. The PTCG category needs to be reworked, all articles should be kept up-to date, and random speculation needs to be deleted and withheld from future edits.

That's a little bit more than 2 articles. Spinach Dip 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

actually there are 15 pages listed in the TCG category. i have no idea if any of them need to be merged or expanded, but considering the amount of members we have, i think it would make sense if we had a subproject with their own goals, and discussions. the subgroup could also help to expand on the TCG sections that are lacking in the species articles.

could someone show me how to include a wikilink to a category without making the talk page a category item? -Zappernapper 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value would an article on each set have? It'd be a magnet for OR, opinion, and game-guide, while having no possibility of encyclopedic commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedaic content for sets would consist of; when the set was released, what cards were in it, what rules were changed with it's release (if any), and the cards that made the biggest impact. Impact cards are NOT opinions for cards that were rotated out 3 years ago. Almost everyone can agree on which cards were important.

Even if there is no point to the set articles and they're all deleted (bad idea), there's still a ton of work that needs to be done in other areas.

Spinach Dip 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What you just proposed seems to be a game guide, and I can't see how you'd find any reliable sources (meaning not fansites) for anything but the barest bare facts (card lists and release dates). I'd work on the umbrella articles first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, even without the set articles, there's a ton of work to be done.

Out of curiosity, how much do you know about the TCG? Spinach Dip 07:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some more evidence: THe main article was vandalized earlier today (I just reverted it), but before I got to it, it had sat there for 8 hours. We need people to check articles and revert subtle vandalism whenever they see it. Spinach Dip 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

just be careful SpinachDip, describing something as "important" will require a reliable source that goes beyond the TCG sites. Forum discussions and even small time reviews can't really be used for citing something like that. you might want to look over Nintendo's online company info to see if they mention it in any of their quarterlies. However larger TCG mags maybe viable, like using Scrye for a M:tG ref. -Zappernapper 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget the sets. They're probably the minorest articles in the whole family.

Is there any good reason why the TCG shouldn't have its own project or sub-project? Spinach Dip 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

well, i'm all for a project, but it just doesn't seem there's enough interest for it... i know that I know nothing about the TCG. However, many people do know something, they just don't appear interested. perhaps creating the subproject would allow for a focus of TCG specific goals and draw interest. Maybe subproject is going too far, and all you need is a TCG subpage WP:PCP/TCG that contains links to the main article focus and has a to-do list. you get enough contributors you could then branch the page off into its own subproject. -Zappernapper 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the human character articles seem to be citing Serebii's episode guides as refs. Instead of that, shouldn't we be using something like:

“

Pokémon anime. Episode #85463, "[insert ep name here]"

”

as refs? After all, we're getting the info from the anime, not the guides, and the guides, however long, are not comprehensive. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To me, there appears to be two reasons for citing episode guides:

1. To provide a link so people can read at least a basic overview of the event being addressed.
2. Whether or not this is a bad thing will depend on individual perceptions, and it may not have been intentional, or I could be wrong. It seems like deception to me to cite episode guides; it seems like disguising a primary source as a secondary source. The lack of secondary sources for Pokémon could make this okay, but like I said this is up to individual perception, and I could be wrong. Cheers, -- THL 09:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing the episode name and number when addressing something specific (Ash and Misty battled for a Totodile) is the best form for using it as a primary source. Keep in mind that if you were cite serebii as a ref, you would be saying that you are relying on serebii's guide raher than direct observation. Which is better? -Zappernapper 17:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct observation could be called original research, but with something as obvious as saying they battled that probably wouldn't be a problem. It would probably be better to cite the episode, as that eliminates a middle man and has to be more complete then Serebii's guide. It also eliminates another fansite citation, and can keep the article from relying too much on one source (assuming that there is more than one reference to Serebii.net like many articles). For things that require interpretation, like personality-defining moments, it would probably be best to cite Serebii to avoid the original research claim; whether or not Serebii interprets it. -- THL 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, cite episodes. And don’t use numbers, as they differ from region to region. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So the overall consensus is? Citing episodes gets rid of possible interpretation by guides made by people who have simply watched the show, which is similar to making OR on wikipedia by just writing what you think. But including a guide's link gives a link that refers to this, which deletes the possibility of it to be the OR of someone contributing to wikipedia. I prefer citing an episode itself. Yoshitsune Shaojian 05:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

