Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Poképrosal/Poll

< Wikipedia:Poképrosal
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Pokeprosal/Poll)

Poll: WP:FICT and Pokemon

edit

Should the guidelines at WP:FICT be applied to Pokémon? That is, should major Pokémon have their own articles, while minor Pokémon should be merged into lists? The poll will continue for one week from 23:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC).

  • Since the time is over, this poll is now closed. There is a strong majority (>75%) that the WP:FICT guideline does apply.

Yes

edit
Please take note to give more than a one sentence reason! Almost everyone voting for no seems to have had the common courtesy to write more than one or two sentences, of the exact same information posted in the previous vote.
  1. Emphatically yes. The Pokestubs are less useful to even Pokemon fans than properly-formatted lists for non-notable Pokemon would be. A Man In Black 23:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to say that I personally have found them very usefull, and I know quite a few other people that have as well. So please do not say they're less usefull, unless you're actually a pokemon fan who finds them utterly useless Leukoplakia 22:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how Murkrow, Dunsparce, or Forretress are of much use to anyone, and I am a Pokemon fan who finds stubs like this useless. Most of the potential expansion is Wikibooks material. A Man In Black 10:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but Dunsparce is useless to begin with. Ketsuban (is 1337) 02:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ideally, all of the Pokestubs that have no content other than statistics would be moved to Wikibooks, but this is also a good solution. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 23:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm all for it gkhan 23:38, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yup, if WP:FICT is broken we need to fix it globally, not make exceptions for it. --W(t) 00:13, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
  6. Definitely yes, without a doubt. We've already got merged lists for Star Wars and Zelda and other fan things, so this should NOT be excluded. I'm a (fairly) avid fan of the games, and this info is right now useless to me. And the Pokemon Wikibooks content is currently looking lonely, so a lot of this could pad it out... Master Thief GarrettTalk 06:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not all of thses creatures are notable enought o have an article, let's merge them in some way. I support a wikibooks option as well. BrokenSegue 13:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course. This is no reason for an exception to the rules. —Sean κ. + 18:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that WP:FICT is not a rule (policy), but a guideline (semi-policy). --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As long as they're stubs, they're better off merged. Radiant_* 09:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  10. I think merged lists are generally more useful for this sort of thing, as opposed to dozens of pages with minimal information. Rje 15:52, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Merge lists are nearly always more useful than dozens of short stubby articles. There's nothing special about Pokémon that makes it an exception to this rule. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes. Definitely. I'm not even sure that 'major Pokémon' is a realistic distinction and that they ought not to be merged too. David   | Talk 20:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yes, merging smaller articles into larger ones on minor charachters is much better way of organizing information MechBrowman 03:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Yes, merge all small articles which only contain the stats tables. It's right for any of those characters to be linked to seperate articles, however, providing there is sufficient additional content to merit the addition of this seperate article. UkPaolo 19:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oh yes. Agree with all above reasons. Merged lists will help users, especially those who are not dedicated Pokefolk, to see how the different Pokemon relate to each other. This is part of making an encyclopedia instead of an almanac or a general knowledge base. FreplySpang (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Absolutely. — Phil Welch 05:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes, these tiny stubs with no content apart from the stats and one or two lines should be merged. But let the authors of the Pokémon articles decide which of them, and how many of them are major. If they want to expand any (or all!) of them and put them into separate articles, I have no trouble with that. Sjakkalle 10:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes. I prefer to site precedent. Star Wars, Star Trek and The Simpsons all have lists of minor characters, and in my personal opinion they have had more impact on popular culture than Pokémon. Furthermore, there are many good reasons for lists, which I will not delve into as other users already have.--Scimitar 14:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yes, strongly. As others have stated, there is precedent in articles for characters from Star Wars and Star:FICT guidelines? As for concerns about what constitutes a "major" pokemon or a minor one, major pokemon should be those which feature prominently and significantly in the television shows, movies, etc. and for which a significant amount of information is amassed.--M412k 15:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, a list is more useful than a hundred sustubs. - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes, not only do I echo Sjakkalle's comments, I'm also failing to see the relevance of section 3 of WP:FIC, since all pokemon can be tied directly to the pokemon universe. Hiding 17:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Yes, merge all of the stubs together. Break them out into independant articles only when they grow big enough to justify it. -- BD2412 talk 21:26, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  23. yes, the introduction section explaining that it's a fictional character from a fictional world is much better shared. Mozzerati 20:01, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  24. Yes, we have to keep consistent with Wikipedia standards. Pokemon does no warrant an exception. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Of course. No special leeway for Pokemons.  Grue  12:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Yes. The ability to expand an article does not make it worth having an article - it is of course quite possible to write a very long article on any individual old enough to write, but the vast majority of these would be deleted as vanity. Few Pokemon are separately recognisable and would have any influence at all separate from the Pokemon game/series itself. The collection of statistics for these fictional characters is basically a game guide, and should therefore be in wikibooks. Average Earthman 10:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Yes. For the most part, I don't see how a pokeman character is notable. To me, only the series/concept itself is notable. --Xcali 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Yes. The wikipedia standards have to be followed, that is a major concern as Sasquatch said. Also, many of these creatures have nothing significant about them that cannot be stated in a list, and forcing a user to click to each one's seperate article simply to read a line of text is not a good idea. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:56, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

