Talk:Charizard/Archive 1

Older entries

Is Charizard officially a portmanteau (from char [or possibly Charmander] and lizard)? if it is, tag the article with the portmanteaus category. --SuperDude 2 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Many many Pokémon have names which are portmanteaus, so I think giving it such a category is unnecessary, unless you feel like going through hundreds of Pokémon articles and doing it. --RealWingus 23:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Um...Why have the External Links been made invisible to the article? Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good Article Evaluation of Charizard

This evaluation was done on this version of Charizard at time 11:20 PST on April 11, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.

Criteria:

Well-written

The language is nothing special, and not by any means "brilliant prose," but it is certainly solid and without glaring errors. It's a bit factual and dry, but there's nothing that counts against the "well-written" criterion. Definitely not Featured Article prose, though. Nothing really more to say.

Factually accurate

As a former Pokémaster, I personally agree with most of the factual claims made in the article, and the article's sources appear well-informed. It certainly helps that most of the article's facts are based in canon.

Broad

Well, this is one of the more subjective criteria. The articles isn't narrow; it discusses Charizard in manga, anime, and video games. However, it's not comprehensive; Charizard, being a more popular Pokémon, has appeared in many other games, and is a pop culture reference in some circles. More variety in the topic will be needed if Featured Article status is ever desired.

Neutrally written

As the article is more or less a collection and recital of facts, it is very neutral.

Stable

Counting the last 15 edits, rounding up 1 edit for vandalism, the article appears to have been overhauled. These changes include complete rewrites of handfuls of paragraphs, addition of interwiki links, cleanup of references, and small fixes. No edit wars noticed, although the article looks like a not uncommon target of vandalism.

Well-referenced

The references, while neither diverse nor particularly enlightening, are complete and useful. The article could have more inline cites.

Images

There is one image on the page, and it is correctly tagged. The article should definitely have more images, but this criterion only evaluates articles already on the page.

Summary:

• Well-written: Pass
• Factually accurate: Pass
• Broad: Pass
• Neutrally written: Pass
• Stable: Pass
• Well-referenced: Pass
• Images: Pass

I would like to note one caveat: This article only barely passed in "Well-referenced" and "Broad." There should be more inline cites. There should also be more coverage of Charizard outside of what you already have. This article is nowhere near ready to be nominated for Featured Article at its current stage of development. Nonetheless, it looks very nice. Congratulations. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Blast Burn a signature attack?

The other two Kanto starters have their elemental Hyper Beams listed as their signature attack, so why shouldn't Charizard have Blast Burn listed? -- PinkDeoxys 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Blast Burn wasn't introduced until recently, and in the anime, Charizard usually uses Flamethrower. I would also disagree that the elemental hyper beams are the signature attacks of the other two, but I won't get into an edit war over it. Andros 1337 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Blast Burn was specifically made FOR Charizard. The same goes with Frenzy Plant for Venusaur, Hydro Cannon for Blastoise, and Volt Tackle for Pikachu... those four moves were created so that the four main mascots of the first generation could have their own unique moves... if that's not a signature attack, I don't know what is.

I know that the three Johto starters could learn the elemental Hyper Beams in XD, but that is, obviously, solely an XD thing... Dark Lugia could learn Psycho Boost in XD, but that doesn't mean that it's not Deoxy's signature move.

So for the four main 1st Generation Pokemon (Pikachu, Charizard, Venusaur, Blastoise) I say we should put down that each has two signature moves: the main ones that we see them use in the anime (Thundershock, Flamethrower, Solarbeam, Hydro Pump) and the moves that were custom made for them (Volt Tackle, Blast Burn, Frenzy Plant, Hydro Cannon). This will show a variety of different information, and everybody wins.

I disagree totally. For a start, I haven't heard of Volt tackle of Frenzy plant. Secondly, there's a difference between signature attack (the one they use most often, the most popular) and special attack (ones made specially for them or they are one of the few who learns it ...etc...). The other problem is that since these moves are new(ish), they are less likely to be heard of. Just my two pennies, but I would feel slightly uncomfortable with adding these four. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What!? You’ve never heard of Frenzy Plant or Volt Tackle? Frenzy Plant is the Grass EHB from the Cape Brink move tutor. Volt Tackle is an Electric attack with recoil damage. If you breed two Pikachu in Emerald while one is holding a Light Ball, the Pichu will hatch knowing Volt Tackle. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm much, much more clued up on the original games (the best :P). --Celestianpower ^háblame 12:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

