Talk:PokéGods

Deletion

Really, how are these any different to Fake Pokémon. It says that they are a group of fake Pokémon, but not what what makes it a PokéGod rather than a regular fake Pokémon. --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything, merge, not delete... CuboneKing (Planet Cubone • Bone Club) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really have any extra information. Maybe both tags are necessary? --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: It should not be deleted. Nor should it be merged. It does, however, need to be expanded upon a whole lot. The whole PokeGod rumor deal was huge back in 1998-1999 - at the time my involvement in the fandom was basically limited to occasionally discussing the anime on message boards, and even I knew of the term. It most certainly deserves its own article, as a major part of fandom during its time. We just need someone who was more involved in the PokeGod phenomenon back then to give the article more substance. 梅子^❄_❅ 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I say no. The PokéGods stand out among Fakemon, and deserve their own article. CuboneKing (Planet Cubone • Bone Club) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly notable. PokéGods were fairly notable.--GreenGyarados^{Happy Holidays!} 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, then it needs some serious expansion. I see no difference between these and regular fake Pokémon from what this article says. It tells me what were considered PokéGods, and that PokéGods were fake Pokémon, and that there were fake cheats to get them; but it doesn't tell me what a PokéGod is. --SnorlaxMonster. Help here 02:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Work

A lot of the recent additions may have brought the article up to higher standards, but much of it is still incorrect. Ah well, guess not every site can be fully-informative. Redstar 15:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course a lot of it is incorrect - PokeGods don't exist!

As for what was considered to be correct among the PokeGods phenomenon, I did extensive research on the subject, determined which were considered by the fandom to be the "leading sites on PokeGod information," checked out some other PokeGod sites also (sometimes having to make use of the Wayback Machine, of course), and took information from there. Of course there were a lot of conflicting "facts," due to the fact that PokeGods were complete made-up bullshit and anyone would just claim whatever tyhey wanted about them, but I took what seemed to be the most commonly-accepted spellings/evolutions/rumors and that's what I put on the page. (And btw, I don't quite appreciate your veiled accusation on my talkpage that I had made it all up.)

Though could you possibly point out exactly what you find to be incorrect, so that I can look into it? Specifics will help us become, you know, more informative. 梅子^❄_❅ 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't imply you made anything up, though your mentality that it's all "bullshit" just goes to show you probably shouldn't be writing on the subject. Redstar 18:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

bull·shit n.

1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.

PokeGods are all fake. Made-up. Bullshit. That doesn't mean that I can't write about it (and even if I did absolutely detest the subject, I'd still write about it if no one else would, because I am perfectly capable of taking an objective stance in writing).

Also, my apologies for saying that you were accusing me of that; I viewed your comment on my talkpage as somewhat confrontational (asking why I was updating it... because, uh, why shouldn't I be?), so, along with your mention here that a lot of it was incorrect, I took "if anywhere other than your head" as a veiled accusation. I'm sorry for doing so in error.

On that note, would you mind pointing out exactly what is incorrect...? 梅子^❄_❅ 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean to be confrontational, though discussions do have a tendency to be hard-headed.

For starters, it's incorrect because you're operating off the assumption that all of it was made-up. This actually isn't true, though I can understand why someone would think so. In any case, I do enjoy your expansion of the article and am looking forward to seeing where it's headed. Redstar 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)