Bulbapedia:Featured article candidates

Photography

Support (7)

• I think that this page has gone a long way since the beginning. It has plenty of pictures, and lots of info. --Pokemon1234567890 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. What was probably initially thought as exclusive for HGSS became a sprout for many new things. What was initially a stub seems high-quality enough to be a featured article. ^ht14 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Supported! This article has come a long way from its beginnings. It covers many different aspects of the franchise (games, manga, etc) and is just really interesting to read. --ZestyCactus 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons stated above. .GreenPhoenix. 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Supported. It shows that stubs have potential to become good, quality articles. Not only that, but it includes a wide range of mediums used by the franchise. SnorlaxMonster
• All of the above. Support. CuboneKing
• Yep yep. Being featured. The page is sufficient enough to be featured. Although the DPPt should really include pictures. but the page is juz too great. Ruixiang95 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• I remember not to long ago this article was nothing more than a stub. Now I think it is a very detailed article.--Crazedtreeko323 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Object (5)

• I think the non-HGSS sections are still lacking, the table used looks dated compared to 'Pedia's house-style. All in all I think the other game sections need fleshing out more. It's a nice article, but I think we have better ones. --^Emp 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it is a very interesting subject for that matter.--Lambie 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Scratch this. It's irrelevant. We're voting for FAC, not which article is interesting... ^ht14 13:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Who cares if it is interesting or not! It's how well it is written. -Pokemon1234567890 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Diamond/Pearl section seems very empty. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is there to mention? ^ht14 13:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe you should expand it to meet what you want. You would help the article a lot for doing that! -Pokemon1234567890] 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • If it'll show on TV or not for one. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Then we have an article on that. We have television, and record mixing, and what not... ^ht14 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • If there's not enough content to improve the article, why should it be noted as one of "the best articles on Bulbapedia". I think it's a good article, I just don't think it meets Featured Article criteria. I'm still kind of undecided though, maybe it just needs a little work --^{Emp, out} 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I actually think the smash bros. series should have a photo showing one being taken. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• This article is not well enough written and does not include enough pictures. I would contribute, but don't have anything on Photography. I will vote for it if it is improved. Mudkipluvr4ever 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm going to have to object to this one...While it has come along from being a stub, I feel that there could be more to add. To be honest, I don't think every article that goes from stub to some semi-lengthy article should be attempted to be featured...It's like it's making a mockery of all the FACs honestly...All those other FACs have more detail and go incredibly in depth. I see there's work in here, but I feel it just scratches the surface of what Photography in the games is...Maybe I'm wrong and that what this is truly is all there is, but I think there could be many other articles which have been growing steadily and not possibly not so rushed and have been consistently edited to go more in depth, something I really don't think this deserves...So I'm going to have to object to this being nominated...--Psy_ライダー☮ 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Coming a long way doesn't mean it doesn't have much further to go. As others have said, there are other pictures that could be put up, and we may get more information when HGSS is released.--Purimpopoie 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean in the US? HGSS is already in Japan. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I mean in the US. Several things, such as the name of the dummied out Photo Album, might change in translation. There might also be a name given to this feature ingame. We won't know until it comes out.--Purimpopoie 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree... every article to an extent could be improved, even FAC's. It's timing. Poké Ball is a perfect example of an FAC that may have Japanese info change. I think your reasoning is flawed... ^ht14 04:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

• This seems to be a big argument between the those who support and those who don't. Those who support try to give reasons that go against the oppose to make them support while those who oppose don't do that unless they're the ones who's vote is trying to be refuted. You can mainly tell by seeing the support section and the oppose section. The support section seems to be very organized, only having votes, while basically every opposing vote has side comments saying stuff that go against it. Here are my reasons for opposing. To Pokemon1234567890's "Maybe you should expand it to meet what you want. You would help the article a lot for doing that!" comment, if that can be improved a lot, then why should it be featured? This should be one of the best, but it doesn't seem that great compared to Poké Ball or Brock. For one, many of these sectionsn are short. For another, the grammar isn't really great in some sections, like Yellow and GSC. These are reasons why I'm opposing. Others may have different reasons. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason I said that is, because every article can be improved. I've found many grammar mistakes in all the FAC articles that I have fixed, and that means I was helping an article, and the FAC articles are getting expanding everyday! Pokémon1234567890 3:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The reason I put that was you said a lot. That still doesn't solve the short section problem. Many can be expanded. Besides, just because they are FAC doesn't mean anything. FA means more because people can and do nominate bad things. Examples include PokéShipping, Platinum, and Meowth (Team Rocket). I nominated Platinum, which I now know is a bad choice. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 12:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the vote be closed now, or at least this page be protected? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon Platinum Version

