9,883
edits
Talk:Bulbasaur (Pokémon)/Featured article candidate: Difference between revisions
Talk:Bulbasaur (Pokémon)/Featured article candidate (view source)
Revision as of 18:12, 30 October 2008
, 30 October 2008→Object (2)
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
*I'm against! The article has more or less the same amount of info that every Pokémon article has. I think articles on the Pokémon (the creatures) SHALL NOT be nominated to Featured Articles. They're all equally long because there is much to write about certain Pokémon. This article's info is TOO OBVIOUS to be make a good nominee. If Bulbasaur really deserves the nomination, then so do remaining 492 kinds of Pokémon. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | *I'm against! The article has more or less the same amount of info that every Pokémon article has. I think articles on the Pokémon (the creatures) SHALL NOT be nominated to Featured Articles. They're all equally long because there is much to write about certain Pokémon. This article's info is TOO OBVIOUS to be make a good nominee. If Bulbasaur really deserves the nomination, then so do remaining 492 kinds of Pokémon. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Too obvious? Isn't the content of every article obvious? Plus, we have the biology section to set us apart from other sites and Bulbasaur has a good one. Nor is length an issue - read the description at the top. And honestly, I don't see why we can't feature every species article if they are good enough. (Which they aren't at the moment so the point is moot.) --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>|[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|Talk Page]]|</sup> 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | :Too obvious? Isn't the content of every article obvious? Plus, we have the biology section to set us apart from other sites and Bulbasaur has a good one. Nor is length an issue - read the description at the top. And honestly, I don't see why we can't feature every species article if they are good enough. (Which they aren't at the moment so the point is moot.) --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>|[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|Talk Page]]|</sup> 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Yes. Too obvious. My ideal of a Featured Article is a long, informative article which can bring knowledge about something which NOT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT! This article is just long. It has all those infoboxes, sprites, tables etc. but I'm not sure if it's unique enough to be nominated. It's one of 493 Pokemon and all of them are equally good. A FA should be UNIQUE. And I don't see anything extraordinary in this article. At all. The biology section is nothing interesting or canonnical. Just obvious facts with a little bit of fanfiction (and random observations, which I hate). | ::Yes. Too obvious. My ideal of a Featured Article is a long, informative article which can bring knowledge about something which NOT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT! This article is just long. It has all those infoboxes, sprites, tables etc. but I'm not sure if it's unique enough to be nominated. It's one of 493 Pokemon and all of them are equally good. A FA should be UNIQUE. And I don't see anything extraordinary in this article. At all. The biology section is nothing interesting or canonnical. Just obvious facts with a little bit of fanfiction (and random observations, which I hate). That's not an extraordinarity. I hope you understand my point and respect it. I'm really sick of that "you don't agree with majority, so I must argue with you" which everyone here seems to have. I'm against the nomination, I have strong arguments and that's my thing. I just hope that someone else agrees with my point. --[[User:Maxim|Maxim]] 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
====Other comments==== | ====Other comments==== | ||
Hmm, how come? If we add this to the featured articles, shouldn't we be adding other Pokémon pages to the nominations? Wala lang, I think it might get cluttery if that's the case. [[User:JirachiWishmaker0802|JirachiWishmaker0802]] 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | Hmm, how come? If we add this to the featured articles, shouldn't we be adding other Pokémon pages to the nominations? Wala lang, I think it might get cluttery if that's the case. [[User:JirachiWishmaker0802|JirachiWishmaker0802]] 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Bulbasaur is the article that sets the standard. Plus, I'd say we at least need a decent biology section before any of them are nominated and few pass there. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>|[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|Talk Page]]|</sup> 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | :Bulbasaur is the article that sets the standard. Plus, I'd say we at least need a decent biology section before any of them are nominated and few pass there. --[[User:Fabu-Vinny|FabuVinny]] <sup>|[[User talk:Fabu-Vinny|Talk Page]]|</sup> 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||