Difference between revisions of "Talk:Misty's Staryu/Featured article candidate"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Support (12))
(Object (12))
Line 27: Line 27:
**[[Image:Spr_4d_132.png‎|70px]]: If it looks like a fanpage, and sounds like a fanpage, {{tt|guess what you've got?|And none of you clever types try to call Batesian mimicry}} [[User:Aura-Knight|Aura-Knight]] 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
**[[Image:Spr_4d_132.png‎|70px]]: If it looks like a fanpage, and sounds like a fanpage, {{tt|guess what you've got?|And none of you clever types try to call Batesian mimicry}} [[User:Aura-Knight|Aura-Knight]] 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*It's alright, but in my opinion, I think Misty's Psyduck should be an FA. M's Staryu is alright, but not good enough. [[User:Dusknoir477]] 21:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
*It's alright, but in my opinion, I think Misty's Psyduck should be an FA. M's Staryu is alright, but not good enough. [[User:Dusknoir477]] 21:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This, in my opinion, is stupid, its not even important to the show any more. [[User:Totojo158|<span style="color:#DAA520">''toto''</span>]][[User talk:Totojo158|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">Rulz</span>]]''' 15:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
====Other comments====
====Other comments====

Revision as of 15:54, 16 June 2009

Support (13)

  • This is one of the most well-written artciles I have seen (if not the most). It's detailed, accurate and fits all the criteria for a featured article candidate. Ater I read it I was blown away, its now my favourite article and I wholeheartedly believe it deserves to be a featured article. Wikid 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this article because it isn't one of the more obvious candidates for a featured article (namely Ash and Ash's Pikachu). While it was mostly written by a fanboy/girl, it is still in-depth and a good choice for the featured article. - s.Combusken 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a very well written article--Misty-May-Dawn rulz 05:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. This is more informative than Ash's Pikachu.--Kkllnn blastoise 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably one of the best articles on ANY particular individual of a species. Definitely worth Featured status. Satosuke 19:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is definitely one of the more worthy candidates for featured article. It's very informative. It certainly compiles and presents all the necessary information well enough to be featured. RayJT 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was amazingly detailed, which is the point of such a place as Bulbapedia, so I'm baffled by complaints of it being 'too detailed'. Yes, it was written by a fan, but isn't that the point of this place as well? To discard this article because a few people aren't a fan of Staryu in particular would be a crime, since there are indeed many fans out there, or people who may simply be wanting to know a thing or two. Those people now have a very fine and well researched resource when they need information. You can tell this guy put a lot of work into tracking all these details down. Fantastic job I say! --Cayh 13:57, 01 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly the most detailed page I have ever read on Bulbapedia, absoluetly fantastic page! User:Kukisanban 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • At least the most detailed of any character's Pokémon page; it has detailed information, pictures, and information for the anime, games, manga and the TCG. Plus it isn't flooded with too much trivia. KPF 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I whole-heartedly support this article. I am a big fan of Misty but I am not just supporting it for that, the article is well-writen and it is the correct length (According to me, some articles with spectacular content are WAY to short)--Pokemonguy1 19:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • See Kenji-girl's comment below. I agree wholeheartedly, this page is extremely detailed, just like Brock, but his page is a featured article. Here we have this page, and it's getting a lot of hate from some people. WTF? This article contains nearly everything you could possibly know about its subject. I nominate it. AlphaTotodile 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This page is extremely detailed, and states everything that you could ever know about it. --Theryguy512 19:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitely support this article. I have to say that I am a big fan of Misty and her Pokémon, but I'm not only supporting this article just because of that. This page has all the necessary details that one would need to know about Misty's Staryu. The article is very well-written, has accurate pictures and information from anime, games, manga, and the card game. It's not filled with useless information like what I see in other articles. --Jczala 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Object (12)

