Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charizard[edit]

Right, well I'm giving Charizard another shot, hopefully the chaos has blown over from those FACs, I was against them but nevermind. Please, as usual, don't bring up gripes with Pokémon notability or worthwhileness here, and judge the quality of the actual. All comments are welcomed. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 12:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there is some long lying vandalism I'm unearthing, just delete it if you see some of it. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light support. Ignoring the bad-faith nominations, tbere's quite some noteworthy content in this article that I can note. However, I do have a few things against it, such as opinions without sources, for example "Charizard is often considered one of the most influential of all Pokémon in the card game" (to which an upfront reference or numerous notable ones would do it well). Actually, I could point out that it's the second paragraph of the TCG section that needs a few improvements and better referencing (to avoid NPOV and making what seems to be opinion). The notability of some lines and their references (we're talking game strategies) confounds me a bit, though - "In particular, some players like to use a setup known as "Bellyzard" which utilizes a move called Belly Drum to greatly increase their Attack power while lowering their HP.". Is it notable enough? - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your notes, I'll work on them today. Since the article is by several editors, I can't note on all the points, but I will for one remove the POV in the card game. In relation to Bellyzard, it's quite notable. At one point every team had the combination on the internet sites (whatever it's called). Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've cleaned up the TCG section, and removed a bit of the random stuff not required in the video games section. Anything else, Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak opposeSupport; this article is virtually FA quality, having certainly improved since FACs 1-3. However, there are a couple of minor qualms I have before I can support:
    • I'd prefer if the article actually explained what Charizard's ability "Blaze up" does; a little note in the infobox means nothing.
    • Having links in the style Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen seems a little misleading, as it appears that these are separate articles. I'd prefer simply Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Blaze is just it's ability, but I'll expand on that. We used to have an article, but it got deleted, which is why it doesn't have the def. And it's Blaze, damn vandals. Second of all, new editors are encouraged to link them in that format, because the "and" isn't in the titles. It's up for discussion, but that's the way it is in Torchic and Bulbasaur. I'd ask Cel really. Will get the def though, Highway Daytrippers 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I don't see the point in describing Charizard's ability, it doesn't have anything to do with anything mentioned in detail in the article. The only reason it's there is some people think it's enclyopedic. I happen to agree with them, but I don't think we should describe their abilties' function. If you had to actually put it into the articles, where would you try to fit it? (video games, obviously, but where?) Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough; I suppose the basic meaning of the ability is pretty clear. I'm still iffy on the linking issue, but since its a Wikiproject issue, I'm moving to support. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you, the ability is readily available if anyone desires to find out, it's just not particularly enclyopedic.Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Low quality of sources. Almost every single one of them is Pokemon promotional material or gaming industry promotional material. What's left would not support an encyclopedia article. Before we have a repeat of the last round, I reallize that due to project demographics I am in the minority in believing that we should not lower our standards of referencing for fictional characters, etc, but nonetheless I feel I need to comment. It simply makes us look bad when we put something like this out there as being of comparable quality to an article with unimpeachable sources when it's not. So even though it doesn't weaken my objection, I expect it to be a token one, hence no need to argue. - Taxman Talk 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, per Taxman. There's something wanting when all but two of the non-redundant references are to either fan websites or to the franchise's official literature. As a counterxample among fictional-character FAs, see Palpatine, which includes among its references (alongside official sources) a couple dozen mainstream news outlets, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books by notable publishing houses. Andrew Levine 04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to both - I would honestly add these if they existed but there is no such links or literature of which you describe. Charizard is different to Palpantine, any criticsm is of Pokémon in general, not individual ones. We've had these arguments before, but the last point it has to end of is that this stuff doesn't exist. Sorry, Highway Daytrippers 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Give