Talk:Basic Pokémon
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Equinox in topic How did this survive, but Baby Pokémon fail? Same deletion rationale!
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Tea room (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I find it hard to see the rationale for us having Basic Pokémon and Baby Pokémon (both hyper-specific terms within the Pokémon toy community) when we have long since removed the entry for Pokémon and turned it into a Wikipedia redirect. Comments? Equinox ◑ 20:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- How does this satisfy CFI? I am interested to know. Does this mean I can start include card types from w:Magic the Gathering as well? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Words used in specific games are a confusing issue. Knight is included in the chess sense, but the entry does not have any of the senses of it being used in other games (w:Settlers of Catan, for example). I have no idea what would happen if I added the w:Xiangqi sense of elephant to the entry. We have three in-game senses of king (card games, chess, checkers), but there are probably many lesser-known games that use "king" for other things... --Yair rand 21:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I find it hard to believe that those are analogous. The name of a generic piece within a game (like knight in chess, or tile in Scrabble) is not the same thing as the name of a specific character within a game (like Pikachu in Pokémon, or Colonel Mustard in Clue/Cluedo). The latter are more akin to characters in books. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Basic Pokémon and Baby Pokémon aren't fictional characters within a game the way that Pikachu is. They are types of cards, like a jack, only in a far lesser-known game. --Yair rand 22:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Okay. But they are respectively (i) Pokémon that are basic (simple or unexpanded in some way) and (ii) Pokémon that are babies (small or ungrown in some way). This can already be determined from our definitions at (deprecated template usage) basic and (deprecated template usage) baby. It is not for us to list every specific meaning of an adjective in every specific game: they are specialisations chosen by the game creator. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't know. They are spelled with capital letters, so they might be similar to "(capitalized direction) (place name)", referring to a section of the place in the direction, but with specific borders... Or perhaps they're similar to the card game sense of hearts, which basically refers to cards with heart shapes on them, or revealed check, which also seems to be a specialization... --Yair rand 23:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some people, in past discussions, seemed to give far more value to terms of chess, and card games, and other games, simply because they are mainstream, or very old, or something like that. This reasoning is worthy of being considered, either as a simple catch-all solution to this problem, or as a big bureucratic can of worms of "what" can be valuable that way. Tetris, Monopoly and Minesweeper are mainstream enough to me, for example; even though I don't know exactly why anyone would seek a glossary for the last one.
- "Basic Pokémon" is not a character, in the sense that it does not have a role in a fictional story. It is an object of a game. To be fair, someone could conceivably utter a sentence like "My Basic Pokémon defeated yours!", that does seem to rationalize the game object as a character. However, that is not exclusively a privilege of Pokémon; for one can do the same thing with chess pieces, as well: "My pawn took your queen." --Daniel 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, I don't know. They are spelled with capital letters, so they might be similar to "(capitalized direction) (place name)", referring to a section of the place in the direction, but with specific borders... Or perhaps they're similar to the card game sense of hearts, which basically refers to cards with heart shapes on them, or revealed check, which also seems to be a specialization... --Yair rand 23:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Okay. But they are respectively (i) Pokémon that are basic (simple or unexpanded in some way) and (ii) Pokémon that are babies (small or ungrown in some way). This can already be determined from our definitions at (deprecated template usage) basic and (deprecated template usage) baby. It is not for us to list every specific meaning of an adjective in every specific game: they are specialisations chosen by the game creator. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Basic Pokémon and Baby Pokémon aren't fictional characters within a game the way that Pikachu is. They are types of cards, like a jack, only in a far lesser-known game. --Yair rand 22:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I find it hard to believe that those are analogous. The name of a generic piece within a game (like knight in chess, or tile in Scrabble) is not the same thing as the name of a specific character within a game (like Pikachu in Pokémon, or Colonel Mustard in Clue/Cluedo). The latter are more akin to characters in books. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
How did this survive, but Baby Pokémon fail? Same deletion rationale![edit]
Weird. Equinox ◑ 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
RfD discussion 2014[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.