Talk:List of Pokémon (441-460)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pokémon, which aims to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
PCP To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Lucario
He should DEFIANTLY have his own page. 58.167.127.121 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It can't have its own page simply because you say so, you have to give a damn good reason first. TheBlazikenMaster 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of Lucario, it looks like he was merged but most of it was game content that was later blanked. Someone will need to do a better merging of him. -WarthogDemon 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, until it's merged properly, it has to have its own article. But as soon as it has been properly merged it becomes a redirect. TheBlazikenMaster 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Add Movie info and Smash info his own article would be acceptible.Plus his Final Smash is a Beam —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucario is the kind of Pokemon that you just can't group with a bunch of the other nobody Pokemon. He's essentially a character in his own right outside of the games, like Pikachu. If it weren't for Brawl, I wouldn't be so stingy, but there is a lot of information you can work with on him.
- A lot of information? Any Brawl information that isn't game guide fancruft would fit into two sentences at most. The only reason people want Lucario to have it's own article is because it's so popular from the eighth movie >_< MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately single movie appearance isn't notable enough. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. And if other Pokemon such as Charizard, Mewtwo, and Bulbasaur don't have enough information to warrant their own articles, there is absolutely no way that Lucario does. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately single movie appearance isn't notable enough. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Who sais charizard, Mewteo, and Bulbasaur don't, that why theres Bulbapedia.BaconBoy914 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bulbapedia, although one of the more accurate fansites out there, is still a fansite. See WP:RS, WP:FANSITE, and WP:SPS. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fansite? Are you sure? Because it looks more like an encyclopedia than a fansite to me....
- Oh and the reason why it's more accurate is because it can be edited by anyone that has an account, unlike other Pokémon sites which are only edited by limited amount of people. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good point, WP:FANSITE doesn't really apply to Bulbapedia. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bulbapedia, although one of the more accurate fansites out there, is still a fansite. See WP:RS, WP:FANSITE, and WP:SPS. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- He needs a picture. BaconBoy914 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just Lucario? Every Pokemon needs a picture, but no lists can use images that are not free-use. That includes this list. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lists, articles, there is no difference. Lists are articles, because they are part of the mainspace. What kinda encyclopedia has a list without pictures? Pics are encyclopedic as long as they're relevant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with it either, BlazikenMaster. Nonetheless, that is what the image policy has stated, and I for one don't want to get into another fight with our local image elitist. I don't know where the exact discussion of this policy change is, but there are some relevant links on this page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Even if i am not a hardcore pokemon fan :) i will have to admit that the people who create Pokemon did a very good job with Lucario . It seems Lucario has a high level of popularity . Retroqqq (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me clarify he needs a SSBB picture like his FS or something, or maybe him stubling upon Snake.
- That has the identical problem with the Sugimori artwork. It can't be used. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree with it either, BlazikenMaster. Nonetheless, that is what the image policy has stated, and I for one don't want to get into another fight with our local image elitist. I don't know where the exact discussion of this policy change is, but there are some relevant links on this page. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lists, articles, there is no difference. Lists are articles, because they are part of the mainspace. What kinda encyclopedia has a list without pictures? Pics are encyclopedic as long as they're relevant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just Lucario? Every Pokemon needs a picture, but no lists can use images that are not free-use. That includes this list. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Who sais charizard, Mewteo, and Bulbasaur don't, that why theres Bulbapedia.BaconBoy914 (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucario should have his own page because:
- He featured in one of the movies.
- He's a character in SSBB and a semi-major part of the SSE.
- He is an extremely popular Pokémon, perhaps even coming close to Pikachu's popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Movie characters don't have their own articles. As for the rest, you have to find a reliable source for Lucario, and enough information for it to have its own article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The fact that it starred in a movie isn't enough on its own, but in combination with the other two points it warrants its own page. As for getting enough information, this page shows that it's possible to write a whole page about Lucario. Besides being a species of Pokémon, Lucario is a character in its own right, similarly to Pikachu and Jigglypuff. Furthermore, Lucario is one of the most well-known Pokémon and the most popular Generation IV Pokémon, so it meets the notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you, I really do, but that doesn't mean I can add it. And unfortunately Bulbapedia isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia needs in-universe details to prove some facts, a news report, interview, words from the creators, and stuff like that. It has to be more than the major appearance in Smash, because otherwise it would fall under too long plot. If you have any questions feel free to ask. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that it starred in a movie isn't enough on its own, but in combination with the other two points it warrants its own page. As for getting enough information, this page shows that it's possible to write a whole page about Lucario. Besides being a species of Pokémon, Lucario is a character in its own right, similarly to Pikachu and Jigglypuff. Furthermore, Lucario is one of the most well-known Pokémon and the most popular Generation IV Pokémon, so it meets the notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn't suggesting we should copy Bulbapedia, merely that it demonstrates that writing a whole page about Lucario is possible. Lucario is one of the most popular and well-known Pokémon, so it meets the notability requirements.