it a little time, then. The character of Palpatine has existed in fiction longer than Charizard, and so there has been more time for mainstream sources to react and assess its cultural impact. I'd say that if such literature does not exist now, you should probably wait until it does, rather than rush the article through the FA process before it's ready. Andrew Levine 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Charizard has existed for a decade! It's not it isn't around yet, it's not coming ever. There's too many Pokémon for anything notable to analyse Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not going to be cited because it's really only notable to pokéfans. There's got to be articles that are better suited for FAC:ing than this. Even among pokearticles. /Peter Isotalo 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, this is the one that got nominated. Wouldn't it be nice if all "pokearticles" were good enough to be featured? That's not really rhetorical because I'm not sure you agree with me. I know I would get really frustrated if I toiled away on an article like this only to have deletionists sneer at the subject. Everyking 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, many Pokémon articles could be put up for FAC, but we made a conscious decision as a WikiProject to only put the notable Pokémon up for FA, Starter Pokémon, Pikachu, Meowth, perhaps even Jigglypuff. The fact is, there are lots of articles already at GA level, Quilava, Golduck, Weedle, which we intend to leave at that point. We are aiming to have all character articles GA's, leaving a selected to go on to Featured. Charizard, Torchic and Bulbasaur are examples of this. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think the FA-list can do without another Pokémon character. You could ease the burden on all of us by putting some effort into FA:ing Pokémon instead. It's the only article in the series that actually enjoys notability among the general readership. / Peter Isotalo 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I definitely think you should aim at having them all featured, long-term, even the least notable, the same way I think the community as a whole should aim to have everything on Wikipedia FA quality someday. But I do think nominating the most notable Pokemon is good for starters, from a tactical perspective, considering the opposition I'm sure you'd get if you nominated some really obscure one. Everyking 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have several problems with this article.
  • The name Charizard is presumably a portmanteau of char, etc etc etc. Either it is or it isn't. Without knowing anything about the development of the character I too would assume this, but unless the speculation is in some way notable, lets not have speculation, kay? And citing the defenition of charred is pretty weak.
  • Nintendo never revealed the backgrounds of the names, so other websites have made theories of it. There is some argument over charred or charcoal, but there are three links there. One link is to cite the definition of charred, one is to cite the definition of lizard, and the third cites that portmanteau form of Charizard. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lack throughout of a out of universe perspective. Simply putting As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries at the begining of a paragraph that for the rest of the time is very in universe does not make the article out of universe. Especially with phrases like Wild Charizard are said to focus on finding worthy challengers, as they have a strong innate sense of honor, noted to rely on claws and strength to hunt or ward off lesser foes, using their flaming breath only against opponents they see as equals. Run on sentence, and bolded for the weasely bits.
  • How would you fix the Characteristics problem? I'm not sure myself. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a reason for objecting, but the whole business in the computer game sections about attacks and types and stuff made my eyes water. And I've played the game.
  • The types section is a WikiProject thing, it's above me. I removed some unsourced stuff too. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following line, in the anime section, is uncited. Charizard's frequent returns can be attributed to the massive fanbase the dragon-esque pokemon has gathered, many fans stating he is the best thing about the series. In fact, his removal from the main team caused numerous fans to turn on the show, and rejoice at his returns. Given that this line is one of the wretchedly few nods towards real world importance (and this Pokemon is to my mind one of the few that might) the lack of any references to back this up is inexucsable.
  • I didn't add that, someone else did and I missed. I noted at the top there was vandalism of that type. It's now removed, Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous wild Charizard live in the Charicific Valley, along with Charla, a female Charizard owned by the valley’s warden, Lisa, including the fore-mentioned Charla, a Pokémon Ash’s Charizard is attracted to. That flat-out isn't English.
  • The anime and manga sections is basically filled with evrey single appearnce by the species/character. No sense of flow. In fact, the frequent jumps between Charizard, the character owned by Ash, and Charizard, the species, make the whole thing difficult to follow even if you know about Pokemon.
