This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to
Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish. I struggled for a moment to see if we have a policy relevant to ordering titles referencing multiple topics, so far the best I've found is
WP:AND which does support the situational ordering being offered here: It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang., so as this is unopposed, I will move it as requested. (
closed by non-admin page mover)
ASUKITE16:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield) → Arctovish, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Dracozolt – Perhaps the proposed name is clunky, but eliminates confusion. For one, the disambiguation of "Sword and Shield" is vague for non-fans. There are also Fossil Pokemon besides these four in Pokemon Sword and Shield, the Crown Tundra DLC adds the Cradily and Armaldo evolutionary lines to the game, as seen
here. This makes it unclear which Fossil Pokemon the name is referring to.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
11:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
i can see two main arguments here
supporting because every other standalone pokémon article is named after the pokémon (plus the currently still ongoing discussion on magikarp and gyarados)
not supporting because absolutely no one would think that anorith and the actual tentacle monster in a kids franchise were introduced in gen 8 (on that note, all fossil pokémon outside of gen 4 were reintroduced in the crown tundra, so eh)
supporting adding the franchise name to the parentheses
Not really, just redirects from each individual name. The 24 permutations of name orderings are very unlikely search terms and we don't need to catch all of them. The
search bar is quite smart and will help readers find where they want to go.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
would support it, but only the gen 1 and 8 fossils have any sort of notability, and even then omanyte and kabuto only have notability outside of the context of mainline pokémon
Is the concept of Fossil Pokemon really notable? I sincerely don't think it is. So it would have to be "List of fossil Pokemon", but we already have Pokemon lists for every generation, making it totally redundant. Ultimately, individual articles on any notable Pokemon grouping is the best we can do under notability standards.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Greenish Pickle! Made changes where applicable. Dawson and the Piltdown Man are described as a hoax earlier in the Design and characteristics section, but if you want me to add more detail anywhere, let me know. Otherwise, I believe I've patched everything else up. Let me know if I need to make any more changes.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.