O_O response on your talk page. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say Blast Burn was a signature attack, but the most recent of Charizard's. I'd say the same with Hydro Cannon/Blastoise and Frenzy Plant/Venusaur. Double Dash 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's moot. The Signature Attack field has been removed from the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not sorry. The reason being is that in the 4th Generation games Typhlosion, Blaziken and Infernape can learn Blast Burn. (LatiRider 03:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

References

We need about 30 references for thid article, and we need a lot of help, cheers Minun ^(talk) 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't know it was so hard to get an FA Minun ^(talk) 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't know an inch of it yet. Highway ^Batman! 19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Minun ^(talk) 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

... or do you mean about how hard it is Minun ^(talk) 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The card section

It needs more focus on it being one of the most sought after cards in the first edition. I remember when everyone was like "OMG, I GOT A CHARIZARD". Of course, the market of them bottomed out and you basically had to give them away later. Still, I'd like to see more on that. Including better sourcing. Try to find an old card guide for the pricing of them, I'm sure somebody has one. --SeizureDog 00:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I randomly checked a few footnotes from this article; results were as follows:

1. Footnote 5. "The name Charizard is a portmanteau of char, referring to the act of incinerating objects with flames,[3] and lizard, a long bodied reptile."
   • Problem. From site: "Char (charcoal) + izard (lizard)"
     • Etymology given by source is different than that in the article (that said, it's quite possible that the article's etymology is correct; the website doesn't seem to be official, and may well have just made their etymology up. Could a better source be found?).
2. Footnote 10. "'While they also have a high special attack statistic, they are more commonly used for their physical attacks, as they have a poor special move pool consisting of only a few attacks like Flamethrower and Dragon Claw, as compared to their physical movepool, where they can utilize Earthquake, Rock Slide and Swords Dance to great effect."
   • Problem. The site linked to gives the names of attacks, but makes no commentary on the quality of the "attack pools" in question, or on what the pokemon is most commonly used for.
3. Footnote 13. "With high speed and high attack, they proceed to defeat each opposing Pokémon in turn before the enemy can use any kind of counterattack, known as "sweeping"."
   • Problem. From site: "Sweepers generally have the strategy of dishing out as much damage as fast as possible."
     • Although related, the statement in the source does not actually support the statement in the article. Furthermore, this site does not appear to be a very good source; its full of misspellings, and the prose is amateurish. It seems to be a fansite, which makes me pretty skeptical to begin with, but more critically, I'm highly reluctant to trust a source that doesn't even copyedit its articles.
4. Footnote 21. "Ash was ultimately saved by Charizard, but it remained unclear whether Charmeleon evolved to rescue Ash or just to fight Aerodactyl, which had injured it."
   • Problem. From site: "However when Ash fell into a pit of Fossil Pokémon, Charmeleon ended up evolving into Charizard to battle Aerodactyl"
     • No mention of this battle "saving" Ash, or of ambiguity over why the Pokemon evolved. Reference is from same problematic site as the previous note.
5. Footnote 51. "This may have influenced the value of other Charizard cards, because in these magazines Charizard prices are always higher than those of other equally elusive and strong holographic cards such as Venusaur, Blastoise, or Zapdos."
   • Problem. From site: "Charizard --- US Value: $50.00 - $60.00"
     • This is one example of a magazine in which Charizard is priced higher than other cards. A secondary source would be needed for the claims that this is always the case and that this may have influenced the value of other cards.

All in all, referencing in this article needs a great deal of work. The article leans heavily on the serebii.net site, which strikes me as a pretty weak source. Citations to that source need to be replaced with citations to something more reliable. Second, the fact that 5 of 5 footnotes checked were problematic indicates that someone needs to go through this, checking every single footnote, and fix all cases where the source does not directly support the article. --Robth^Talk 20:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Replies.
    • The first one was fixed, or more clarified. "Char" isn't a word, it's a syllable, and the article has clarified that. The main problem is that Nintendo never released any official origins. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This was my fault, I removed the wrong ref. I've implemented the correct ones. The final ref was only meant to relate to the attacks. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The third one was missing a ref in relation into the actual act of sweeping. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I switched the bio webpage to a DVD of the episode. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the questionable information from the article. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! That was quick--before I even finished posting to the FAC page! Issues remain, even with these refs, however. If Nintendo has never stated what the origins were, the article should say something like "is presumably a portmanteau"... to make it clear that we don't have an official statement on this. More importantly, my point was that if the five random references I looked at had problems, someone needs to go through and check all the rest very carefully, since the odds that I found the only five problematic ones are quite low. Thanks, --Robth^Talk 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well the problem with the first ref was a mix up between a syllable and a word. The second and third references were actually missing references instead of dodgy, current ones. The fourth one was laziness on my part, since I didn't link to the main episode guide which would have explained the thing better. The last ref was added by another user, and I didn't touch the TCG at all, so I didn't look at it. Thank you anyway, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I certainly understand that they were all perfectly explainable errors; my point is merely that it's unlikely that I randomly happened to click on the only five such errors in the article; were those the only two missing references? Was the fifth the only potentially iffy reference added by another user? It would seem statistically improbable that I managed to select the only five references with problems; thus my request that someone with time to work on this go through it and fix any other issues. --Robth^Talk 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • May I not do it right now? Personally, I have other articles I'd rather edit and this is going to fail. It leans too much on Serebii, lacks secondary sources and needs a copy edit. This on top makes it a back burner. Nyah, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't mean to try to dictate to you what and when you have to edit :-). It looks like this FAC just got archived, so there should be plenty of time to get this all sorted out if someone wants to take another run at it in a while. --Robth^Talk 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Too much "would" and "could", and some lacking details

I think there's now far too many "woulds" and "coulds" in the characteristics section; It's a bit annoying and grammatically incorrect too, especailly since you always see incorrect usage of would, could and should in spoken grammar and print. The article should be in the present tense. Also I really think that Pokemon 2000 took place AFTER Charizard became obedient to Ash; Also, if you watch every episode before 107, the only time he ever really fought well for Ash was against Blaine's Magmar. And lastly I do believe Charizard's role in Pokemon the Movie 3 is definitely worth mentioning, as he saved Ash's life again here, AND he came of his own volition, truly proving that he really does care for Ash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nintenboy01 (talk • contribs) .

The characteristics section can't be in universe, the FAC will fail otherwise. Whether you think Pokémon 2000 was before or after Episode 107 is of little importance, since adding your own opinions would be counted as Original Research. Highway ^Daytrippers 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the places where it says "would" and "could" by adding phrases such as "is shown to". This makes the section rather repetitive, and I think it is overly cautious, but better than "would", which just sounds strange. I think the start of the first sentence, "As depicted..." is enough to make the section "out universe". It should be clear to any reader that since the article describes a fictional creature, that creature's characteristics are necessarily the characteristics it is attributed inside its fictional world. -- Grgcox 17:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't down to me, fictional creatures have to described in an out of universe perspective, per FAC candicacy reviewers. Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - perhaps I edited this article and commented a little hastily. I have now looked at the relevant section in the Manual of Style. If I understand those rules correctly, the real way to fix this problem is to provide examples where a Charizard exhibits the characteristics which are attributed to the species in general - this unfortunately requires some work. -- Grgcox 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had another try at improving the Characteristics section, rewriting it so as to be "out-universe", as per the Manual. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions about this change. -- Grgcox 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My changes have been reverted for a second time by User:HighwayCello. The comment for this revert was: "rv odd characteristics, it doesn't show the Pokémon doing that, and the names are all wrong and it shouldn't be a list really". I feel that this section is in need of improvement if it is to have any change of gaining FA status. Specifically, I believe that the wording (the use of "would" and "could") is improper, and that it is written "in-universe", contrary to the Manual of Style. I believe that there is a need to look at the content of this section and reach agreement on how it should be improved, if any progress is to be achieved. -- Grgcox 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Charizard's role in "Spell of the Unown" be mentioned?