No

edit
  1. Pokemon articles should be organized for the convenience of the users. Kappa 23:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. (I guess all I had to do was say the word :)) Detailed below. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 00:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to the way redirects work, enforcing this proposal by merging would be cumbersome for end users when looking for types with many POKéMON. Searching for, say, Deoxys, would require you to wait until data on all 45 (24 if only using Type1) of the psychic POKéMON had loaded. These 23/44 extra POKéMON may very well be uninteresting for the average reader.
    • If we, as I assume, only use Type1 for organizing, Flying Pokemon would be practically empty, as all 50 Flying POKéMON have it as Type2. That way, we essentially have an article that must be present, but which will hardly ever be used, as most people will likely look for POKéMON by name, rather than type.
    • Since we will need to let at least SOME of the POKéMON keep their current articles as-is, we will either have permanently incomplete pages, or duplication.
    • The main reason for merging seems to be grouping statistics of similar POKéMON - this would essentially make the new articles strategy guides, which should be kept to Wikibooks. If this is not the case, a summary of the proposed changes must be made before concluding the poll and implementing the changes, and people must be given enough time to change their votes if they wish.
    • The poll gives no clear definition of the difference between a "major" and a "minor" POKéMON.
  3. The proposal seems to be really a "vote to pass the buck to someone else" to me. It's really trying to stifle organic growth by largely arbitrary means. kelvSYC 05:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. When you take into account that all the Pokedexes of the different games add a new fact or two, individual Pokemon articles can only grow. Add into this anime appearances, availability notes, name origin notes, then you have a fairly full fledged article. This can be done for virtually every Pokemon. Having individual articles is convenient as well, as anyone searching for a particular Pokemon likely wants an article on that Pokemon instead of a long list full of tables that would quite exceed the suggested kb size for an article. -Dalkaen 19:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strongly oppose -- see Dalkaen's points, as he put it better than I could. If you want a list of "foobar"-type pokémon, you use the category function. There is no need to overcomplicate the Wikipedia by adding in a complex system of redirects like what is being proposed. Almafeta 04:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, I just checked the WP:FICT guidelines for when fictional characters should have their own page, and Pokémon seem to already be covered under rule 3:
    • "Fictional characters which are cultural icons appearing in works of fiction not directly linked to themselves (e.g. as cameo or guest appearance), or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances."
    • Each Pokémon appears in multiple videogames of varying genres for multiple systems, different 'traditional' games (including the card game and the short-lived paper roleplaying game), multiple manga by different authors, and three different animé series. This sort of multimedia diversity is as distant from the definition of 'particular work' as you are likely to ever see, so by WP:FICT, the current standard is the correct way to organize the pages. Almafeta 05:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see what the problem is. Is it really so cluttering? Does it get in the way of other articles? I think the reason the articles in question were created in the first place, was to provide an encyclopedic database for the different pokemon. So seeing as it is encyclopedic in nature, I think it belongs here just fine. Should we take every wikipedia article about animals and organize them into one big table? Listing their eating habbits and a bit about them? Big confusing tables, full of redirects, have no place in wikipedia. Like Dalkaen said, when a user looks for an article on a pokemon, he wants an article on that pokemon. Not the 400 others. Leukoplakia 08:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. When I look for a Pokemon, I want to see information on its evolutionary stages displayed in such a way that it's easy to compare them. Radiant_* 09:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    So how exactly would this proposal help with Eevee, arguably the POKéMON where getting an overview of these things is most complex? Besides, only a few other POKéMON can evolve into more than one POKéMON, so you already have a link to the pre-evolution and evolution in the infobox. We could help this out slightly by adding a field to the infobox named "Evolution chain", so you always have a link to every POKéMON in the same family. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, for Eevee, personally I would like to see all five possible destination forms at the same time, together with the base form. Not on six different pages. That's the most complex case, isn't it? Nothing else evolves to Vaporeon, for instance, so I'd say the six form a family. Eevee does show that grouping strictly by type is probably not the best way of organizing, though. Radiant_* 20:46, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    It is true that I think reorganizing some pokemon would be nice. But I'd still like to see each individual pokemon in it's own article. Perhaps a section for links to every possible evolution. But sure as hell not one giant table full of redirects. Leukoplakia 23:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There are better policies than WP:FICT, eg. Wikipedia:Importance. ··gracefool |☺ 01:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FICT is a guideline, which is less than a policy and is more like a rule of thumb. Wikipedia: importance is a controversial proposed policy, which limits its relevance. 05:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose Far from being a newbie mistake, our pokemon pages are a vast, complex, interconnected, and well-organised series of highly informative articles. While it's undeniable that some are currently stubs, there's enough to be said about each pokemon that they could all have real articles when someone has the time to write them, which they eventually will. Mass merging or listing would stifle the sort of organic growth that Wikipedia is largely based upon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Muchly oppose. Where exactly is the problem in having an article about every Pokemon? A lot of people find all of them notable, and a lot of people find other "more valid" articles non-notable. If it can demonstrably be proven that somebody will die by a method other than suicide if every Pokemon has its own article, then I will change my vote. And not before. Ketsuban (is 1337) 02:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment

edit
Could the author of the poll make a sample page to get an idea what these merged lists would possibly be like? Some of the comments on both sides seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding what such lists would and wouldn't be. I've been reconsidering my vote, especially if the lists are more like what Pidgeot has described and less like what I pictured in my head. A Man In Black 02:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That really depends on the statistics table used in the combined list. If the decision is to use the full-sized table, then a merge criteria that puts about a dozen articles per list seems reasonable. If we go with one of the reduced tables, leaving the in-depth statistics to the Wikibooks game guide, then 30 or so stubs per list is perfectly managable. A minimum merge would be by evolutionary line. I don't know enough about Pokémon to tell how many articles this would produce, but I think it would be somewhere around a hundred.
In regards to Pidgeot's objection about duplicate content, there is a standard method for creating a collection where some of the items have in-depth entries, while others don't: a one-to-two paragraph summary of the larger article is left on the collection page. Carnildo 03:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Grass Pokémon and Fire Pokémon. Like that. Then at the bottom it would have "Pokemon with Grass as their Type2 characteristic" and a little list of wikilinks to *their* Type1 page, directly to them via bookmarks (#) so as to be as streamlined as possible. And see, Bulbasaur has a large enough page, so links back to its own page. Like that. OK? Master Thief GarrettTalk 05:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, POKéMON is still very much alive. As more POKéMON appear, these proposed pages become more and more unwieldy. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, um... yes... hadn't thought of that... the way things are going the series gains ~120 every three years... hmmm... I really don't know... hmmm... Master Thief GarrettTalk 13:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, as pokemon are added they become increasingly non-notable. Thus merging is the only way to control the growth of these articles on wikipedia. BrokenSegue 13:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's another way of looking at it. And even the anime can't save them for long; the starters are the stars of the anime and have entire episodes devoted to them, but the moment the next game comes out, they get conveniently written out so Ash can acquire the new starters... oh, all except Pikachu of course, he has to stay, yes... Master Thief GarrettTalk 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already now, there are 78 Water-type POKéMON. Of these, only 8 of these have it as their Type2. That's roughly 18% of the current POKéMON. If POKéMON Diamond/Pearl brung the total up to 500, there would be 90 Water-type POKéMON to display in just one article. Sure, some of them are more notable, like Squirtle, and will probably have their own articles, but many won't. This means that, even now, the article will be HUGE (easily becoming several hundred KB big), which will be of great inconvenience to users, particularly 56Kers, who want to read about on of the later POKéMON, such as Relicanth. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 15:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what is to be done? Divide them by type and generation? No, because later generations add new evolutions... hmmm... maybe if we merge into things like Pokemon #001-050? If we use the (Hoenn, is it?) numbering system that would take the added evolutions into account... and remember, we're cutting most of the stat-table data. I don't think it will be quite as long and annoying as you make it sound... Master Thief GarrettTalk 15:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into number ranges would be much more preferable in my opinion, since it creates a more even distribution of the amount of data - however, I would still prefer everything left alone (which is why I voted No). --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, NO using any number system apart from the National POKéDEX. This is the only numbering system used everywhere, whereas other Dexes (Johto DEX, Hoenn DEX) are limited to a few games. Additionally, they have no official numbers for those POKéMON not in their "regular" DEX range. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even merging all of the series of evolutions (ex. squirtle, warturtle and balstoise) without respect to type could reduce the number of articles significantly. I still believe that the wikibooks option is preferable because it retain all content while not cluttering wikipedia with non-significant fictional constructs. These massive pages described above should be avoided and replaced with more medium sized pages. BrokenSegue 04:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm glad the proposal finally got attention from more than a couple of users. However, I find the argument that it could 'easily become a 100kb page' not very convincing; presently, there isn't any information on 80% of the pokemon, except for game statistics. To my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone working on adding that information for a long time, and I'm not sure there exists information for many pokemon beyond what is put in the template. Radiant_* 09:07, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are those who vote Yes completely ignoring rather crucial points, such as the fact that WP:FICT is a guideline, not a rule, and that merged lists will be unwieldy and will continue to grow more so as time passes and more information is acquired? Everyone keeps spouting "we shouldn't make an exception to the rule," but it's not a rule, it's a suggestion, and I even think in this situation Pokemon are exempt, as they exist not only in several games, but in animes, mangas, merchandise, various games unrelated to the contiguous Pokemon games (Pokemon Snap, the Pinball games, etc) and because of this, many (relevant, encyclopedic) things can be written about virtually every Pokemon. --Dalkaen 21:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you here, Dalkaen - to me, it seems like the Yes side virtually refuses to comment on the concerns of the No side. We have given a LOT of reasons not to perform this merge, but the only reason that's come from the Yes side seems to be "Follow WP:FICT" and "Merge because they're stubs". --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that these 'guidelines' almost seemed to have Pokemon in mind when they were cooked up. I have to say I'm leaning towards supporting the motion, but I'm still trying to wade through the page to understand the opposing view. Sabine's Sunbird 22:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the WP:FICT guidelines for when fictional characters should have their own page, and Pokémon seem to already be covered under rule 3:

