Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon

please tell Fahad Ahmed Alanzi (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

how do i join this project? I'm new and need some help, lol. Ghostking453 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

here cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 8 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Pokémon#Requested move 9 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pokelego999 removed entries Mega and Regional entries from {{Pokémon Generation 8}}, {{Pokémon Generation 6}}, and {{Pokémon Generation 7}}. None of them were really redirects, as much as Regi entries (on {{Pokémon Generation 3}}, {{Pokémon Generation 4}}, and {{Pokémon Generation 8}}}) aren't redirects. And Galarian Corsola is on {{Pokémon Generation 8}}. I doubt we would ever have a separate Alolan Raichu ({{Pokémon Generation 7}}) article. So should my edits be restored?

Also a discussion is open about redirects on categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y. Web-julio (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think in this instance these are fine in the categories, but I wouldn't have set *up* the categories until tangible articles were in place. It's also probably one of the few instances I feel categories can work on a redirect, as they're pretty narrow; we just need to make it clear somehow to only do this with full articles, and not redirects to the list. As for the template, I think it shouldn't use redirects. With the Mega evolutions alone it'd probably be a mess.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I removed them because the bulk of them are redirects to an aspect of an article, rather than being an entry discussed as part of the wider group. Unlike the Regi, who I admit are a more fringe and unique case, the regional forms feel odd to include individually when many are only minor aspects of the article. Something like Alolan Raichu or Hisuian Voltorb come up a fair amount in the subject's Reception and may be understandable, but many others lack that kind of discussion. Additionally, only including some regional forms and not all of them may be confusing for readers, especially when not all regional forms have discussion attached to them. Many of the Megas, additionally, are really only mentioned as existing, and are not significant talking points (Off the top of my head, only Mawile has some discussion? But I may be wrong). I feel it's better to just keep the navboxes simple and avoid redirects to a wider topic where possible. The Regi are a fringe case due to the article inherently being about multiple subjects, whereas the other articles for regional forms and Megas only cover them as part of one primary entity.

As a note: Galarian Corsola is entirely focused on that specific regional form, unlike other entries which focus on the original species and only include regionals as an aspect of the original, and not the prime focus like with Corsola, hence why Galarian Corsola is included by itself.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As suggested by a talk page of Haunter between myself and User:Kung Fu Man here, we probably should be careful about saying a character first appeared in a game or form of media unless sources specifically say so. For example with Haunter, it initially stated that "Haunter was introduced in Pokémon Red and Blue." while citing a source that Haunter does appear in those games, but that goes a bit beyond what the source is stating. Unless content is readily available saying the origin of a character who is transmedial, its probably a quicker fix to state that the character appears in the first/second/etc. game in the series as the Haunter article does now with two sources. I'm worried this may be a bit WP:SYNTH-pushing, but I feel like knowing the first piece of work a character shows up in relatively key information to discussing or understanding it. If you've created an article on a Pokemon character, you may want to adjust them according to fit this kind of mold if it has been organized like how Haunter formally was. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply