Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	August 2005 – April 2006; 1 May 2006 – 15 May 2006; 15 May 2006 – 28 June 2006; 28 June 2006 – 12 July 2006; 13 July 2006 – 18 August 2006; 18 August 2006 – 26 September 2006; 26 September 2006 – 14 October 2006; 15 October 2006 – 13 November 2006; 13 November 2006 – 18 November 2006; 18 November 2006 – 3 December 2006; 3 December 2006 – 31 December 2006; 1 January 2007 – 14 February 2007; 15 February 2007 – 9 March 2007; 10 March 2007 – 5 April 2007; 5 April 2007 – 14 May 2007; 15 May 2007 – 30 May 2007; 30 May 2007 – 22 June 2007; 22 June 2007 – 29 July 2007; 29 July 2007 – 7 October 2007 ; ; Other archives; FFA archive 1;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 19 October 2007

WikiProject Pokémon

General information

Lists

Articles

Project templates

Task forces

Video game characters

Bot problem

Some crazy bots are keeping up adding inappropriate interwiki links.

1, 2, 3.

Every time I see this happening I keep on thinking "What the hell is going on here?"

I also brought it up to this page, I hope something can be done. TheBlazikenMaster 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In affect, they are right... They are probably going to the Nidoran♂ page, and being redirected to that list. Therefore, the interwiki links are being added on that page. Reedy Boy 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's the problem. I used a section redirect, I hope that will work. TheBlazikenMaster 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key problem with the lists

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Sonic Mew 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this policy are the lists currently violating? Spigot Map 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also curious: How are the lists any more indiscriminate information than full articles filled with Smogon's originally-researched metagameguide? You Can 't See Me! 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the original full articles, this is the blessing of the Holy See. You want IINFO, look at the originals. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we are making the lists? So we get rid of all the unnecessary info. Full articles clearly violated this. And no, it doesn't have a lot of information, if that's what you think, only some Dex info and little more. TheBlazikenMaster 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original articles fail WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no conceivable information at all on real-world character development or impact that these characters had in the real world. At all. hbdragon88 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image discussion isn't over.

We still need to find a way to get the images somehow. The lists suck without them. Common, nothing's impossible. I know there is a way, we just haven't found it yet. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The Wikimedia Foundation's policy on free content is not negiotable. Similar battles were fought on episode lists and were trumped by the WMF's policy. hbdragon88 21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't negotiable. The problem is people conflating their interpretation of the policy with the policy itself. I've read it. It says nothing about "images may be used to provide visual information that could not be given any other way, except on lists where images must be removed immediately". It should be obvious that organizational changes in a group of articles shouldn't invalidate previously valid fair use claims. -Amarkov moo! 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the images should come back, then? hbdragon88 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that our current fair use policy does prohibit images like those, so currently, I do not. But that can change, because it's just part of our policy, not the Foundation one which we are obligated to follow. -Amarkov moo! 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there must be a way to change the policy so there will be an exception. Pokémon are impossible to describe without the images. TheBlazikenMaster 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And the discussion isn't over until we find a real solution. TheBlazikenMaster 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may want to check out this, this, or any other guide to see if they are grouped in a reasonable manner. If the organization allows for a good amount per page, it could work out. TTN 22:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a solution, maybe we should have some kinda link to the images on the pages. Oh and don't dare say there is no solution, don't be a quitter. WikiProjects are there not so you can give it up, they are there to find a solution to problems. Here are some examples of what I mean:

TheBlazikenMaster 00:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link wouldn't work because the pics they link to would still be orphaned, and you'd have a redlink within a week. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

I remembered something WP:D&D did for its monster articles - they uploaded their own illustrations of each of the monsters. I don't know if it will help in this case, but if it will, that's an avenue you mught want to consider. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 09:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To design using pictures of Pokémon is to be creating a derivative work and will still fall under copyright - it won't evade the fair use policy. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is only one thing we can do. Either contact some people in the Pokémon Company of Japan or the company that translates Pokémon from Japanese in the United States. Someone from the pokémon company in Japan would be better idea, since it's made there. TheBlazikenMaster 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head notes on list pages.