  • "Fictional characters which are cultural icons appearing in works of fiction not directly linked to themselves (e.g. as cameo or guest appearance), or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances."

Each Pokémon appears in multiple videogames of varying genres for multiple systems, different 'traditional' games (including the card game and the short-lived paper roleplaying game), multiple manga by different authors, and three different animé series. This sort of multimedia diversity is as distant from the definition of 'particular work' as you are likely to ever see, so by WP:FICT, the current standard is the correct way to organize the pages. Almafeta 05:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ooookkkaaayyyyy.... And how can Pokemon (and I realise I may be showing myself to be an utter ignoramous here, but I have to ask it) not be considered to be tied a particular fictional universe? Sabine's Sunbird 23:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that the entire POKéMON world consists of multiple parallel universes. For example, in the animé, you have Ash. But you also have him in RBY, although the two things tell a different (if somewhat similar) story, and he's also in GSC, again in a very different situation from what is seen elsewhere. By that logic, there is no single universe that POKéMON is tied to. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing here is that the guideline mentions a character which only shows up in a particular work. Pokémon is not a single fictional work. Another such series which spans more than type of media and more than one series is Star Trek, which has individual pages here on Wikipedia for James T. Kirk, Jean-Luc Picard, Kathryn Janeway, Geordi la Forge, Deanna Troi, et multiple cetera. Nobody's suggested that all the individual Star Trek pages be reorganized into Engineers of Star Trek, Captains of Star Trek, Admirals of Star Trek, Counselors of Star Trek, Red Shirts of Star Trek, and so on and so forth. Almafeta 23:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By that particular logic you could justify a page for every single character in every Scooby Doo cartoon (including old man Wilkins, the caretaker at the abandoned fairground), since the diffferent series and filums could represent different parallel universes. (I am never going to forgive myself for discussing the nature of reality in Pokemon). You're right, no one is suggesting merging James T. Kirk, Jean-Luc Picard, Kathryn Janeway, Geordi la Forge, Deanna Troi, anymore than Ash, Misty, Pickachu or Team Rocket are going to get merged. The Pokemon represents one multiverse, if you like, one phenomeon. They are pokemon, ergo they are part of the World of Pokemon. The World of Pokemon, the phenomon that Nintendo spawned and unleashed (and had me gaming in the rainforest when I should have been working, may I add. beat that!) is a 'particular work of fiction' that is represented in different media but is still one overall product. Sabine's Sunbird 00:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, by THAT logic, there is nothing fictional that cannot be represented as a particular work of fiction.
The trouble with your Scooby-Doo analogy is that we have no indications that things really DO happen at the same place, at the same time, but with different consequences. In POKéMON, we do - obviously, FR/LG and R/B/Y occur at the same time and place, but there are still many differences, regardless of which path the player chooses to use. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a better analogy than Scooby Doo. The radio series, books, TV series, film, comic books, etc., all have similar-but-different versions events happening at the same place, at the same time, but with different consequences. Just like the animé, manga, game, etc. versions of Pokémon. But all the minor Hitchhikers characters are still merged into one Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy article for ALL different versions of the Hitchhikers universe. So why can't you do the same for all the different versions of the Pokémon universe? — P Ingerson (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor characters would either be covered on a page dedicated to where they appeared. To continue the Star Trek anology, this would work similarly to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, which covers characters which only appeared in one series of Star Trek as an unimportant or minor role. Similarly, characters