Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of generation IX Pokémon/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of generation IX Pokémon

[edit]

List of generation IX Pokémon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the ninth generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. I've gone through the list and included what information I could about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise and the ninth generation's setting included in the article's lead. I believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BP!

[edit]

I thought about reviewing this since I possiboy need more reviewers at my FAC.

  • I'm not sure if you already addressed some my comments from the peer review, but the I noticed there are publications/magazines still aren't linked yet
  • Link Polygon and Nintendo Life at reception.
  • Be consistent with whether or not the citations use title case for the titles. Make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Put url/website at Ref 3, a google book works.
  • What makes DenFaminicoGamer and Gayming Magazine reliable?
  • Ref 30 and ref 38 are missing date of publication.
  • I don't feel Radio Times is a reliable source for video games articles.
  • ref 124 magazine was full capitalized?
  • replace the "gamesradar" into GamesRadar+ at ref 131
  • ref 166 magazine should be only RPG. Do not include other things such as "WWW".
@Boneless Pizza! I've addressed the links since you've made your comment, and I've additionally addressed the bulk of your concerns. As for a few particular points:
-What is "title case"? I've genuinely never heard of this before, and would appreciate clarification on what it is.
-Radio Times is more than reliable. It's a highly well-respected publisher for entertainment related information and has been for decades. It has been used without issue in entertainment-related articles and is of generally high quality. Its usage shouldn't be of concern.
-Ref 166 should be "RPGFan," not RPG, as RPGFan is actual the name of the website. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Game titles like for example in ref 134 there is a game title from the publication's title called "Pokémon Scarlet and Violet", it should be italicized for consistency. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I'll ping you once I've made adjustments to those. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza! I've made the requested adjustments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will abstain from voting for now until other people have already chimed in here I supposed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 I red the article again and I think I don't have issues anymore at this. So, I'll Support this. If you're willing to review my FAC also, feel free to chime in. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

[edit]

I'm leaving the table for now, given that there are many things that I've pointed out and that would need work. Going into the "Reception" section now:

I feel the list still needs a bit of doing up, but I won't oppose. Let's see if you can start working on these comments and how the list stands after that. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, given that there cannot be copyright-free images of the pokemon, it would be very hard to justify the inclusion of dozens of them in this list, unfortunately. --PresN 22:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the suggestion of including the images. My bad. I've replied to your replies with some clarifications. I will then carry on reading the table when I get more time. Thanks and kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alavense responded to the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few more:
  • the chest form, and a second "Roaming Form" - No need for that comma.
  • the beads are said to be filled the envy of those which wanted to have them - Is something missing there?
  • and Miraidon the future - and Miraidon from the future
  • with the -don suffix in reference to a frequent suffix for dinosaurs - Maybe something simpler like with the -don suffix being a reference to dinosaurs?
  • as part of an event, where players could battle - No need for that comma.

That's what I got. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense addressed your concerns on the above comments. On the subject of the repetition in the Paradoxes section, the main reason I made them standard is because there's no real way to phrase it concisely without making it more messy or repetitive. I could potentially shorten it down to something like "Iron Treads is a Pokémon resembling Donphan..." or something like that, but the repetition would still remain. Unmerging the cells would not fix the problem, as it would still remain regardless, but only with the added point that these Pokémon that are normally grouped together are now separated. If you feel there's a better way to write this, let me know, but I feel as of right now this is the most consistent and straightforward way to cover the information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your quick responses. I think the list is comprehensive and meets the criteria. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

[edit]

Note: Pokelego999 & I discussed an informal trade of reviews, to the extent it matters.

Usual disclaimer goes here that these are suggestions, not demands, so feel free to push back. Focusing more on the lede & Reception at the moment rather than the individual Pokemon.