- Well, then you shouldn't have problems finding a reliable source. And showing example of another site with totally different style isn't relevant here. This is never working out, I will get someone else to join this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please get some reliable sources before considering undoing the merge; half the problem with the unmerged pages was that they were woefully undersourced. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- For Lucario's in-game information, the game itself is the best source. For its anime information, the anime itself is the best source. For its TCG information, the TCG cards themselves are the best sources. I was not showing the Bulbapedia page to suggest copying it, I was merely using it to show that there's enough information about Lucario for a full page to be written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I could have seen in your example is that it fits better for Bulbapedia than it does here. And like I said it needs sources like interviews, words from the creators, magazine entry or stuff like that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I've repeatedly said, the source for in-game information about Lucario is the game itself. Some information from the creators may be available, but this page means that such sources are unnecessary, because, even without interviews or words from the creators, a whole page about Lucario would unarguably contain more information, thus improving Wikipedia's quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion isn't going so well, since it's just us two, I am going to WT:PCP and get more people to get to this section. By the way I still disagree with you, Wikipedia needs out-of-universe information, you have provided none so far. I got nothing else to add, and hope somebody else will be join this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I've repeatedly said, the source for in-game information about Lucario is the game itself. Some information from the creators may be available, but this page means that such sources are unnecessary, because, even without interviews or words from the creators, a whole page about Lucario would unarguably contain more information, thus improving Wikipedia's quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- The only thing I could have seen in your example is that it fits better for Bulbapedia than it does here. And like I said it needs sources like interviews, words from the creators, magazine entry or stuff like that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- For Lucario's in-game information, the game itself is the best source. For its anime information, the anime itself is the best source. For its TCG information, the TCG cards themselves are the best sources. I was not showing the Bulbapedia page to suggest copying it, I was merely using it to show that there's enough information about Lucario for a full page to be written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please get some reliable sources before considering undoing the merge; half the problem with the unmerged pages was that they were woefully undersourced. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with the Lucario page before the merge? It required a little cleanup, but that wouldn't take too long. More information, such as level-up moves could be added. Furthermore, a consensus was never reached to merge the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Level-up moves are game guide and inappropriate, actually. And I suggest you look through WT:POKE's archives. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
consensus was never reached to merge the articles. You are so wrong about that, Check the archieves for WT:PCP, it has been discussed heavily in the summer of 2007. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus requires that either a)Everyone agrees with the decision, or b)Everyone agrees to abide by the decision. I don't agree with either, so it isn't consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, not consensus, but the inclusionists were certainly out-voted. And in case we would have a straw poll about this Lucario case, I would vote against it: notability. In my opinion, the only Pokémon who deserve an article are Pikachu and... eh... Pikachu. Believe me, Lucario will never be as popular as Pikachu. That's impossible. Judging on your comments, and particularly your suggestion of a movelist, I have a feeling that you're intention is to make a gameguide. That's an excellent goal. But unfortunately, not one that is compatible with a general encyclopedia. I'm sure that sites like Bulbapedia (see the Lucario article) will be very happy with your help. Cheers, Face 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow face, that's a very intelligent comment. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Since you think only Pikachu gets its own article, why don't you hate this article? Having a majority doesn't count as a consensus. Wikipedia policy requires a consensus. Therefore the merge should never have been made in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you're assuming that because one person disagreement makes the consensus invalid I disagree. Again, it has been discussed, just look at the archives on WT:PCP. I don't know how to make clear to you that it was discussed the right way, there is always someone that disagrees, the decision was perfectly valid. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree. To 70.250.214.9: I agree with you that there never really was a clear and definite decision or plan. But if there is one thing you can conclude out of the dozens of discussions at Archive 18, it's that most people agreed that only a very small group deserved an article. Articles that were initially kept were, among others, Jynx, Torchic, Mewtwo and Arceus. Over time, that group became smaller and now, apart from Pikachu, only three other articles (Bulbasaur, Jigglypuff and Meowth) have survived months of debate. I do not 'hate' them by the way. I just disagree with them, and unlike you apparently, I'm too apathetic to really care about it. I just expect that some day they will be merged as well. Cheers, Face 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh that's it, I see your point Face. But what I don't get is why Charizard got merged. I can't see how it's less notable than Bulbasaur. But the unregistered user has yet to prove notability outside the games and stuff all other Pokémon are part of like Anime, TCG and so on. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's good to either end this discussion or giving it a break since this is getting nowhere. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh that's it, I see your point Face. But what I don't get is why Charizard got merged. I can't see how it's less notable than Bulbasaur. But the unregistered user has yet to prove notability outside the games and stuff all other Pokémon are part of like Anime, TCG and so on. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree. To 70.250.214.9: I agree with you that there never really was a clear and definite decision or plan. But if there is one thing you can conclude out of the dozens of discussions at Archive 18, it's that most people agreed that only a very small group deserved an article. Articles that were initially kept were, among others, Jynx, Torchic, Mewtwo and Arceus. Over time, that group became smaller and now, apart from Pikachu, only three other articles (Bulbasaur, Jigglypuff and Meowth) have survived months of debate. I do not 'hate' them by the way. I just disagree with them, and unlike you apparently, I'm too apathetic to really care about it. I just expect that some day they will be merged as well. Cheers, Face 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you're assuming that because one person disagreement makes the consensus invalid I disagree. Again, it has been discussed, just look at the archives on WT:PCP. I don't know how to make clear to you that it was discussed the right way, there is always someone that disagrees, the decision was perfectly valid. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since you think only Pikachu gets its own article, why don't you hate this article? Having a majority doesn't count as a consensus. Wikipedia policy requires a consensus. Therefore the merge should never have been made in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Psybeam???
WTF? why would lucario's final smash be psybeam? It's flash cannon! Besides, why would a fighting-steel type pokemon use a psychic type move that it's incapible of learning? Flash cannon would make ALOT more sense, so I changes it.72.40.41.206 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't know what move it is. Until the move is officially revealed, the moves should remain blank. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but we know its not Psybeam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) at 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't know what it is, hence its removal several days/weeks ago. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but we know its not Psybeam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBoy914 (talk • contribs) at 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Legendary?
I've thought that Lucario being a legendary was bull shit, but at the begining of The Rise of Darkrai he was shown with every single other legendary, what does this mean? BaconBoy914 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- It means Lucario was a featured Pokemon in one of the Pokemon movies. Featured Pokemon =/= Legendary Pokemon. MelicansMatkin (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Snapshots of Lucario
Please consider adding this gallery as a list of relevant photos about Lucario RyanTMulligan (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