r the numbers different in europe than in america? i wasn't aware. to my knowledge the only episode numbers commonly in use are either american or japanese, and i think giving either (noting which) or both is very acceptable and should be encouraged because it helps the reader understand references chronologically. -Zappernapper 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The episodes should all have unique production numbers, right? Those are uniform in all countries. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

whatever they might be, i'm sure i don't know, i've never seen them mentioned anywhere. -Zappernapper 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal to merge all the cities and towns was brought up here, but I've no idea what became of it. I know for a fact the the Sinnoh cities were merged yesterday into Sinnoh#Cities and towns. Unless anyone has any objections, i'd recommend we get to work merging the rest of them, cutting down all the gameguides, Bulbapedia-style infoboxes and cruft. (Of course, why List of Kanto locations exists, retaining every little bit of cruft, while the articles on individual Kanto locations are still extant, is anyone's guess.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I support merging them into articles by region, IF, and only if, ALL the information in the individual articles is preserved, otherwise, I absolutely object. Also, each town that does not yet have an article NEEDS to have a redirect to the appropriate region article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make here is exactly that much of the "info" is cruft. Does the fact that a random city has a population of 13 in the game deserveve mention? Every city can be described in two lines: First, the notable places in it, second, it's anime appearances. Every other info, such as the one in Lavender Town (a random example) is cruft. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

while i agree that ur example is written as a game-guide (not "cruft" per se) that doesn't mean they can't be rewritten with the useful information found there. Take the paragraph on Mr. Fuji. I'm sure it could be rewritten, removing the "after you do X" stuff, to briefly discuss his small role as a "damsel in distress" that's used as a plot device and that he rewrads you with the PokeFlute, a useful item for regular gameplay beyond it's superficial use as a MacGuffin. Or something like that. But it's true, most of the cities could prolly be condensed after removing How-to material and fit them by region onto list pages. i'd have to take a closer look ya know? -Zappernapper 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just from looking at the Kanto region towns, the amount of extraneous information in Lavender Town's article (and, to a lesser extent, Indigo Plateau's) seems to be an isolated incident. The rest probably need to be trimmed, but aren't horrible.

On a somewhat related note, I also think we should get rid of the "Demographics"/"Population" section. First of all, the "population" of these towns is different in every game, which creates an inconsistency. Second, while the number of non-player characters in a given town or city represents each area's relative population, it really says nothing about actual population. Seeing "The population of Lavender Town is 33" at the end of the ariticle not only reeks of in-world perspective, it looks just plain silly. If I came across, let's say, the Saffron City article at random, with no experience with Pokémon, I would laugh at the statement that this major "metropolitan area" is home to only 66 people. This just needs to be gotten rid of. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Another issue that should be discussed IMO: Right now we have Kanto (Pokémon) and List of Kanto locations separate and side-by-side. Shouldn't these be merged as one article on the Kanto region and then the rest of the Kanto location articles redirect there? I'm pretty sure the casual reader would want information on Kanto and all of its locations in list form in one space. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a list of links to the cties, and then the information for non-city areas? A single page with all the cities just wouldn't work: while the information about them relating to the games is somewhat limited, you have to remember the anime as well. A single page would be way, way too long. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bring up an old topic, but it seems that this conversation died without reaching a real conclusion. Are we removing references to Stages from all the infoboxes (which would in turn mean deleating the categories: Category:Baby Pokémon, Category:Basic Pokémon, Category:Stage 1 Pokémon and Category:Stage 2 Pokémon), or are we leaving them in? In the case of the latter, are we going to change the title to "TCG Stage", seeing as how the anime and games do not really use "Stage"? If it is changed, then the Togepi line can have its Stages replaced (TCG only refers to Togepi as "Basic") and the categories can be filled. This would finally eliminate any confusion over which Pokémon is what stage and bring this topic to a close. As it stands now, it seems rather odd that the Togepi family is the only group without a Stage listing. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently had a little talk with NP Chilla (t c), who had been adding Pokémon to Baby, Basic, Stage-1, and Stage-2 categories. I recall that AMIB and Amarkov had been working on an adjustment to the species infoboxes so we could avoid these terms. How are we doing on that project? Are we good with implementing the additions to the articles? Or do we want to continue using Baby, Basic, and the other terms despite the issue with Togepi? --Brandon Dilbeck 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine is as good as it's going to be. I have no idea about his. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while other terms are TCG-only, the video games DO refer to baby Pokémon. -- WikidSmaht (talk)

