Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Talk:Photography/Featured article candidate

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

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)