Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Pokémon Project‑class | |||||||
|
You know, all these doofy minor human characters in Pokémon are slated to be merged; it's just that there's so many of them that it's slow going.
If you want a long-lasting example, I would suggest sticking with Bellsprout; I don't think I'll be able to get that merged any time soon, unlike Karen (Pokémon). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Some credit would have been nice, you know. User:Hiding/Pokemon test. Hiding Talk 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this essay and I'll keep it the way I like, thanks
I've merged the page histories. That should solve any issues over credit, and I note that Matt suggested this on the 21 December 2005, 21:32 (UTC so I can't see him objecting. Hiding Talk 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Have the quoted users been asked permission to post their usages of the Pokémon test? If not, it may cause offense to be taken. -- Gray Porpoise Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Might this be seen as a version of the Straw Man logical fallacy? humble fool ® 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not clear why each of the 493 Pokemon characters seems to be exempt from the notability requirements for verifiable, reliable independent sources which are cited to justify the deletion of articles everyday in AfDs, such as (recently) college choral groups, churches, professors, books, authors, other persons living or dead. The articles cite sources showing that the Pokemon franchise overall is notable, but for individual characters, all I see are original research where someone has noted things themselves, and game guides from the vendor of the franchise. Notability of the franchise does not automatically confer notability on each thing related to it. Why do Pokemon characters get a pass? Is it just ILIKEIT? Is it exemot from demonstrating sources to show notability because there is a project? Edison 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the multitude of Drake & Josh related articles, eg. Treehouse (Drake & Josh episode). If ever a range of articles brought Wikipedia to shame, those articles do, even more so than the Pokémon articles do. -- Ezeu 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Last month, there was this (now archived) discussion at the Pokémon Collaborative Project. The discussion was mainly about the questionable notability of nearly all of the Pokémon species and that much of the material in the articles should be considered cruft. A proportion of the members of the WikiProject are convinced that all the articles about Pokémon should be merged, and to that effect, a prototype merged list was created. This activity precisely counters the argument of the Pokémon test. It is interesting that many people may continue to cite the Pokémon test in AfD discussions without realizing how increasingly doubtful the notablilty of each Pokémon is. I just thought that this might be an interesting point to add to the essay. -- Brandon Dilbeck 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
When we have a picture like , something must be... well... Marlith T/ C 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that most similar pages do not have random citations of arbitrary users that mention the page, the quotes are probably misleading in that I suspect at least two of the quoted users of sarcasm here. I'd be in favor of removing them. Why do you need an example of citing a page anyway? We all know how to cite pages. >Radiant< 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed from time to time that in deletion discussions people sometimes tend to make an argument very similar to the Pokemon test, referencing the fact that every episode of The Simpsons has it's own argument. Is there grounds for mention? Calgary 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What Is the POKEMON IN THIS WIKIPEDIA?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This essay implies it is a fallacy to set up equal standards, but gave no reasons. Honestly, who'd really agree to an essay that says "once upon a time, this idiot used the Pokemon test, and then this other idiot used it too. The moral of the story is that equal standards are wrong." 173.180.202.22 ( talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are each of the cited examples regarding sometihng that is WAAAAAY less notable then any Pokemon? For example: a stop on a train line?! And this doesn't even appear to be referencing a large train line, like Chicago, but rather some small train line in a non-major city and each individual stop on that line. Even in Chicago or New York, there is hardly anything notable about most individual subway stops. Yet, walk into a room of 100 people, and 100 of those people will have heard of Pikachu, 99 will have heard of Nidoran, and at least half will have heard of any random Pokemon from Gen1 or Gen2. The amount of people who will have heard of this train stop, unless they both live in that town AND frequently take that train from that line, will be 0. All of the other examples are similarly extremely less notable then Pokemon. If these are the common types of arguments that are made, where anyone reading the comment can clearly see that they are referring to something obscure or something far less well know then the "other article" they invoke as reasoning for it, then this article explaining that is not at all necessary, because, well, anyone reading it will automatically know that their argument is not legitimate due to the citing of a far more famous thing in their alleged "comparison". ~Rayvn 11:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ ( talk • contribs)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Pokémon Project‑class | |||||||
|
You know, all these doofy minor human characters in Pokémon are slated to be merged; it's just that there's so many of them that it's slow going.