Support (1)

• A great article. Lots of information and describes the changes from DP very well. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Object (10)

• What makes this one so much more special than the other sister games? I feel that users have been getting FAC making happy, and we don't need such low level choices like this one clogging up the featured articles. ^Maverick_Nate 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• It's just a big old list, like all the other game articles. I don't think it's *that* great... ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• It's a good article, but like Mav said, users are too obssesed with making FACs (but then again, so am I), and this doesn't really stand out compared to other game articles. CuboneKing 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Tina. It just lists the changes from Diamond and Pearl, and though the article isn't bad, it just doesn't stand out enough. --rockersk08 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• DP is a better choice than this page, and it even has less info. Because this page is what's been said: a long list of changes from DP. R.A. Hunter Blade 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with all of the above. - Pokémon1234567890 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• If it wins, it would have to be more in-depth, but it's not, so I'm voting for no.--FlyingSkymin23 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Most of the article is a list of changes from DP. The next largest section is Trivia (which is not encouraged anyway), and then the intro.--Snorlax<spanstyle="color:#0000A7">Monster 11:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. To make Platinum a featured article and not make D/P a featured article would be disrespectful to the classic two, and make them look inferior. Diamond and Pearl are good games. Why does everybody hate them now? Dusknoir477 09:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Scratch this vote. It has nothing to do with the article. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • DP are inferior to Pt, anyway. That's like saying GS are better than C. TTEchidna 20:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I say its just as good as emerald, crystal, ect. either do all or nothing I say! (preferably nothing).--Nick the Snorlax 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Scratch this vote too. It's about the article, not the game. -_-; ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I love that article -Pokejasol

• • ...Then why are you voting it under "Object"? And why specifically do you love it? Come on, guys. .___. ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

I'm not sure either way. All i can say is it is a good article. Perhaps we should have a "Good Article" thingy as well as the "Featured Article" thing. Coz then we can have catagorys for these "OK" articles. who agrees? SpecialK Leiks Lucario and The Celebi Glitch 11:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we vote about this... on Platinum's talk page? Why would we vote over it in the first place? Why is it a good idea anyway? D8 Technically anything that's not marked with any incomplete/stub/cleanup tags is considered good... ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 01:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Berry

Support (4)

• Support A very comprehensive article with information on every stage in the history of berries, from Gen II to Gen IV. Aesthetically pleasing, it is evident that a lot of time and effort went in to making the article what it is today. --RexRacer 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Very good and well written! Definitely worthy! Mudkipluvr4ever 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support! Rex hit the nail on the head, it's very in depth and covers berries in all canon by a reasonable amount. Maybe Munchlax's Berry Bonanza and Swalot Plop could be given a mention. I could try writing something up on each if nobody else wants to. Besides that I think it meets the standard. And I'm assuming we're not looking to have every berry that appears in the anime included in the article? --^{Emp, out} 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Very comprehensive, uses templates where it should, seems to have everything necessary. --SnorlaxMonster 10:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Vote changed to oppose. --SnorlaxMonster 07:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support because Platinum won't get chosen. This is gonna be featured. Virtual-Z 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Object (4)

• I think that there are better articles than this one that could be an FAC article. - Pokémon1234567890 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • How does this mean the article isn't good enough for FAC? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Needs work, image-wise. Also, it's another list for the most part. Bland to an extent... ^ht14 05:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Object. I voted for Support before the new table was introduced. I don't think a featured article should show missing images. When they are added, this article could be renominated. But for now, no. --SnorlaxMonster 07:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• Object *fills in "All of the above"* CuboneKing

I only put the images in so that I'd have a list of all the filenames I need to upload to so someone wouldn't screw it up. I've been far too busy to clean up and animate them all, though. TTEchidna 04:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

Don't get me wrong, it's a good article; but, I think it's just good for the images. Speaking of which, the images have yet to be fully uploaded, so... ^ht14 03:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in oppose then? Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Point made. Changing to oppose. ^ht14 05:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)