Talk:Misty's Seaking
Don't base this article on "we have X so we should have Y" theory. --☆ケンジガール 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- So do you think we should revert the articles to the redirects? Then James's Hoppip isn't really needed either.... ._. Or maybe just Misty's Seaking article. I'm confused. - spontaneousCombusken 02:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, let's get this settled.
As long as I've been here, I've always known it to be that any Pokémon that was owned and/or used in battle by a main character (Ash, Misty, May, Dawn, Tracey, Brock, Jessie, James) deserves its own article. It's not really based on a "We have X so we should have Y", it's more of the fact that they were owned by the main character in question, such as Ash's Raticate, James's Hoppip, James's Aggron, and Jessie's Charizard. Or, in some cases, not actually owned, but befriended/used in battle. Now, I ask, is the purpose of Bulbapedia not supposed to be a complete and comprehensive online reference that includes anything and everything about Pokémon? And if it is (which I do think it is!), then should it not have information on these specific Pokémon? I mean, I'm not saying we should have articles on every single CotD's Pokémon that ever appeared! I'm just saying that if we don't have articles on all the Pokémon that have been owned/befriended/battled alongside the main characters, well, then, I don't know about you, but me, I just wouldn't feel right. Maybe it's a question of the work involved, maybe you just don't want to bother making and maintaining these extra articles, to which I answer, I would be honored to do my duty to this wonderful encyclopedia and create the articles in question, and make myself personally responsible for their upkeep. I assure you, as I did with Dawn's Swinub, I can create articles on these Pokémon that would be very much worth keeping, if only given the chance to do so. I'm Missingno. Master, and I approve this message. 12:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I raised the same arguments before about other articles of this kind. Besides, where's the harm? Someone already bothered doing it, why not just let it be? It's a grey area that's been debated to death for over a year now. Maybe we should just set clear rules about notability of such articles... --ElectAbuzzzz 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why does this have an article, when Ash's Seaking is a redirect? The two Pokémon are only as notable as each other, right? — THE TROM — 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