  • More of the same really, as above. Also removed. In relation to the coverage, *I agree the anime is too extensive, other users are fighting over trivial points. The manga is actually more keypoints, the Volume 3 was the only one that sold in the Western World. Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxman's comments of the references also striked a cord with me. May I direct your attention to failed FAC for Star Wars IV which floundered largely on its reliance on George Lucas approved documnetaries at the exclusion of just about everything else. Rather too much of the references come from the spource itself or other Pokemon fan sites. Aren't there any independent review sites that spill tons of ink over the subject?

My biggest problem with this article is the complete lack of any information on critical reaction, the almost complete absence of information on fan reaction (certainly very citation) and the complete absence of any development information, out of universe stuff. Contrast this with the excellent work done on the recent FAC for Final Fantasy VII. I am not objecting yet, I will wait to see what answers I get from the editors who have obviosly worked hard on this instead. I'm not in the business of opposing just because it is pop culture, or a game, or anything like that. As I mentioned I have played the game, in fact I am the only person on earth to have used Mankey in an attack while working in a rainforest studying monkeys!. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already noted this everywhere else, so I don't need to go in any particular detail. The references are valid in my opnion, others will disagree, there are users who are against using sources as much. The point is, they don't exist, so I think it's best to make the article as great as it can be, rather than focusing on something that isn't going to appear. Would you hassle a chicken to lay a dinosaur? Thank you for your points! Highway Daytrippers 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this looks good. As for the referencing, I see no reason whatsoever why the materials used would not be considered adequate. I'd be more inclined to think the double standard is the other way around: people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Everyking 11:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're kidding right? Almost every one of the sources is promotional material. There doesn't even exist a single source which would be considered quality by the standards other subjects are judged by. By what standards could the sources be considered of adequate quality? - Taxman Talk 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's entitled to his opnion, as are you. Don't question other people's opinions, people don't do it to you. Highway Daytrippers 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course he is, but discussion about whether an article meets the FA criteria is bound to have differences of opinion, and those can be discussed. That's what a discussion is. He has questioned my opinion (in the sense of stating disagreement with it) and because I don't feel there's much substantive basis behind his position I've responded. He clearly doesn't agree with my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that as long as the discussion is productive. - Taxman Talk 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well "You're kidding, right?" isn't productive. He took your complaints seriously, you may as well take his merits seriously also. Highway Daytrippers 16:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You use the best sources that are available to you regarding a specific subject. Sometimes there are academic journals and books, sometimes (usually) there aren't, and you settle for less. As long as the sources are reasonably reliable, there should be no problem, and the sources in this article look reliable to me (and I would trust the authors to know this stuff well enough to choose the best sources available, anyway). Official "promotional material" seems perfectly fine to use, and there's tremendous precedent. Everyking 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And then there comes a point where the sources are of such low quality that passing it off as an encyclopedia article becomes unnacceptable. This is well past that and these sources aren't reasonably reliable, they're fan material. We wouldn't accept an article as a FA on oranges that included information only from the Florida orange growers association and likewise we shouldn't include one that has only promotional material no matter what the subject is. There's a reason there's no reliable sources on the subject. It's just not important enough to be treated in any. That's not the end of the world, we don't need to cover everything; we need to cover everything with reliable sources, and there's tons of that to go work on. I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already asked please do not argue Pokémon's worth at Wikipedia, you're just grasping for straws for an actionable objection. Highway Daytrippers 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not arguing about the worth of Pokemon. There are likely enough high quality sources discussing Pokemon in general that a wonderful FA could be written about the general topic. But there aren't anywhere close for this individual topic, and that's the problem here. While you'd like to think that pointing out the extreme low quality of sources in this article is grasping at straws, it's not. It is a serious problem if something without high quality sources would be promoted as if it does have them. - Taxman Talk 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You were saying that they didn't deserve to be at this site, that highly sounds like discussing the worth of Pokémon. If you aren't going be constructive there's no point discussing this. Highway Daytrippers 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't care what the topic is. If this subject had a lot of high quality sources I would be right