  • Optional nit: If you know someone who speaks Japanese, it might be useful to add the trans-title parameter to your citations to JP sources. That said, this is optional; it's better to keep it as is than insert potentially inaccurate translations from raw Google Translate.
  • Incredibly basic question: not demanding an entire naming scheme be overturned, but... is using roman numerals the most common way to refer to generations? I've seen plenty of "Gen1", "Gen4", etc. casually with Arabic numerals. Just something to think about - I rather doubt that we'll be calling them Generation XIV Pokemon in 2034.
    • Admittedly not sure. This is something a bit out of my scope and outside of the scope of this discussion, since admittedly I don't know how this naming scheme came about, and I myself never coined the article title. I'd assume it's for formality reasons or something along those lines, but admittedly a question about the title would require a reformat on the other eight lists, which is a discussion I believe doesn't fall under the scope of this FLC. Apologies that I can't really give a concrete answer on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Pokémon of the generation were revealed on 27 February 2022 Is this really lede-worthy information? I can see the release date of S&V being potentially of interest, but the date of the "preview" doesn't seem as interesting to me. If kept, I'd at least include the release date of S&V too (unless there was a Gen9 poke available before S&V somehow).
  • the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture and use the creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon. Is this a line from elsewhere? I'm personally not a fan. Maybe split it up? "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Trainer whose goal is to capture Pokémon. The Trainer then uses their creatures' special abilities to combat other Pokémon."
    • It's a copypasta that is used to introduce basic information about the franchise to those unfamiliar with the series in a short, concise manner. It's been used in every other species article on this website. I feel personally the sentence is fine as one, as the run-on isn't too terribly confusing, but I can definitely split it here if you feel it's necessary and bring this up in a discussion at WT:VGCHAR. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dropped a question off at VGCHAR, but won't let that block this, happy to support even if I don't convince anyone there.
  • They hail from the distant past, and thus are sometimes dubbed "Ancient Pokémon." Maybe cut "thus"? Names don't have to make sense. Same with the "thus" for Future Pokemon.
  • Fans of the series responded negatively to many designs from the games when the games were leaked prior to release. I'm not sure that the source is strong enough for such a sweeping claim. While I'm sure the redundancy brigade might be annoyed, perhaps "some fans" to emphasize that this story was just "people griping on Twitter / Reddit" (aka day ending in 'y') rather than a widespread fan revolt? Alternatively, if it really was so widespread, then add more / better sources.
  • She highlighted several designs, such as - I'm not sure "highlighted" is the right term here. "singled out" or "was disappointed in" perhaps?
  • should have been held to a higher standard. Not a fan of this. They can be held to whatever standard the reviewer likes. What is really meant here is whether the designs met the high standards for Pokemon which she apparently doesn't think they did - some rephrasing to get that idea across might be better.
  • Ana Diaz, writing for Polygon believed that many species, most notably Flamigo, Palafin, and Maushold, had unique and powerful traits. Noting these traits, she felt that they allowed for a more fun environment for players overall. While Polygon is a good source usually, I'm not convinced this is a good source. First of all, all she's really saying is "some Pokemon seem strong competitively" which is basically too boring to point out. Second, this was published a month after release, and she writes "it's looking like we will get a fun and varied competitive scene for Scarlet and Violet." In other words, maybe the competitive scene will be fun, which is a little different from "allowed for a more fun environment for players overall". Are there any sources written later that are a little surer on whether Gen9 competitive Pokemon genuinely was better? And if we keep this source, we should honor the slant in it - that Diaz writes that some Gen9 Pokemon had fun and cool in-gameplay abilities she hoped would be fun in competitive. (THe previous paragraph was on art design, so maybe best to clue a little harder we're talking about gameplay now.)
    • There's nothing from what I can see. A few sources from TheGamer discuss competitive but not to the extent Polygon does. I've reworded this a bit per your suggestions, since I do feel the competitive stuff is at least worth bringing up in some capacity given how many individual subjects got some coverage for this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I'm just saying I think we need to mention competitive here too. Diaz is specifically saying she thinks/hopes competitive will be fun thanks to these Pokemon, but the current phrasing just says " more fun environment for players overall." But plenty of Pokemon players don't bother with competitive. (it might also be worth adding the word "gameplay" in front of traits somewhere?)
  • particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans, leading to their bans in those formats. Okay, explaining Smogon in half a sentence for a general audience is hard, I get that. But strictly speaking, being booted to Ubers isn't quite the same thing as being banned. (And yes, I know the sources say "banned", but meh.) Perhaps: "proved to be problematically strong in the single battle format, where each trainer has 6 Pokemon and sends them out one at a time. They were banned from the most popular fan format and became only usable in less restricted ones." (Even then, I'm a little concerned about portraying this as potentially unusual - the idea that some Pokemon from each gen end up in Ubers is not surprising nor scandalous. But oh well.)
    • The issue was a bit more reported on and more common than it was in prior generations, hence why it got covered more in-depth by sources and in this article. Otherwise I'd have kept it to just the individual cells. Either way, I've tried re-wording per your suggestions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not entirely happy here... "particularly powerful in popular competitive formats among fans" can be read a bit wrong. VGC is its own format, after all, and it's played by "fans", so a very easy misreading is to assume that these Pokes are banned in "official" formats played by fans, which isn't quite true. Smogon OU is closer to a "fan format". I just think we may have to be a little more direct here than "standard competitive formats" - I think the word "Smogon University" and "single battle" (or "singles") should be somewhere here.
  • Joe Parlock of TheGamer noted the sleek designs - See MOS:SAID. This is an opinion, not a factual-ish "note", so perhaps "praised" rather than "noted".
  • build Paldea's culture, stating that it was More MOS:SAID. "writing" that it was, perhaps?
  • Writer Kate Gray described the number of "weirder" designs present in the generation - This needs a full rephrasing. The source is "What's The Best New Pokémon Design In Pokémon Scarlet & Violet?" So she's not just "describing" a number here. Perhaps "Kate Gray praised the "weirder" designs of Generation IX, including..."
  • while writer Alan Hagues stated that the effectiveness of the simplicity of the generation's designs as being something that "wins out in some ways. I don't think this thought is that connected to Gray's ideas, so maybe two separate sentences here. If kept as one, again, this is Hagues talking about what he likes, so perhaps "Hagues thought that many of the middle and final evolutions were cool, and that the generation overall had simple yet strong art design?" Up to you.
  • But also while we're here, I kinda thought that the first paragraph was on art design, and the second paragraph was on gameplay design? Why are we reverting to art design again? Am I missing something, or should these sentences be moved to the above paragraph? (or was the split supposed to be negative vs. positive? Not sure that's a good idea if so, though.)
  • Numerous individual designs have been highlighted by critics, Same problem as above. Highlighted as what? From context, yes I can tell it's "for praise", but I'd make this a little clearer.