who appear in multiple forms of media (all the Pokémon, f'rex, or Professor Oak) or in multiple animé series (like Brock) would appear on their own pages, while characters who only appear in one game (most of the later Gym Leaders of the videogames, which haven't become recurring characters like almost all of the original game's gym leaders) or one animé (like Duplica) would only appear in pages like List of Pokémon (anime) characters. Thus, your "old man Wilkins" would only appear in List of Scooby-Doo villains, while characters like Thelma, Scooby, Shaggy, etc., would get their own pages. Almafeta 00:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly true, really. Pokemon is many different universes and works, and not all fans of one universe are fans of all the universes. Many fans of Pokémon Adventures consider themselves more mature than fans of the Pokémon anime, for example, as the former has a more organised, better-thought-out, and less-repetitive plot, as well as more character development and a somewhat more mature storyline. Fans of both Adventures and the anime, however, often overlook Magical Pokémon Journey, and the few of us who are fans of that series may also prefer it to other incarnations. Then there are the games (which are obviously distinct from any of the other universes); the TCG, the other; less-popular, manga series; and so forth. It's quite naive to say that Pokémon is only one franchise. Ketsuban (is 1337) 02:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, where do we stand on how these articles will be merged under this proposal? I'm inclined to vote no since I've seen nothing definitive to how this will be done. I'm also afraid that after a while these merged pages are going to grow to a point where the information is going to have to be broken up into seperate articles again. -- I'm not up on my Pokemon, but can't we at least merge pages into evolutions of the first Pokemon. Meaning (for example so don't pick this too much apart for my choice) merge Blastoise, Wartortle and Squirtle at Squirtle? Is there a problem with something like this? This would at least cut down on the amount of stub-like articles. I don't know. I'm open to a merge, but it just seems like a bad idea to me. K1Bond007 04:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Merging based on first evolutions wouldn't work either, since new evolutions (both 'before', in the case of Pichu → Pikachu, and 'after', in the case of Onyx → Steelix) are added all the time. Almafeta 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true. The process is 'merge and redirect'. So if, say, Uchakip is added before Pichu, then one could add that to the top of said article, and create a redirect. Radiant_* 15:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Question one: How will this vote work? Is it going to be simple majority, two-thirds majority (like a VfD, which is pretty much what this amounts to), or what? Question two: Would we be allowed to 'move out' full articles from the stats-only Pokémon ambiguation pages, once we have created full pages for them? Almafeta 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The answer to your second question is a definite yes. The point is not to forbid something or to stifle inclusion of pokemons here. The point is that a number of people (at this point, the majority in the poll) find the information more conveniently accessible in merged form. That doesn't mean all pokemon in a single list; it doesn't either mean all Fire Pokemon into a single list (even if that has been a suggestion, it is by no means set in fire stone). But take a look at the table below and see if you find it useful... (yes, so I made that up; but the point is it does allow for easy comparison of the three evolutionary stages; add other columns as necessary) Radiant_* 15:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Horsea for this kind of example applied to existing articles. Radiant_* 15:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
colspan=4 Type=Fruit, subtype=Water
Form Abilities Attack Defense
Applemon Fruitquake 12 18
Grapemon Fruitquake, sour spit 20-25 19
Melonmon Fruitquake, flight, acid blast 50 20

(add story below, and anything that's common to all fruitmon doesn't have to be repeated thrice)

In episode 42, Ash accidentally tries to eat an applemon, then it evolves into a grapemon before his eyes and attacks him with sour spit. But Pikachu comes to the rescue, and it's sour grapes for everyone!'


