Talk:Stadium player character

Question

I never played Stadium, so I don't know how much or how little information there is. Would it be bad to merge this with the girl character? —darklordtrom 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From the little bit I've played of Stadium, it wouldn't be that hard to do so. --Psy_ライダー☮ 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, merge it I don't think there is enough information for both of the to warrant their own separate articles. —♥ Jello^talk 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It was in fact my original intention, and makes the article's name more convenient. I'm working on it right now. --Ash_Pokemaster 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this really needed?

I mean. Come on. The Stadium player character is only because in RGBY, there was only Red, and they just didn't care in GSC. Cared enough to give a girl look, but that's barely a modification.

This isn't a character any more than any of the PBR character models are. TTEchidna 22:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I object on the deletion of the article. Sure, there might not be enough information about the two characters, but it must be noted that they are playable characters of two universally acclaimed Pokémon games. Bulbapedia is supposed to serve as a database of the Pokemon Universe, and these two characters are a small, yet important part of it. There are articles about much more irrelevant characters and misc., and I claim that this article is actually pretty full-fledged and organized, not to mention with perspective of a measurable expansion. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to appreciate the characters, and I request that the article is at least given some time, so that it can be seen whether there are people caring for it to stay on the 'pedia. --Ash_Pokemaster 22:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What characters? They're little tiny icons. And besides, it's not being deleted, but rather being redirected to another page. You may want to expand on that there. Stadium has no "storyline" or whatever so why should 2 little tiny icons that don't do or say anything and don't even have a personality get their own article? They just appear in versus screens and we have no control whatsoever of them. —♥ Jello^talk 22:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Ash_Pokemaster is right on this one. Since this is considered to be an encyclopedia of the Pokemon world (and it really does a good job maintaining and deserving this title), the "Unnamed" Stadium playable characters have the right to their own article. It is without doubt that its extent should be proportionate to the characters' importance, but I believe Ash_Pokemaster wrote it exactly the way it should be.

As for what Jello said, I think earning 8 badges and defeating the Elite 4 qualifies for a 'storyline' in Pokemon games, doesn't it? You control the Pokemon the 'icon' trains, hence it is deemed a character. That is all that happens in the main RPG series, since even in the dialogs the character never seems to talk or express his/her opinion. Hell, you can even choose his gender and name. I don't see why the 'icons' in the Stadium Series should not be considered characters and I'm sure there will be more sharing my point of view if the article is allowed to see the light of day again. After all, it's like saying 'Myst' is not a game because it only consists of pictures and icons. —Whitelighter 23:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article still appears to be non-existent to third-party. As for what you call 'little tiny icons', they still appear enough to be carved into one's mind. If anything, they are much more important to the Pokemon universe than Character of the Day #4056 (haha, note how he has his own article!). You having no control of them, them not talking, and just appearing in versus screens say nothing to me. They are still supposed to take part in the events of the Pokemon Stadium games. Also, I'm a bit annoyed by your "reverting to admins is a no-no". Sure, you're an admin. And I sell cheese pies in Antarctica. I understand that you're doing your job, but try to be a little less absolute across users that try their best to contribute. I requested that the matter is discussed, and I doubt that your position makes your opinion more current on whether it is actually discussable or not. --Ash_Pokemaster 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo on my part, I meant to say you reverted 2 admins (not counting myself). What you did basically constituted as an edit war, hence why the page was protected. Like I mentioned on your talk page, it would be best to flesh out an article in your userspace rather than create one right now, there seems to be a disagreement as to if they should get an article or not. I and a few others are against it, but like I said feel free to edit in your userspace if you really do believe they deserve their own article, and let's go from there, alright? I'm not trying to say these guys aren't characters or whatever, but they have their place in the Player character article already. —♥ Jello^talk 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(Aside: he doesn't have his own article; Mediawiki thinks you're trying to link to a section titled "4056" on the page "Character of the Day". —darklordtrom 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

You could try expanding the section in the player character article if you want to. IIRC it's like a sentence atm. —darklordtrom 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jello: That doesn't help much, so, I might take darklord's proposed route, if anything. To be honest, I'm yet to be convinced on this tactic Bulbapedia follows in quite a few similar instances, and I wouldn't make such fuss if it wasn't for a general complaint. Either way, I'm supposing I can't do anything about it right now, though, you can have it as a promise that this page will eventually be created at some point. :P

@The dark lord trombonator: Yeah, I was being sarcastic. :P I meant that for some reason pages for Characters of the Day are very solid in quite a few cases, when pages for player characters of important games (like in this instance), not only don't exist, but they are also prohibited to be created. Anyway, I won't take this personally. :P --Ash_Pokemaster 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)