Overall, looks good. SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the individual Pokemon write-ups... mostly looks fine, with the usual disclaimer that some of the sourcing is to borderline sites, but such is modern video games media. Alas.

  • A notable Koraidon or Miraidon, depending on the player's version, serves as a major supporting character in-game ... Another notable ... - Maybe "specific" rather than "notable"? I presume it's not that said Koraidon is famous in-setting or the like.
  • Evil Tea Pokemon: is a different species without biological association to Sinistea At risk of getting into POKEMON BIOLOGY, the source says "they are completely separate Pokémon". I'm not sure that's quite synonymous with "without biological association." Like, platypuses are weird and separate species, but they still have some biological association to other mammals, for a real-life example.
    • In-universe they're still technically all under the "Pokémon" species, but biological association within that category is un-confirmed or incredibly unclear even in series material. In this case, though, official promo itself specifically states that Poltchageist is biologically unassociated with Sinistea, which is what the articles in question are citing. I can't check sourcing right now since I'm out, but if this is an issue with the source not specifying this is from official promo, I can see if I can find a source that specifies this. Either way, given this is actual lore information on the species and not just conjecture, I don't see a need to change this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terpagos: It is believed to have a special tie to the Terastal phenomenon This seems a little weak. It's funny because you were saying a similar thing over in the Second Temple timeline on some "probablies", but fictional beings can have canonical answers that historical mysteries don't always have - I get the impression it clearly does have such a special tie from The Gamer article. I didn't play S&V though. If The Gamer source isn't great and is exaggerating and the current phrasing is closer to in-game, then the current wording is fine, but maybe just directly say it has a special tie if the source is accurate, no need for "believed". SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, my issue was more with wording than anything, but in this case, this is a typo on my part. This is meant to specify "in-universe," since while the out of universe ties are obvious, my initial search found nothing to confirm that given how surprisingly scarce sourcing lore information like that was given how much of a plot role this guy had. Changed this to specify but let me know on this one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: finished looking over your second round of comments. Let me know what else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_generation_IX_Pokémon/archive1&oldid=1247688881"