Can we at least finally decide on what Togepi is considered?? I don't think that the games have called it a baby, so that would make it Basic, per TCG. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When and where does any game refer to Togepi as a 'baby' above anything else? Spinach Dip 09:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't. I just said that. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK,The games don’t refer to any specific Pokémon as babies, but they DO refer to baby Pokémon in general, and in the games Togepi has all the characteristics of other accepted baby Pokémon. It can normally only be obtained in an egg prior to DP, it cannot breed but evolves into a Pokémon that can, its move set is full of moves like Charm, Sweet Kiss and Metronome, in the National ’dex it is grouped with Pichu, Cleffa and Igglybuff, (the other 3 happiness-evolving baby Pokés from the 2nd gen). And I hate to bring it up, but its demeanor in the anime clearly indicates it is meant to be a juvenile and inexperienced Pokémon. Don’t argue that the anime isn’t canon, because the TCG isn’t, either. I fully support removing stage from the infoboxes, but in the infobox if it remains, in categorization, and in descriptive passages, Togepi should definitely be considered a baby. OTOH, it might be worthwhile to mention the stages of various Pokémon in the TCG sections of their respective articles. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

grouping things together without some reference is OR. if they were even called that in an offical gameguide it might be permissible, but i haven't seen one put out by nintendo or prima that would suggest such (i think i may have seen them grouped once for breeding purposes). This doesn't mean we should ascribe Stage X or Basic in any sections other than TCG. Either that or add the word TCG to the infobox. what's the arguement? if someone says they are specifically called Baby, Basic, Stage 1, Stage 2 in formats other than the TCG then let them present an example. -Zappernapper 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the Togepi debate (consensus will never be reached). But this is important; IF we use stage as a stat on the Pokemons' pages, they should all be done the same way. That means either using the TCG definition of 'stage' or the GBA version. No combination of both. Spinach Dip 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that just changing it to "TCG stage" or the like would work, since the video games never have mentioned them. In fact, mentions of "baby Pokémon" in the games could simply be referring to any Pokémon that has recently hatched - it doesn't have to imply a stage.

Actually, since no Pokémon evolutionary tree has more than three of these so-called stages, there's no reason to define the matter further, since the infobox states what its TCG "stage" is, and which Pokémon it evolves from or into. Say you wanted to know where, for example, Charmander stands in its evolutionary tree. One can see from the "TCG stage" section that it is a Basic-stage Pokémon. Then, if you wanted to determine if it has a "pre-evolution", or if its the first form in its tree, you can just look at the "Evolves from" box to find out.

Until Nintendo (or the Pokémon Company) actually comes up with an explicit system (if ever), this works just fine, in my opinion. Just add "TCG" to the stage box and it should be fine. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Still a problem with Togepi, as the card game is inconsistent. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Then just state in the infobox (or refer to a section in the article itself) that Togepi is an exception, and that it is unclear which "stage" it is. I don't see how that's a major problem. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How is the card game inconsistant in this matter? Spinach Dip 02:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One example is that in recent sets, formerly baby Pokemon like Tyrogue are now classified as Basic Pokemon just like the Pokemon they evolve into. Also, you'd think Anorith would be a Basic Pokemon, but in the card game they made it a Stage 1 Pokemon that evolves from a trainer card. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I had assumed from what Amarkov wrote that Togepi appeared as both a Baby and a Basic in the TCG. If that is not the case, then it should be classified as a Basic-stage. Really, the "Baby" stage as used in the TCG is just a mechanism so that existing Basic cards could be evolved from their corresponding "Baby" cards without needing to reprint new versions. And, as is pointed out here, in the Fossil set of the TCG, Omanyte and Kabuto are (like Anorith) both Stage 1, because they technically "evolved" from Mystrious Fossil.

If the current notation system is inconsistent, and there's no official alternate, then you either make up yur own (unsuitable for Wikipedia's purposes) or make do withwhat you have. Again, the infobox gives enough information already to determine where a given Pokémon stands in its evolution. ~e.o.t.d~ 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All 'Baby' Pokemon printed since Nintendo took the game over have been basic Pokemon, BUT, they've all had a Poke-Power called "Baby Evolution", allowing them to evolve into their common evolutions (Pichu into Pikachu, etc.). All Baby Pokemon since Neo Genesis evolve into Basic Pokemon. Lastly, no baby Pokemon since Neo Genesis have had 2 attacks. Togepi does not follow any of these characteristics.