there arguing along with you that the subject doesn't matter and it should be featured. All topics with no high quality sources should not be featured, it doesn't matter if it's Pokemon or whatever else. - Taxman Talk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Escuse me but I don't have any problem letting anyone write about anything, it just doesn't need to be in Wikipedia because there are some things we are and some we are not. There are plenty of fan sites or things like Wikia to post fan material like this on. If we just used the standard of reliable sources, we wouldn't have nearly as many deletionism inclusionism debates and we'd have a much better encyclopedia with more even coverage. is hardly justifying with "subject doesn't matter". And if Pokémon have such awful references, then why didn't you argue this in Torchic's FAC? Highway Daytrippers 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The subject not mattering is exactly what I was saying in what you quote there. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy. The only thing that matters is whether or not there are reliable sources available for a subject. If there are not then it satisfies what Wikipedia is not, fails WP:V, etc making what I wrote above perfectly consistent. And if you check I argued exactly this same point there, that that article did not have (m)any reliable sources either. This one's even worse in this regard and I've probably stated my case better here. The problem is not the subject, the problem is the double standard of allowing articles with terrible quality sources to be promoted as if they have high quality ones. But you're right above, we disagree and further disagreement isn't likely to help. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • people go harder on the Pokemon articles (and similar subjects) and frankly some of the objections that come up look like grasping at straws to avoid having to give the fundamental and unactionable objection (a false interpretation of notability). Garbage. I have recently voted to promote FF VII, Padme Amidala and Palpatine. Applying the standards of those fine articles to Pokemon articles is neither double standards nor unfair. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They do get quite a bit of stick. Highway Daytrippers 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People often do. Objecting because a ridiculous figure doesn't exist, or objecting because they don't think it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobody here is objecting on the grounds that Charizard doesn't exist or isn't notable enough. Please stop setting up strawman arguments. Andrew Levine 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to notes, such as the argument that an article shouldn't exist because a merchandise figure hadn't been calculated by the manufacture. I wasn't referring to the character's notability at all. Highway Daytrippers 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Taxman and Andrew Levine. It's not fair to lower our standards for pop culture articles. Reliable sources are reliable sources, and many of those used for this article are not. — BrianSmithson 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, why should it mather where the sources come from? As long as there reliable, It shouldn't matter. Although I still don't see why we need Bellyzard, I guess it's notable.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 15:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I say "Enough" to those who wish to lock out entire subjects from FA status simply because they don't like the references that are used. Though we would all love to have accurate and highly notable references, I think we should allow for references that are simply accurate when the subject warrants it, and this is that case. Judgesurreal777 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you seen how many FACs on all kinds of subjects get rejected for not having quality sources? Do you propose we lower standards for all articles or just for certain types? How does lowering referencing standards help in building a reliable reference work? How is it fair/right/better for the project to have double standards for some subjects that get to use lower quality references? - Taxman Talk 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since they're reliable, doesn't it make them quality?--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 21:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He means things like Wall Street journals and TIME features. It's not the quality of the information, it's how prominent it is. However, since we're using prominent sources for our field I don't the issue. Unless you mean something else? Highway Daytrippers 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean prominent. Many of these articles have very solid references, but we are constantly having this same discussion with some trying to bar the door to these articles. We are going to have to accept references that are reliable in the video game and yes, even Pokemon community, as there will never be Britannica type reference. Judgesurreal777 21:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would expect this level required for Pokémon, but not for creature articles. It just isn't feasible. Highway Daytrippers 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              First, how do you know there will never be non-fan, non-official sources which analyze Charizard? There are dozens of peer-reviewed journals on popular culture worldwide, Pokémon has been popular for a decade and may remain so for a long time, and even if it burns out after a few more years, people who as kids grew up on Pokémon are the editors and writers of tomorrow, and given the influence of nostalgia, individual Pokémon, like Palpatine and other mass-culture phenomena, might very well get a thorough examination. Probably nobody in 1956 would have imagined that baseball cards would someday be the subject of countless books, news articles, essays, etc.