  • This article was written largely by a fanboy/girl, and contains a huge amount of information that I believe to be extraneous. I don't think a list of every single time Staryu appears from its Poké Ball should qualify as an FA. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why it even is a candidate. My opinion about this is simple; NO! MathijsP 06:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea I don't get it was even nominated--CoolPikachu! 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No. It may be very complete, but it's not interesting or attention grabbing. I got bored after the first paragraph ~RR~ 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No need to say each time it battles just save it for the larger battles. Why not just do Ash's Pikachu? LAST WORD NO!!!! User:Flame alex
  • I object. It's simply not a general enough subject for a featured article. --ニョロトノ666 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I, like many, believe that it is not deserving of a feature. It may be detailed, but it may actually be TOO detailed. Rawr I say! 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It contains a lot of stuff that should be cleaned up. I don't think it should be featured. User: Dialgalover
  • I dont think it refelcts wat we want a bulbapedia.nobodys gonna say OOOOHHH... look at that article.--smartkidhen
  • Object. Agree with above. Let's nominate all of them, shall we? Seriously, we're searching for the BEST. ht14 02:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Spr 4d 132.png: If it looks like a fanpage, and sounds like a fanpage, guess what you've got? Aura-Knight 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's alright, but in my opinion, I think Misty's Psyduck should be an FA. M's Staryu is alright, but not good enough. User:Dusknoir477 21:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This, in my opinion, is stupid, its not even important to the show any more. totoRulz 15:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

To the people who said they don't get why it was nominated, I did explain in the talk page. Plus, I have noticed something here. This is the only article that has more object votes than support. Something else I notice is that this article is the only that doesn't cover an extremely broad subject like the others. It seems to me that the rest of you are only supporting articles that have a lot of writing (and therefore huge) and are objecting ones that are more specialized, such as this. If this is the case I find it insurmountably injust as a featured article should not be judged on quantity but rather quality, as stated by the criteria. Although this article is still quite big anyways. Finally, I hardly think that any of the informaton in the article is irrelevant. The article requires informtion about Staryu's history and that's what has been detailed. Its not a list of everytime Staryu has appeared from its pokeball as a) Its not in lst format and b) Staryu has been sent out A LOT more times than the article specifies (for lack of a better verb) so if it was the list would be much bigger so don't make it out to be.Wikid 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I say something? Some of you have said that this article was just created by a fanboy/girl and the details are over exaggerated. Well couldn't we say the same thing for Brock's page? Most of it was written by a Brock fan that has a lot of information that has been stretched, yet a lot of people have been nominating it for a featured article. Why is this any different? The person was being descriptive with this article just like with Brock's. What? Just cause it's not written by an admin makes it not worthy to be nominated? As for my choice, I'm indifferent about it right now. I'm just letting you know that we have an over descripted article like this one yet it is being praised while this one is being looked down upon. --ケンジガール 06:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might say something? I added to this article because it stated itself it was one of Misty's most used Pokémon, yet there was no detail. I tried to stick to important events and group them together, same as I did for Misty's Starmie. I'm so glad that it has got so much attention, thank you. And yes, I am a fanboy. Is there a problem with that? I have tried to be unbiased, but if you like, I'll add a few more bits about its defeats and other ignominies. User:Starmie121 02:35, 16th August 2008 (GMT)

Yo, Wikid, Pokémon Crater got more objectshuns so dont say dat. Doooooooooooooode...--smartkidhen

Er? Pokémon Crater was nominated later than when that post was put--The Kkllnnator カメックス 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if it were a bit longer?--Pokemonguy1 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I've commented on this already and since most of the article is what I've contributed, maybe I'm a wee bit biased. You'll wanna note that last bit there by the way, it's called honesty. I badly need to get this off my chest, and that is the almost farcical nature of the majority of the objections. Some of them are indeed with merit, but the number of them that have no reason other than 'Ugh yeah what he said' is shambolic oh yeah and the idea that Psyduck should be instead actually made me chuckle THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHAT CHARACTERS THAT GOT THE MOST SCREEN TIME, THIS IS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF INFORMATION, WHICH BY THE WAY MISTY'S PSYDUCK IS SORELY LACKING. God it's irritating, from now on can we please make a pact that if you don't like Staryu, tough, it's not about that. I'm sorry I had to do that, but it needed to be said. - Starmie 121 18:44, 17th April 2009 (UTC)