As far as the TCG is concerned, Togepi is a basic Pokemon. End of story. Spinach Dip 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I sure would like it to be ended... The last time this subject was discussed here, the general conclusion was to remove the cells on Evolves From, Evolves To, and Stage and replace them with a chart showing all the Pokemon in evolution trees like this on Beautifly's page:

Wurmple

Silcoon

Beautifly

Cascoon

Dustox

As I recall, AMIB and Amarkov worked on it, but I dunno where that went, it may have disappeared once AMIB began accusing Pokemon pages as not being real articles. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a much better way of handling it, personally. It removes all the "stage names", and it's fairly easy to read. The only problems that might arise are with Pokémon that have an especially large tree, which would take up a lot of space, but if it stops the drama, I say it's better than the current system. ~e.o.t.d~ 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Eevee is the only one with a bigger tree than that, and we decided that Eevee would just have to be hacked manually. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Last night i spent some time creating a possible solution for the problem that between our 450+ articles on pokemon species they all look one of several ways. Either they still have seperate Biology and Appearance sections, there's disparity whether to call it "Biological characteristics" (variances occur in capitalization) or "Characteristics", the Smash Bros info can be put almost anywhere, some are written "In the Pokémon foo" as opposed to "In the foo", and occasionally people even wikilink parts of the headers ("In the manga"). In an encyclopedia articles of the same nature are all dealt with in roughly the same way - this is an issue i also have with the animal articles of the wiki, but this project is much more feasible. In short, I've created a bunch of templates with a master template to be used for articles requiring more of an overhaul than others. The idea is that all pages will be laid out the same, and if we ever decide that one header isn't appropriate we can make a change across all of them rather than one by one - which obviously hasn't worked. You can view the whole project at my sandbox which besides a demonstration, has links to all the templates. -Zappernapper 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the templates have now been uploaded to the template namespace and can all be found through {{PokePage}}

I totally agree with how the articles of similar nature should be handled similarly. While this is a solution to a not-too-important problem, it would be nice for each of the articles to be the same in formatting, especially because the information in each of the sections is handled similarly across articles. My one big concern would be with template vandalism. We've had it happen several times (remember the penises), most importantly notable when poor little Bulba was vandalised when he got to be the Featured Article. But yeah, this would be nice for eliminating those annoyingly different section headings in some of the species articles. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• cough*Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style*cough* -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

this is to enforce WP:PCP/S, becuase several people write articles and name headers without refering to it. as for vandalism, due to the wide use of the templates, sprocting would be a feasible option. alternatively, monitoring a couple templates is easier than trying to monitor the 493 articles. any other feedback? encouragement? discouragement? if this is accepted by the community, i'd like to start implementing it soon. -Zappernapper 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. It would save us any headaches in the future if anything would need to be changed across the 493 monster articles we have. And as for "biological", surely there is a similar word that can be used that encompasses the "man-made" Pocket Monsters as well. -サターン・ヨッシー ^{HAPPY HALLOWEEN} 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