              Second, I'm not talking about The Wall Street Journal or Time necessarily. As long as it examines Charizard from a perspective outside the Pokémon community, I'd settle for a medium-sized American newspaper, a book on pop-culture from a known publisher, or a peer-reviewed journal from a small university press.
              Third, accusing longtime participants in the FA process of blocking a nomination simply because they don't like the subject, even after they've explained repeatedly why that's not true at all, is assuming bad faith. Andrew Levine 22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first point, sympathize with the second but stil don't quite agree, but as to Wikipedians blocking FA's, I would direct you to the Bulbasaur nomination, and assure you that it is not at all bad faith to say this, it is a statement of fact and has occurred in recent memory on this page in vivid detail. As to whether you guys are doing this or not, I would doubt it, since I have seen both of you around and being very active, but I still dispute your point and tire of this fighting every nomination. I am more generally frustrated that this continues to occur than attempting to single you out. Judgesurreal777 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking back at the Bulbasaur nomination, I see that there were eight people who objected all the way to the end, and none of them said they were contesting the nomination because of what its subject was. Not one. Please stop making the completely unfounded assertion that the Pokémon character articles face opposition because people don't like the franchise. Andrew Levine 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. WP:RS is quite clear on the reliability of self-published sources such as fanpages (they aren't reliable). And I think even a cursory glance at my user page will show you that I have nothing against pop culture articles becoming featured on Wikipedia. If, as Andrew suggests, we need to wait a few months or years for enough information to become available on Charizard, so be it. It's not right to lower our standards for some subjects and not others. BrianSmithson 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a matter of "lowering standards", it's a matter of applying different standards to different subjects so as to accurately reflect the quality and quantity of references. To apply the same standard everywhere would be absurd; we have subjects where we have vast quantities of scholarly work to draw on, subjects where there is adequate but not exceptional availability of such material, subjects where it is minimal and needs to be supplemented with lesser sources in order to attain comprehensiveness, and subjects for which there is no scholarly work to draw on at all, and lesser sources must be used for the whole thing. To apply just one of these standards everywhere would only permit good results in articles that match the category; all other articles would suffer from it. Everyking 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, that's an issue for WP:RS, not for FAC. If some guy who runs a Pokémon site from his basement is the only source for a particular fact, that's definitely a problem. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You say it's not a matter of lowering standards and then you go on to explain how it requires lowering standards. Lesser sources are lesser sources. Applying the standards of referencing is what it will take to bring this encyclopedia to Britannica or better standard. Maintaining referencing standards and our other content policies are what separates this as a reference work, not a fan magazine and all the other things that Wikipedia is not. Lowering standards [by extreme amounts] only for some subjects dilutes the soup and damages the project. There are other places for things that Wikipedia is not and that's fine. The problem is trying to shove things we're not into the project. - Taxman Talk 20:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can I just ask people, on both sides, to try and keep conversation central to Charizard, since we're here to discuss the article's quality, and not the overall worth of Pokémon, or it's referencing, on Wikipedia. Cheers, Highway Daytrippers 20:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you are saying ignores reality (and a hefty portion of what I actually said) and leaves no place for a Charizard article on Wikipedia (or hundreds of thousands of other articles that would easily survive AfD, but cannot meet your stringent referencing standards). Therefore your objection is fundamentally not actionable, is it? The article would survive AfD, therefore the question is whether this reaches a standard of excellence within what is possible given the subject. The article can only be as good as an article on Charizard can be. Everyking 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I said it better elsewhere, but we're getting repetitive. I inserted a modifier above in brackets making it more accurate. There is a level below which you can't lower the standards and still have a quality reference work. This is so far below that point the point isn't in sight anymore. And no, it's perfectly actionable, strip the article down to what reliable sources support. If that's 8 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, or 1, that's fine. Currently the article reads terribly mostly because it's so fluffed up with in universe material. - Taxman Talk 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • See, I can't take what you're saying seriously because you didn't bring this up at Bulbasaur's or Torchic's FACs, where you don't comment at all about the "fluffy quality" of writing. You just seem to be thinking of scenarios in which you'll get your way. Highway Daytrippers 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Perhaps Taxman didn't think that Bulbasaur or Torchic suffered from "fluffy prose" and that's why he didn't bring it up there? You still seem to be under the impression that people are operating with an anti-Pokémon agenda and that their complaints against Pokémon articles must be uniform. Andrew Levine 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because the writing is nearly exactly the same. It's certainly in the same style. Taxman has also made similar unactionable objections in all the FACs. Highway Daytrippers 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not sure why you're persisting in saying the objection is unactionable when I've already demonstrated it's perfectly actionable: you reduce the in universe material – an action, hence actionable. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well for one thing, whether I brought this up before or not is irrelevant to this nomination. For another, I'm confused why you're making that assertion without checking. I just phrased it the other way around before saying that there was no out of universe information, hence too much in universe. And for Bulbasaur as I've already said, I thought that had more than enough objections that I didn't even need to bother writing one out. - Taxman Talk 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There is a difference between actionable and propostorous, that is ridiculous. Highway Daytrippers 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • At least we can agree it is actionable, but you just don't want to do it. Trouble is I have very strong basis in policy behind my position. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Taxman until the sourcing is better. I also must express some surprise to the claim that such sourcing does not exist. I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't written a book or two on Pokemon that are more academic. JoshuaZ 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to those who are calling out that objections based on source quality are unreasonable, I note that this still cites serebii.net, although not as heavily as it once did. I objected to the first nomination partly on the basis of that site's use as a reference; I have great difficulty believing that a site which, at the time of that FAC at least, had clearly not bothered to spellcheck or copyedit its articles has put too much effort into fact checking them either. Better references than that must be found. --RobthTalk 02:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for those of you who are opposing due to the references, hear me out. HighwayCello has pointed out to you that things such as TIME and NYT and WSJ aren't available for charizard. He and the other editors have obviously done there best to find the best sources for this article. If there were this kind of stuff out there, don't you think the editors would've added it? Should it matter if the source of info is from TIME magazine or some dude running a website from a basement in Dorset County, as long as it's reliable? Now, I'm not going to argue my point any further.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 11:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're overlooking the vital concern of whether the bloke running a website from his basement in Dorset is reliable. Reliability is the issue. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here with Serebii.net (it's certainly been active for a long time, and is notable among the fan community), but it's fair to bring up this concern and to request some reasoning for why the individual(s) running such a site should be taken as reliable sources. (Something of a continuation of this in my comment to be made immediately below.)
  • Comment — I'm behind the argument that we shouldn't restrict "reliable" to just sources like Time and The New York Times. Often, there are authoritative sources within the community of a subject that may, in fact, be better suited to serve as a source (such as IGN or Edge for video game articles in general).
However, I've noticed it being said in this FAC that other sources simply don't exist for some of the information in the article. I have no problem with the primary sources that are used (the issue of primary sources is really an overblown and misunderstood one: it's only an issue when the validity of the information being supported is open to question; if, for example, the subject of the article is a controversial matter where the primary source might be omitting or altering the details for some personal agenda, that's a problem; otherwise, there isn't an actual issue; on a non-controversial matter where the creators or publishers of a product or one of the fictional characters featured therein are simply seeking to promote or describe the product/character, there's not a whole lot of reason to doubt their ability to accurately report the characteristics of their own property; certainly, a secondary source would be more deserving of suspicion in such a case), nor how they are used, and the information being supported by Serebii.net is not what we'd really call "sensitive information", so I'm not too concerned about it either (in fact, the episodes themselves could have been used as the references for the anime-related plot details). That being said, though, in the interest of satisfying some editors' concerns, perhaps more research should be done. To be honest, I find it highly unlikely that there's no printed source whatsoever documenting something like Charizard's role in the anime. I find it especially unlikely that no Japanese work has been printed that would document such a role (Ash's Charizard was an important character in the early stage of the anime), as those anime and manga companies never fail to publish multiple books on their hot products. Perhaps someone should look specifically for any materials published in Japanese (even if they were a primary source, I don't think it would matter, considering the subject matter and the nature of the information being supported), maybe not for something like his role in the anime (again, the episodes themselves can be used as a reference), but for certain other things.