Recently Sesshomaru moved a headnote, as you can see here. Because it doesn't follow this policy. As you probably know we have many headnotes in sections. So we should maybe help out? TheBlazikenMaster 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote is part of the Manual of Style - a guideline - not policy. It seems counter-intuitive to me to expect readers to know to scroll to the top of a page when redirected to a list, I've raised that specific point on the relevant talk page.--Alf ^melmac 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all want to keep Wikipedia as perfect as possible so I see no reason why WP:HATNOTE should be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's exactly the reason why I knew it was good to bring this up here. Since we need help from other people editing the list pages. TheBlazikenMaster 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline does not work well with these lists. There is no reason they can't go in the sections. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Spigot Map 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has just been changed in TheBlazikenMaster's favour, see the very last section in the talk page of WP:HATNOTES. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I knew I was right to revert. But I couldn't explain it correctly, so I have to thank Melsaran to explain more specifically to Sesshomaru's talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki 1.0 Inclusion

I'm working on relabeling the articles for Wiki 1.0 inclusion. Many minor articles were tagged as "Top Importance" while many of the main characters weren't even labeled. Feel free to jump in or give advice on which articles should be what priority. I figure main characters and the Pokemon, Pokemon Anime, and Pokemon Games articles be top priority, with the individual games, supporting characters, and some movies being high priority. Towns, minor movies, whatever else being mid priority. Spigot Map 01:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field Day

Have fun! -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article's log, the page was deleted twice already. Shouldn't this have been speedied per G4? You Can 't See Me! 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; I've seen larger number of times an article has been deleted before even heading to AfD. -WarthogDemon 03:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4 doesn't apply if the current is radically different from the past incarnations. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 03:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The out-of-date manual of style guide is being discussed for deletion.

Have your opinions here. All your votes or comments should be made there. No more edits should be made to this section. TheBlazikenMaster 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur

Currently, there is a new user readding a bunch of crap to the Bulbasaur article. If people can help, that would be nice. TTN 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that, I'm wondering why the hell Charizard along with Bulbasaur have their own articles. I mean, are they really worth it? TheBlazikenMaster 16:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A bunch of crap" that was there a long time since which not many have any problem with (if we are to judge by those who have made edits to the page) the fact that the merge you wanted didn't go ahead is no reason to do a knee-jerk hack and slash reaction. Yes, TheBlazikenMaster, they are worth it as much as any other subject. Why not go treat Luigi to the same style of treatment and see the shit-storm you'll raise there. That has vaster tracts of unreferenced material but no-one seems to mind. The version was stable until TTN decided to make two subsequent edits and cut out referenced material under a spurious guise of legitamacy, I'm just taking it back to the stable version.--Barnyard animals 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi is a great article. It doesn't have a tortured and long plot summary, so there is nothing to remove that would cause a "shit storm," in your words. hbdragon88 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that shows up the differences of perception nicely, I find swathes of uncited and unverified info that I could go and edit brutally if I chose to, but we are not supposed to makes edits to 'make our point', so we'll have to agree to differ on opinions.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnyard doesn't seem to be aware that there is a whole policy page devoted to what is not allowed here. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will always use my own judgement for deciding on the merits of things before looking at any regulations which then say I can't improve the encylopedia because of Rule 34, para 20, line 75. And even if I am aware of such a rule I'll still go ahead and try to improve the encylopedia anyway if the rule is getting in the way of it.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the Luigi argument also fails this: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. TheBlazikenMaster 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that certain persons believe that one should not cite essays or proposals as if they were policy. I believe you have also been told before about using this essay on pages outside the scope of Articles for Deletion, but you still continue, please reconsider that kind of manoevure.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started a discussion here regarding what needs to be done. I don't agree to removing sourced content without a proper consensus. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sesshormaru at least one editor is prepared to use their own onboard aparatus to judge things for themselves instead of howling "down - begone - see WP:CRAP" with the rest of the pack. The way some of you people try and slap people down is barely simian, and is unsociable to boot.--Barnyard animals 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we have a number consensus to remove the crap, regardless of what he thinks, so that should be enough. TTN 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So regardless of anything whatsoever you are right and I am wrong, so the crowd gets the call? That's bollocks and you know it, you do not have consensus, consensus is not derived from numbers. This was not the right place to raise the issue and it still isn't, the fact you asked for help in 'dealing with me' here is telling enough.--Barnyard animals 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 ::::::Thanks Sesshormaru at least one editor is prepared to use their own onboard aparatus to judge things for themselves instead of howling "down - begone - see WP:CRAP" with the rest of the pack. The way some of you people try and slap people down is barely simian, and is unsociable to boot.--[[User:Barnyard animals|Barnyard animals]] 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 Honestly, we have a number consensus to remove the crap, regardless of what he thinks, so that should be enough. [[User:TTN|TTN]] 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-:So regardless of anything whatsoever you are right and I am wrong, so the crowd gets the call? That's bollocks and you know it, you do not have consensus, consensus is not derived from numbers. This was not the right place too raise the issue and it still isn't, the fact you asked for help in 'dealing with me' ''here'' is telling enough.--[[User:Barnyard animals|Barnyard animals]] 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
+:So regardless of anything whatsoever you are right and I am wrong, so the crowd gets the call? That's bollocks and you know it, you do not have consensus, consensus is not derived from numbers. This was not the right place to raise the issue and it still isn't, the fact you asked for help in 'dealing with me' ''here'' is telling enough.--[[User:Barnyard animals|Barnyard animals]] 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)