Bulbapedia talk:Manual of style/Anime/Archive 1
OK, now here's the longer version of that history section, just to give you some background: after these articles were discussed to death on their talk pages without conclusion, PAK Man brought the subject up on the forums in August 2008. After several users, including Maverick Nate, Fabu-Vinny, Sketch, myself, and others threw in their input, I wrote down the first draft of these rules. PAK made his improvements, but by September the subject seemed to die down without anything done.
MAGNEDETH then created a poll of sorts on a subpage of his, but there seemed to be no pattern. Thus, when I returned from my hiatus last week, I brought up the old rules again, and in a Bulbapedia meeting that took place on May 10, 2009, we agreed on a new version of the rules and the following morning I proposed this policy. That's it. --electAbuzzzz 11:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...It's the level-headed users like yourself that make Bulbapedia better. I'm going to go recast my votes based on these rules. --Alpha TotodileRWAR!! 12:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, according to these proposed requirements, articles like Hippopotas,Spoink, and Wynaut don't make the cut? It also calls into question articles like Sabrina's Kadabra, Koga's Venomoth, Lorelei's_Cloyster Bugsy's Scyther, Chuck's Machoke, Roxanne's Nosepass, Winona's Swellow, Wallace's Milotic, Crasher Wake's Floatzel, Noland's Articuno, Greta's Medicham. I would suggest reworking the requirements for Gym Leader/Elite Four/Frontier Brains to include something like, if the Pokémon is the leader's signature Pokémon, has a counter-part in the games and or TCG, and played a significant role in the battle. Since GL/E4/FB's signature Pokémon are rarely anime exclusive characters. Trainer-c 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hippopotas, Spoink and Wynaut will be merged to one article, according to the rule. And some of the gym leader articles you mentioned are not only called into question, they're just downright not notable according to this - which is exactly the point. Do you really think we need Koga's Venomoth?
- That specific rule was talked about more than any other, both on the forums and on the AIM meeting, and the important part of it, as most of the people there saw it, was the out of battle thing. If it did nothing but battle, it's not notable. It had no impact. As for the other medias - well, if they were in the games or TCG it doesn't matter much - because it has no role in the games and already has its own article in the TCG. I could see the significance if it's a major manga role, but in most cases the manga role isn't that big either. --electAbuzzzz 14:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I gotta say, I think you and I have the exact same mindset sometimes. I agree completely with all of these guidelines, and feel that this notability policy is just what Bulbapedia needs. On a side note, when did we get an article about Koga's Venomoth? Have I really been absent that long? --PAK Man Talk 11:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- So, according to these proposed requirements, articles like Hippopotas,Spoink, and Wynaut don't make the cut? It also calls into question articles like Sabrina's Kadabra, Koga's Venomoth, Lorelei's_Cloyster Bugsy's Scyther, Chuck's Machoke, Roxanne's Nosepass, Winona's Swellow, Wallace's Milotic, Crasher Wake's Floatzel, Noland's Articuno, Greta's Medicham. I would suggest reworking the requirements for Gym Leader/Elite Four/Frontier Brains to include something like, if the Pokémon is the leader's signature Pokémon, has a counter-part in the games and or TCG, and played a significant role in the battle. Since GL/E4/FB's signature Pokémon are rarely anime exclusive characters. Trainer-c 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Number 7
What defines "notable if it's a CotD from an episode"? that Riolu from the Ranger special falls into this category yet when someone tried to make an article for it, it was deleted. -Sketch 13:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, Riolu's even like more notable than Puka, it's in two episodes and it has a story about it too. tc²₆tc26 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Voting
OK, since I'm failing at creating an AIM voting on this, we'll do this the old-fashioned way. EB members, please place your vote - Agree to pass the policy, Disagree to change it (in which case, please state what exactly bothers you). That way we can determine whether we have a majority or not.
| User | Vote |
|---|---|
| TTEchidna | Oh fine |
| Argy | |
| Quagbert | |
| Unown Lord | |
| PAK Man | Agree |
| Jioruji Derako | Agree. |
| Fabu-Vinny | |
| Politoed666 | |
| Sketch | I'm gonna stretch this template out to the moon! Agree |
| MAGNEDETH | 10-4 |
| Kogoro | Talked it over, I see no issues. Have fun. |
At six thumbs-up, that's a majority vote there; I'll give it a few hours to simmer and fill out the taste, then serve it up as an official policy. (if nobody else steals the thunder.) -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