If you want a long-lasting example, I would suggest sticking with Bellsprout; I don't think I'll be able to get that merged any time soon, unlike Karen (Pokémon). - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Some credit would have been nice, you know. User:Hiding/Pokemon test. Hiding Talk 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this essay and I'll keep it the way I like, thanks
I've merged the page histories. That should solve any issues over credit, and I note that Matt suggested this on the 21 December 2005, 21:32 (UTC so I can't see him objecting. Hiding Talk 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Have the quoted users been asked permission to post their usages of the Pokémon test? If not, it may cause offense to be taken. -- Gray Porpoise Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Might this be seen as a version of the Straw Man logical fallacy? humble fool ® 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not clear why each of the 493 Pokemon characters seems to be exempt from the notability requirements for verifiable, reliable independent sources which are cited to justify the deletion of articles everyday in AfDs, such as (recently) college choral groups, churches, professors, books, authors, other persons living or dead. The articles cite sources showing that the Pokemon franchise overall is notable, but for individual characters, all I see are original research where someone has noted things themselves, and game guides from the vendor of the franchise. Notability of the franchise does not automatically confer notability on each thing related to it. Why do Pokemon characters get a pass? Is it just ILIKEIT? Is it exemot from demonstrating sources to show notability because there is a project? Edison 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the multitude of Drake & Josh related articles, eg. Treehouse (Drake & Josh episode). If ever a range of articles brought Wikipedia to shame, those articles do, even more so than the Pokémon articles do. -- Ezeu 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Last month, there was this (now archived) discussion at the Pokémon Collaborative Project. The discussion was mainly about the questionable notability of nearly all of the Pokémon species and that much of the material in the articles should be considered cruft. A proportion of the members of the WikiProject are convinced that all the articles about Pokémon should be merged, and to that effect, a prototype merged list was created. This activity precisely counters the argument of the Pokémon test. It is interesting that many people may continue to cite the Pokémon test in AfD discussions without realizing how increasingly doubtful the notablilty of each Pokémon is. I just thought that this might be an interesting point to add to the essay. -- Brandon Dilbeck 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
When we have a picture like , something must be... well... Marlith T/ C 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that most similar pages do not have random citations of arbitrary users that mention the page, the quotes are probably misleading in that I suspect at least two of the quoted users of sarcasm here. I'd be in favor of removing them. Why do you need an example of citing a page anyway? We all know how to cite pages. >Radiant< 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed from time to time that in deletion discussions people sometimes tend to make an argument very similar to the Pokemon test, referencing the fact that every episode of The Simpsons has it's own argument. Is there grounds for mention? Calgary 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
What Is the POKEMON IN THIS WIKIPEDIA?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper ( talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This essay implies it is a fallacy to set up equal standards, but gave no reasons. Honestly, who'd really agree to an essay that says "once upon a time, this idiot used the Pokemon test, and then this other idiot used it too. The moral of the story is that equal standards are wrong." 173.180.202.22 ( talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why are each of the cited examples regarding sometihng that is WAAAAAY less notable then any Pokemon? For example: a stop on a train line?! And this doesn't even appear to be referencing a large train line, like Chicago, but rather some small train line in a non-major city and each individual stop on that line. Even in Chicago or New York, there is hardly anything notable about most individual subway stops. Yet, walk into a room of 100 people, and 100 of those people will have heard of Pikachu, 99 will have heard of Nidoran, and at least half will have heard of any random Pokemon from Gen1 or Gen2. The amount of people who will have heard of this train stop, unless they both live in that town AND frequently take that train from that line, will be 0. All of the other examples are similarly extremely less notable then Pokemon. If these are the common types of arguments that are made, where anyone reading the comment can clearly see that they are referring to something obscure or something far less well know then the "other article" they invoke as reasoning for it, then this article explaining that is not at all necessary, because, well, anyone reading it will automatically know that their argument is not legitimate due to the citing of a far more famous thing in their alleged "comparison". ~Rayvn 11:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ ( talk • contribs)