well, why use a controversial adjective when it works fine without? "Characteristics" is, personally, the most appropriate. After all, using the pokedex info we usually also describe how they behave, whether they are kept as pets, and the environments they are found in. These things don't necessarily have to do with biology. -Zappernapper 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Drop it people, can I just ask is Eevee part of this "system"? It's a train wreck. The headers aren't even phrases, and referring things as "card game" are in-universe. Also "In other media" refers to merchandise by itself, unless there are very few points of interest with anime and manga, and no merchandise. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorrry about that guys, just a really bad day. Some of the points I made could still help though. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thank-you for joining the discussion. yes, eevee was the first article test run, following the directions laid out at {{PokePage}}. The headers chosen are more than likely temporary and can be easily changed to follow the current style guide. I only picked those because of this comment, which seemed a good enough reason. Nothing is set in stone so don't worry. As for content - not my fault. I was merely moving around what was already there, and what the template does insert ({{PokeVideoGamesIntro}}, {{PokeAnimeIntro}}, and {{PokeTCGIntro}}) is lifted from a few other articles. The paragraphs have remained essentially unchaged for a while, and are well referenced. If you have only an in-universe persepctive problem with how one is written, I invite you - and anyone else - to fix up the paragraph (that's why it was subst'd) and potentially the template itself, to prevent recreation of less-than-perfect wording. "In other media" actually had anime and manga sections as subheaders, go look at the page a little closer. A potential fix for how it looks is to create a "Merchandising" header. The PokePage template is not meant to solve all formatting issues, just help disseminate the most commonly used headers that should be consistent and add short intro paragraphs to sections needing them (which are easily removable becuase they are not subst'd in on the original save). what the headers currently actually say is not a flaw in the idea. -Zappernapper 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i've repeated the same test (it was before this most recent discussion) on all eevee evolutions, except the last 2. the PAGENAME problem has been fixed and the headers have been changed to reflect current style guides. i'd like someone else to try out {{PokePage}} and make any suggestions. -Zappernapper 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. It wastes server resources (450 purges every time you change it) and creates a vandalism hotspot. The problems with {{pokenum}} are bad enough: we don't want to introduce more. They look ugly in the edit window. Has any other article got this idea? No. There's a reason (well, those above probably). It's a solution searching for a problem. What does it matter if the headers are different? They're separate articles and worthy of inclusion on that basis. Variety doesn't matter.

The style guide aims to set a standard that articles should meet. It's not set in stone. There are always exceptions and cases where it's not appropriate. Blanket-washing templates just doesn't work like this.

Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... Highway and Celestian both give somewhat harsh objections to what seems like a pure good faith idea and experiment (Maybe they were not actually meant to be harsh, but that's what it just seemed like to me at first). I personally might have proposed the exact thing Zapper is at one time or another, because by what would have been my reasoning it saves a lot of work IMO, and though it's an easy target for vandalism, it can always be reverted right away, and might have diverted some vandalism away from the articles themselves. One thing I didn't know until now, however, is that Wikipedia actually has technical limitations and that would be negatively affected by having multiple templates at nearly 500 pages. So yes, Zapper's proposal does have technical flaws, and I therefore agree with Highway and Celestian that it shouldn't be implemented, but my message is: If responses to good faith proposals are a good deal harsher than this, it might approach violation of this Don't Bite the Newbies Wiki-policy that I keep on hearing about. :( Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if my reply was harsh or nasty, since that was not my intention at all. Suggestions are always appreciated, even if they're bad. Also, the abopve was just my opinion. Others may (and do) disagree. Sorry again, and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's great that's cleared up. I'm sure that happens to everyone. As for Zappernapper, it seems that it's better not to use any templates because of technical issues. We'll have to just treat each article manually because Pokemon can have varying degrees of material to cover in different aspects. Some Pokemon are more notable in the anime than in the videogames Porygon and vice versa, while some might be more notable in appearance than biological traits and therefore should be sectioned differently to accommodate that. That's why a template is actually more trouble than it's worth. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it's just my anal-retentiveness showing, but the reason for "blanket-washing" is to try and reduce the confusion when someone who hasn't spent weeks worth of time pouring over these articles goes from page to page and finds them all written differently (and in many cases, poorly). Biology and Appearance have long been defunct yet they still appear on a large number of pages. Stylistic issues aside... the objection i'm mostly concerned with is the server issues. This was something I had contemplated, but felt that if the server can upload the much more complex {{pokeinfobox}} 500 times, along with the uncountable number of pages using superheroboxes, fictional character boxes, and biography boxes, how exactly are templates that upload only a small amount of text going to be detrimental? I realize that i don't fully understand the nuances of the server issues, but ideally the templates won't be changed very much so i don't quite get celestianpower's concern. The other concern has seemed to be with vandalism - all of pokemon is a hotspot. I actually have been thinking along the same lines as Erik, if they are vandalised, it will be much more noticeable and can be reverted much more quickly. Even if someone has Luvdisc in their watchlist, due to the hundreds of poke-edits that occur every day, it will still take quite a while before anyone notices that someone vandalized a header. -Zappernapper 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i missed those last two arguments somehow, and i was going to respond last night, but it was halloween, and i do have some ort of life, lol. neways... CP, i didn't take your argumnt harshly, you stuck to the idea itself and presented some very valid objections. as for the idea that all pokemon are going to need different attention, i completely agree, especially in "Other media" type areas. that's why the template allows you to only insert those you need. as for whether a pokemon is more notable in the video games, anime, biological traits, or appearance - they all require these sections. and having pages being drastically different from eachother while containing roughly the same information is distrating and if the main purpose of all actions is to create an encyclopedia this is an excellent way of making the goal more obtainable. what encyclopedia out there treats the same subject different ways? If i looked up Penguin in the Britannica i would expect it to be laid out in the same fashion as Wolf. But like you said each subject needs its own treatment, so i would expect a section on "Domestication" in the latter but not the former. This doesn't mean they won't both have sections entitled "Biological traits", "Geographical distribution", etc. One won't be called "Biological traits" with the other "Characterisitics".-Zappernapper 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very well-thought-out on your part, and the reasoning behind this valid. I for one would support most of what you're saying; it's altogether likely, however, that this discussion here isn't really considered "in the spotlight" until the Species Merge discussion below is more or less over. If there's enough consensus and valid reasoning behind keeping each of the 493 Pokemon in their own articles, then this project detail should be the attention of our discussions. For now, though, I think this is put on hold. Regards, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

are bumps appropriate? i wouldn't think so... but this has now stagnated while everyone waits for AMIB to come back and tear Bulbasaur a new one (j/k). i'd still like a response from CP because his arguements were the ones i was trying to address, and i hope that he can at least give me some more explanation as to what the technical problems may be in response to my reasoning. Otherwise, hearing from more people out there in wikiland would be nice. I know SaturnYoshi, Brandon, Erik, HighwayCello, and CP aren't the only regular contributors.... -Zappernapper 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put forward again with the idea of template vandalism. It happened just 16 hours ago at 04:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC) to the Pokenum template. Yes friends, the penis was plastered in Pokenum again. Fear not, the vandal was blocked, but still... We've got soooooooooo many templates to keep track of. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

well, a question... is it better to have vandalism potentially sit around for a couple days on one page before it's caught, or have it appear on all pages that use a template, but only last a few minutes? yes, this was a case in which sprocting wouldn't have worked as it was done by a registered user, but we shouldn't be afraid of moving forward in the goal of creating an encyclopedia because of immature peabrains. All this talk of vandalism on the templates has actually become overprotective. I looked over the edit histories of our templates, and even the one that CP and Brandon mentioned , {{pokenum}}, hasn't really been vandalized that often - the biggest issue was the edit warring while DP was coming out. Pokevandalism tends to occur in the articles themselves, not the templates; most reverted edits for templates are just goodfaith and as long as someone is willing to regularly check on them (myself) things usually don't get out of hand. My other edits are in articles pertaining to human sexuality, THAT gets a lot of vandalism. I think we're overworrying about template vandalism, it really just doesn't happen all that often - at least not within our project. I took a real close look, and pokenum seems to be the great exception, not the rule. -Zappernapper 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, after looking through a bunch of random Pokémon articles, this worry about consistency seems to be a touch overblown. In nearly every article I saw, the most that needed to be done was the changing of "Biology", Appearance", etc. into "Characteristics" and/or the addition of the standard introduction. Admittedly, some of the 4^th-gen Pokémon need more work than that, but as a whole that group of articles has been getting better constantly - in fact, they all look better than they did when I last checked a couple of days ago. As for using templates, it might be nice, but if enough people just go ahead and standardize one by one, it won't take that long. and if one of us is browsing and sees that an inappropriate change has been made, we can just change it then. Sorry, but it just seems simple to me. ~e.o.t.d~ 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, since I'm trying to organize it: WP:PAC/S still cites "Biological Characteristics" as the proper header. Personally, I lean toward simply "Characteristics", but I won't make a change until some kind of consensus has been reached. Just informing you all since that page seems to have been untouched for a while :). ~e.o.t.d~ 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ur proposition is an example of why this is being suggested - let's say we reach consensus, in theory you'd think it wouldn't be that big a deal to change the 493 articles if we had enough people working on it. But "Bio/Appearance" have been defunct for a very long time now and the fact that many articles still have it shows that, in practice, waiting for them to get changed indiviually just doesn't work. the other thing is that, like a few have said, the headers titles are such a trivial aspect of the articles themselves they don't warrant the amount of attention that they need to keep them consistent. other problems with the headers include: omission/inclusion of the word Pokémon, wikilinking words in the header, inconsistent placement of smash bros. info (and sometimes not italicizing Super Smash Bros.). close monitoring of all the species articles doesn't happen, there's just too many, so the idea that we can change it when we notice it by browsing is impractical. I doubt Slugma is going to be quickly reverted. and what happens, one day in the future if we reach a new consensus? that's a lot of work that could be easily avoided.-Zappernapper 15:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style page needs some fixin'. For starters, the sample introduction paragraph is inconsistent with the guidelines in a few ways (as well as being slightly offensive to an ordinary sense of grammar). I'd make the changes myself, but because the page is so outdated I have no idea which information, if any at all, is correct. Help? ~e.o.t.d~ 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