Additional question. What are the Pokénav project pages going to do now? Before, in the pages, whenever they mentioned a pokémon who had notable influence in the plot of a movie, in the development of a character, or whatnot, they could just link to it. Are all the Pokénav pages going to have to be rewritten to have a "See Also: List of fire pokémon, list of grass pokémon," etc., section at the bottom of each page? Almafeta 14:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • They can still link to it, that's the beauty of Redirects. Just like Pokemon can be linked without the accented é. Radiant_* 15:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

In reaction to Pidgeot

edit

You said above that you were disappointed that the 'yes' voters didn't react to the comments by the 'no' voters, so I'm going to attempt that here. In my opinion, discussion is more important than voting in the first place.

  1. Most importantly, if we decide to merge things, the way in which it'll happen is open to discussion. The first suggestion was by prime type, but I'm not convinced that that's the best idea. Maybe merging all different evolutionary forms is best.
  2. Kappa wants information to be convenient. So do I. If I open Poliwag, I'd prefer to have information on its destination types available at a glance. Not at three or four additional clicks.
  3. The argument that the page grows too large is based on the mistaken opinion that things should be merged into lists of 40+ pokemon; that was never decided as such.
  4. WP:FICT is indeed only a guideline. But Pokemon is one universe, even if it has varying plotlines. Buffy/Angel is one universe. All Star Trek things are one universe. Those three are three separate universes, and if Buffy were to appear with Picard, that would be 'transcendence'. But that's just semantics. Alfemata's argument that nobody wants Star Trek organized like List_of_Starfleet_officers is flawed, since we do have such lists. Ditto for Tolkien.
  5. People say that all pokemon articles can be expanded to become encyclopedic non-stubs. I'm far from convinced - 90% of them aren't. If they can be, prove it by doing so.
Give us a list of the pokemon comprising this 90% statistic that I believe you made up on the spot, And we'll get to work, but as Dalkaen said below, It'll take some time. lynch 08:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, I propose this compromise: merge all evolutionary stages of a pokemon into one article. After all, Blastoise is a Squirtle. And it allows for easy comparison. Radiant_* 07:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You can see the next evolution of Poliwag without clicking at all, in the Evolves To cell. If you click that, you'll see his next evolution. Where are you getting "three or four additional clicks" from? One of the reasons I think merging is a bad idea is that suppose someone sees someone mentioning Charmeleon, for instance. This person, being especially clueless, has no idea what a Charmeleon is, and thus checks Wikipedia for answers and gets a page with all kinds of extraneous details about Charmander and Charizard. This person will have to scroll through all this additional information to get to what Charmeleon is. I just think it's more convenient if each of the Pokemon have their own article. The example you cited with the list of Star Trek characters isn't a relevant analogy, as that is merely a list, whereas these will be full fledged articles with statistic tables. And yes, I do believe that most Pokemon articles can be expanded beyond stub status, but you can't expect this to happen immediately. Give those of us who edit these articles time to research and to write these things. We can't devote 100% of our time to it. Otherwise, a lot of the articles would be stubs no longer. --Dalkaen 08:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • A good encyclopedia will not simply teach you what you want to know, but will entice you to want to know more. Your hypothetical clueless user should realize that Charmander and Charizard information is intimately related to Charmeleon, and will have learned more than he were seeking. Besides, the articles have partial overlaps. Radiant_* 10:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be fairly self-evident when they're listed in the fields "Evolves from" and "Evolves to"? I know this hypothetical users doesn't know anything about POKéMON, but that shouldn't have to stop him from knowing about evolution in general.
And for the record, ANY POKéMON has enough to write about to go beyond a stub - there's etymology, availability and info found in the POKéDEX for all of them - and as it happens, this is pretty much everything found in Nidoran♀, which isn't a stub. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to see PokeArticles evolve (pardon the pun) beyond stub (hm, the next evolve would be PokeFeature, I'd guess). Regarding which way of organizing is better, I'd say we both have a valid opinion so maybe we should agree to disagree. Radiant_* 08:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Poképrosal/Poll&oldid=1144468317"