Again, I have no problems with the primary sources, nor really any with the Serebii.net references (they're pretty much expendable anyway), but I do find fault with things like the speculation surrounding the origin of the name "Charizard". Either it is a portmanteau or it isn't. Even though it obviously is, that's going to have to be sourced (reliably) if it's going to be stated. The Dictionary.com references don't really do anything toward that. Also, the "Lizardon" reference doesn't really confirm anything either.
Anyway, I'm not going to object or support, at least not yet. I would like to see the speculation on the names referenced, though. Ryu Kaze 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to remove speculation/unsourced info in the name etymology area, do you have any other points? Highway Daytrippers 21:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather hoped for actually referencing those points instead of removing them, but, nonetheless, I think that does neutralize any concerns about original research, so I've got nothing else to add as far as that goes. Thanks for the rather speedy response. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the common problem, language barriers are often not breached in such a way, there isn't a Japanese name etymology in English, and there probably isn't an English one in Japanese. It's a common problem. Do you have any other points? Thanks again, Highway Daytrippers 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lesser sources and fan sites tend to get all of there information from the same notable sources. For Pokémon, usually a combo of Coro Coro, Nintendo, and Pokémon itself. That is why many of the reliable ones are not allowed; 8 sources could be listed, but in truth it is only one or more notable sites over and over again. Asking to allow lesser sources as references is like asking to list Nintendo's website 9 times as a reference. The Hybrid 06:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Dixie (song) cites "Sacks and Sacks" 15 times and "Nathan" 15 times. It is very common to cite one source many times, the types of sources and their diversity is important. Andrew Levine 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was talking about listing multiple references for the same fact, which is fairly common. allowing the lesser sites to be used with the reputable source is basically asking to list the same reference for the same fact multiple times. Also, fan sites are realy nothing but a middle-man for references that we already use, reliable or not. The Hybrid 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying at all. If all we're looking for is a fact cited in an official source, there's no need to cite multiple sources for that fact. Andrew Levine 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's talking about when you have two refs together at the end a comma or sentence. Apparently, letting fan sites to be used alongside official sources in situations such as this, is just giving the same information twice? I think that's what he meant. Highway Daytrippers 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If both of the refs get their info from the same source, there's no need to use both. If they both reach a separate conclusion independently, you can/should use both. This is standard citation procedure not just on Wikipedia but everywhere. Andrew Levine 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not about giving the same information twice, seeing as that is the purpose of two refs. Listing a fan site and a reputable source, or two fansites, is (basically) listing the same REF twice, for the same fact. Also, if the fan sites reach a conclusion that was not officially stated, then it shouldn't be used for that fact. I hope that I was clearer this time, obviously I am having some trouble putting this into words. The Hybrid 23:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now given this current version of the article a more thorough look, and I have to object. Enough has been said about the sources already, so I won't go on about that here. What I will point out is:
    1. There are serious issues with in-universe perspective in a number of places here.
    2. The prose remains problematic; grammatical errors are scattered throughout, and comma usage is an issue in a number of places.
  • These problems occur throughout, but the worst offender on both counts is the "characteristics" section; several of the prose issues with that section that I raised in the first FAC have still not been addressed. --RobthTalk 00:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Charizard/archive4&oldid=1143873949"