a few people have complained about the grammatical structure of the boilerplate intro suggested. The main reason it's never been changed is probably because Bulbasaur, Torchic, and others have reached FA and GA using this in their leads. However, I would be curious to see your version, because nothing is ever perfect, and there is no reason we can't have multiple samples of a "good introduction" for others to view when working on species pages. -Zappernapper 12:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since AMIB recently had issues with how boilerplate is used to cover up a lack of content for what was a GA focus like Mareep, maybe he should weigh in on this style page and explain its imperfections as the first thing on his improvement program before taking Bulbasaur to any FAR. I never found any of the grammatical structure questionable, though. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i think my point's been made below about people's issues with the intro. XD -Zappernapper 05:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

oh yes, sorry... a response: the biggest problem is that the guideline, like CP is always stressing, is just that - a guidline. The styleguide and {{pokestart}} are only meant to be used as starting points, or examples - not copied verbatim. This is something i agree wholeheartedly with (as far as prose goes), each article should stand on its own and not be an identical read in certain areas. and, AFAIK, AMIB was around when the styleguide was first created by the PAC. he even has edits in the pokeposal. -Zappernapper 05:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAC/S could probably stand to be revamped with input from outside the project. EOTD, go right ahead and be bold. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do :). It looks mostly fine, it just needs to be made consistent. I'd appreciate any input. ~e.o.t.d~ 08:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the intros for the species are a little too cookie-cutter and are a bit insulting to the reader's intelligence. The point is, you should only have to explain that the species is a pokemon, that article is linked, so you can find out more about the "media franchise" by doing that, there isn't a point to putting this thing about "it is a pokemon, part of a multi-billion dollar franchise full of video games, cartoons, books, etc." I think the style guide should be change to make this less cookie-cutter and then the articles have less fluff and npov in them. 69.209.101.219 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, if people don't want to read the Pokemon article, then we shouldn't make them have to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac1983fan (talk • contribs)

That's pretty stupid, the intros all sound exactly the same, it insults the reader's intelligence, and it's just added fluff. I think someone should seriously reconsider having that convoluted statement in all the articles, a few of them don't even have it. Or at least get the "multi-billion" part out, that's not what the character articles are for, we explain the character, not give a bunch of context about another thing. 69.209.101.219 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the standards when editing an encyclopedia article on wikipedia. It's not insulting anyone's intelligence, in fact it's providing more information in case someone doesn't know what Pokemon is or what they stand for, so in other words there for the purpose of intelligence. It beats just going to an article that has unneeded jargon all over it like sweepers and tanks. Yoshitsune Shaojian 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, it's part of the defined Pokémon Adoption Center Style, and I personally think it's a good idea. I do agree that the "multi-billion" part sounds kind of weird, but it's an extremely notable fact about the franchise, so it should technically stay.

And if you know that it's on every page, you also know that you can safely skip over the first paragraph without missing any important information. No one's pressing your eyes against that particular part of the screen. ~e.o.t.d~ 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep adding the {{AIDnom}} template to the top of our project page? You know, the one that says "This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive." First of all, this isn't an article, it's a Wikipedia project page. The template is meant for Pokémon, not Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Am I wrong in thinking that that template's not supposed to be here? --Brandon Dilbeck 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I think we're encouraged to vote here. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Only one more vote is needed, as of this post. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I was number 16. We've fulfilled the requirement. Cheers, -- THL^CCD 09:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we start sending messages to others? Go Futurama! Sp3000 09:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with reaching the "goal"; see this and this for a really ugly explanation of the voting rules. It all seems so complicated! --Brandon Dilbeck 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)