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 Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anime,
manga, and related topics 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.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to
participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 16:47, August 1, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related 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
I have been working on this article over the past few weeks but had to suspend activities due to
TTN's disruptive edits and the consequent Arbcom case in which he has been warned off.
Urutapu seems to have picked up his baton and dismissive attitude: he calls for discussion but then fails to discuss. I have discussed this article before as you can see above but I cannot see any discussion points from Urutapu or TTN.
For Urutapu's benefit, the reference to
The Economist refers to a recent detailed article in which they said that Wikipedia had detailed articles on many hundreds of Pokemon. Its many readers might form a poor impression of our project if they checked and found that this was apparently not so. I plan to remedy this and restore our reputation.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
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 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. Rough consensus to move. While those in opposition were more numerous, consensus is determined not by counting !votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
Through this lens, we find that most, although not all, oppose !votes have little basis in policy, and are merely the expressions of editors beliefs. We also needed to discount one !support vote, which merely asserted that the nuclear reactor was not primary.
Comment unfamiliar with precedent for stuff like this, but would the word itself not be the primary topic? I understand the word itself lacks an article, but it has a requisite wikitionary article and is the main usage of the word. Obviously if this doesn't apply then it's whatever, but I want to double check this given my own lack of familiarity with these kinds of disambiguation topics.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
23:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Frankly, these seem like typos on the part of the writer. The vast majority of sources refer to it in all-caps, such as
here,
here, etc. A few minor errors don't demonstrate that the lowercase name is at all common.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
07:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
See what I replied with above. SLOWPOKE falls under DIFFCAPS and both can be primary for different capitalizations of the word.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
01:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose The Wiktionary entry, which the disambiguation page links to, is the most likely topic for users to be searching for. Many of them would likely be very confused if they were sent to an article about a Pokémon.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm: Articles that do not exist can be primary topics. In that scenario, we treat the other articles as if there was no primary topic until the article is written.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose while I am unsure if an exact policy can be cited here, I feel too there's a point where
WP:COMMONSENSE can: the term "slowpoke" is just TOO common in the every day language and pop culture to apply it to the Pokemon as a primary. Every fiber of my being is telling me this is a terrible idea.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As you have admitted, this is not a policy based argument. Policy itself states that if there is not the ability to create an encyclopedic article on the word, a dictionary definition should not be placed there "just because". In this case it doesn't seem that there's enough information to make a
WP:WORDISSUBJECT article, or a sensible place to direct it as a primary topic.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
07:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Not everything needs to be a policy based argument Zx. There's a reason
WP:IGNOREALLRULES exists. Please don't wikilawyer me to try and disregard my statement, I put a significant amount of thought into this matter and that's a conclusion based off a long time on this website.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose permitting potentially any and all Pokémon to get a Wikipedia article on this site if interested editors can meet the fairly generous standards of notability that this site operates off of is one thing, but suggesting their localized English names can become
WP:PTOPIC over other articles of consequence is another thing entirely.
AVNOJ1989 (
talk)
16:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not sure why your dislike of it is relevant here? Unless you open an RfC and have your way, then it's entitled to what any other article is.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
07:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support – I think the comic strip and the song both have some potential for their own article, but even then this one is primary above them.
Slowpoke moth comes close but is also obviously less primary. Honestly, the Wiktionary link is one of the main reasons I am so hesitant, it's an interesting word with a long history. There's no strong policy reason for this not to be the primary topic, but I'm comfortable in either situation. At the very least, the disambiguation page will not be
surprising to people landing on it. ~
Maplestrip/Mable (
chat)
09:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak support based on the policy arguments above (DIFFCAPS, etc, and while it's only implied, it makes sense that a word can't be a primary topic, so unless somebody wants to bang out a draft for the word really quick, the Pokemon looks like the primary topic, and if a word COULD be the primary topic, NGRAM viewer shows usage going back to the 1900s, while the pokemon only existed since 1996, so the word would win in that case). I do believe it is a bit
astonishing to anybody not expecting a Pokemon, and that there is a case that while the Pokemon is a strong contender for the primary topic, it may benefit from the precision of being noted as such in the title, but I can't find a single policy for that so I will simply support while leaving open the possibility we might override our policy.
ASUKITE15:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Oppose: I do not believe that the Pokémon is the primary topic for this term. I completely agree with Kung Fu Man. This is a very common term, and I just do not see how and why the Pokémon should be put as the primary topic.
Aoba47 (
talk)
21:21, 28 June 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.
Slowpoke, known in Japanese as Yadon,[2] is a fictional species of Pokémon created for the Pokémon franchise. Developed by Game Freak and published by Nintendo, the series began in Japan in 1996 with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy.[3] In these games, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train creatures called Pokémon. Players use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon.[4] A major goal in each game is to complete the Pokédex, a comprehensive Pokémon encyclopedia,[5] by obtaining individuals from all Pokémon species.[4]
Sounds like it belongs in the lead
Pokédex entries state that it is very slow, inactive, and dopey, thus making it difficult to tell if it is awake or asleep. => It is difficult to tell if it is awake, as Pokédex entries have stated that it is very slow, inactive, and dopey. Also maybe quote that too.
Other comments
Maybe add some EFNs? It is slightly confusing if you have not played pokémon before, but considering that most people coming here are from pokémon then no.
xq23:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The design and characteristics intro paragraph is used in Pokemon species articles for context on the concepts of the series so readers unfamiliar can understand some of the terms better. It's placed there rather than the lead as it would clog the lead otherwise and is more relevant there. I also looked at the sentence you wanted me to reword, and I feel your suggestion borders on being a bit too in-universe. Either way, I have reworded it, so I hope that clarifies it better. Additionally, I don't believe EFNs are needed, but where would you suggest putting them? I wish to see what your thoughts are on that.
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (
talk)
01:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Outside comment: A), I don't feel that there's a strong national connection for any of the Pokemon, which is a global franchise. So the maintainer can just pick a style they like. B), even if you think there is a strong connection, it'd be to Japan, and Japan uses Y-M-D dates by default (
List of date formats by country), which is a rare style on Wikipedia - it's more common to always use either MDY or DMY, and YMD is closer to MDY. But if you really wanted to shift it, it'd be to YMD.
SnowFire (
talk)
17:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It should use YMD, per the Japanese origination, and international spread of this franchise. That map shows YMD is used through most of Eurasia, Europe+Asia; Oceania, southern Africa, Canada, USA --
64.229.90.32 (
talk)
20:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Using {{Use mdy dates|cs1-dates=y}} will autoformat citations into YMD. I believe this is appropriate at least in citations; the prose can be what-ever the authors agree upon (the main one being Pokelego999 in this case).
Reconrabbit20:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply