Talk:Bulbasaur (Pokémon)/Featured article candidate

Support (14)

• It's like the mascot of Bulbapedia. I think it should be an FA. MathijsP 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• It IS the mascot of Bulbapedia. Easily one of the best Pokémon pages. I've used it as an example for how other pages should be. Aura-Knight 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• I support because it's the mascot well put and all the Pokémon pages use this--☆CoolPikachu! 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have some reservations about this, as most Pokémon pages are more or less the same, but this is certainly the best of them. If any Pokémon page deserves to be featured, it's this one. --Martonimos_{((Argh|Blargh))} 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• If you see the talk, I wanted to nominate this myself, but didn't have the time. Bulbasaur is the example of what the Pokémon pages should look like, and is updated to new standards first. Glad to already see this much support for it! Theininen 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Easily one of the best Bulbapedia articles, and likely the best article about a Pokémon species. Exactly how an article should be written. Arceus548 17:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• For all the reasons above. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 10:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• it is the first pokemon of the national deskDutch-pidgeot 8:58, 6 september 2008 (UTC)
• The best Pokémon page ever made in Bulbapedia.--Diby 13:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yup. How it's not an FA but Brock/Poké Ball are baffles me.--Kkllnn blastoise 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Bulbasaur deserves it all for being our mascot.--☆Tavisource 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Bulbasaur should be a featured article cantidate it's the mascot of the website!--MyUU 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already a featured article candidate. It's trying just to become a featured article.--Kkllnn blastoise 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• True. Everything you've said is true. Still... it would get messy if we had to include more Pokémon articles here. In spite of that, since Bulbasaur is the example page for movesets and exemplifies how other articles about Pokémon should look like, I'll support it. ---JirachiWishmaker0802 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Probably the best article in a series of articles that are all decent anyway. The Pokédex project needs recognition and the article every improvement starts at is the best suited to do that. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 19:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• It is a very well put-together page and is about a Pokémon that is key in the history of Pokémon. Shadow1337 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Object (2)

• I'm sure I'll be alone on this...but I think the first Pokémon ever created should be the FA. Ash zane 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

um...meaning????--Diby 13:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mew!! Ash zane 13:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And I thought it was Arceus!--Diby 13:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You think a Generation IV Pokémon was created before a Generation I Pokémon? Ash zane 14:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You think that a certain Template:P2 Pokémon existed before a Template:P2 Pokémon? If you don't think it existed, then I can think that the Gen 4 Pokémon existed before the Gen 1 Pokémon.--Diby 10:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you want it so bad and it's good enough, just nominate it! Both of you! (But only if you actually think it is worth nominating) Theininen 01:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mew is the first Pokémon that was created by the series' creator. I think that's what he means.Spatula 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ash zane, History of the Pokémon world says that Arceus came before Mew. Just FYI.--Kkllnn blastoise 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What Spatula said. I mean the first Pokémon that Satoshi Tajiri created. He was even trademarked before before the term 'Pocket Monsters'. Ash zane 07:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kkllnn Arceus created the Universe

I swear I heard somewhere Rhyhorn was the first Pokémon, which is they they made it's National Dex. No. 111... Or something like that. ~m190049^~talk 22:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a really interesting discussion but doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand. Featured articles are based on quality, not notority. Bulbasaur is one of our best species articles but feel free to make any of the others shine. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm against! The article has more or less the same amount of info that every Pokémon article has. I think articles on the Pokémon (the creatures) SHALL NOT be nominated to Featured Articles. They're all equally long because there is much to write about certain Pokémon. This article's info is TOO OBVIOUS to be make a good nominee. If Bulbasaur really deserves the nomination, then so do remaining 492 kinds of Pokémon. --Maxim 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Too obvious? Isn't the content of every article obvious? Plus, we have the biology section to set us apart from other sites and Bulbasaur has a good one. Nor is length an issue - read the description at the top. And honestly, I don't see why we can't feature every species article if they are good enough. (Which they aren't at the moment so the point is moot.) --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Too obvious. My ideal of a Featured Article is a long, informative article which can bring knowledge about something which NOT EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT! This article is just long. It has all those infoboxes, sprites, tables etc. but I'm not sure if it's unique enough to be nominated. It's one of 493 Pokemon and all of them are equally good. A FA should be UNIQUE. And I don't see anything extraordinary in this article. At all. The biology section is nothing interesting or canonnical. Just obvious facts with a little bit of fanfiction (and random observations, which I hate). That's not an extraordinarity. I hope you understand my point and respect it. I'm really sick of that "you don't agree with majority, so I must argue with you" which everyone here seems to have. I'm against the nomination, I have strong arguments and that's my thing. I just hope that someone else agrees with my point. --Maxim 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

Hmm, how come? If we add this to the featured articles, shouldn't we be adding other Pokémon pages to the nominations? Wala lang, I think it might get cluttery if that's the case. JirachiWishmaker0802 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur is the article that sets the standard. Plus, I'd say we at least need a decent biology section before any of them are nominated and few pass there. --FabuVinny ^{|Talk Page|} 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)