I really think that Charizard's presence in "Spell of the Unown" deserves being mentioned, if only briefly, in the article. After all, it's really no more "in-universe" or "fannish" than many of the other details already in the article. This role was significant because Charizard really came to help Ash on its own without being summoned, so it shows that he really does care for Ash. It also makes things more or less even between Ash and Charizard, as they have saved each other's lives at least twice now. Also the excessive use of "would" and "could" in the characteristics section just looks plain wrong and is rather disturbing (In the Philippines, poor usage of "would and could" rather than "will" or "can" is very common), and no other Poke-article is like that. The Pokedex and other official descriptions aren't like that either. Nintenboy01 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pokédex is in in-universe perspective, we're writing in out-universe perspective, the two are different. The Pokédex is describing Charizard as real creatures, we're derscribing them as fictional creatures. As for the coming on it's own theory, unless you have a source which agrees with your theories, it'd fall under original research policies, as well as WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought. Highway ^Daytrippers 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless if one watches the movie Pokemon 3 it's very obvious that Charizard decided to come on its own after seeing Ash in trouble on Lisa's TV set. It's simply common sense, and Ash never actually summoned it over during the movie. Won't a citation to a good summary of the movie do? Also the "would" and "could" in Characteristics make it seem like an actual, evolved Charizard isn't the subject of that section, but instead a Charmeleon that MAY evolve in the future. Nintenboy01 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but policy just doesn't work like that. And the only reason it's sounding like a Charmeleon is because you're thinking in universe, I know people can get caught up in series, so just try and tempoarily seperate yourself from the subject and give it a second read. Cheers, Highway ^Daytrippers 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So, why is a badly worded out of universe perspective being kept? As I said, most of the other FA fictional characters use the "mention the which piece of the full work its from, and go in-universe from there" method. Are they all just waiting to be pulled, or are you or some of the FAC reviewers being anal? Nemu 12:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put: you cannot write an article, or piece of an article about a fictional character as if they exist in reality. The reason Charizard saved Ash in the 3rd movie is because the writers wrote it that way. Plain and simple. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't being purely written in-universe. The "As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries" is infront of it, which seems to be good enough in every other one of the FA character articles. Was the policy changed recently, so it hasn't had time to effect those yet or something? Nemu 15:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but aren't the writers responsible for EVERYTHING that happened in the Pokémon anime universe? So what makes Pokemon the Movie 3 any different? Also, even though you ARE writing about a fictional being here, shouldn't there be at least some suspension of disbelief? It's really awkward-looking to read everything from a fictional stance. Only an utter moron would think that Charizard was a real-life beast as they were reading the article... The anime section at least need not be so strict and artificial, it can be a bit more in-universe... Nintenboy01 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm really not getting the write out of universe thing. The whole "Charizard would" thing does not seem out of universe at all. It just seems really weird when read. And even if that is out of universe, does it need to be like that? From what I got from reading the guideline, it's ok to mention the source the thing be described is from, and then mention other out of universe aspects as necessary. It seems like stuff like "As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries", "changed in the games", and "added in the anime" along with an in universe description would be fine. Nemu 23:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At least SOMEONE agress with me... Yes, the excessive "would" and "could" is really awkward and out of place. It just doesn't sound normal or natural at all and no other article is like that. Plus, I try to tidy up the anime section a bit and it gets reverted AGAIN! Nintenboy01 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to editors at WP:FAC. That is how policy details making prose out of universe. If you want to change it, go make a statement at the policy talk page, or somewhere in relation, just please don't scrutinize policy at an article talk page with little importance to the policy. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article must be a special case for some reason. I look through about seven of the fictional character featured articles, and not one of them had wording even similar to this one. There are plenty of ways to write out of universe, so why choose such ugly wording? Could you explain how the word "would" even makes that whole thing out of universe? Nemu 10:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your problem with what's required to be out-universe, but I'm not the person to argue with. Go talk to Raul654 (talk · contribs), the Featured Article director, who makes the decision whether candidates pass or fail. One of the reasons Charizard failed was because the Characteristics was in-universe, which is why I changed it. If you believe that the prior level was adequate take it up with him. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 13:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor Wording in Charizard Article

Merged from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Have any of you seen the poor wording in the first few sections of the Charizard article? Too much "would" and "could"!!! It's very awkward and ugly looking, and I can't believe it qualifies for encyclopedic prose... Nintenboy01 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a section for policies. problems with grammer on a pokemon article really doesn't belong here. If you think it's awkward and ugly...how about try fixing it? Or at least post onto the Charizard talk page.

Anyhow, i've gone and made a few edits on the Charizard article. I believe it fixes all the "would"s in the section you're refering to. --Yaksha 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an out-universe perspective, go back to FAC and complain. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

although i'd like to point out that using words like "would" and "could" doesn't nessasarily turn in-universe style writing into out-universe style writing. If a sentence already has a word or phrase which gives it the out-universe style writing, there's not much need to stick another one or two "woulds". --`/aksha 11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're making no sense at all. Besides the fact that would and could don't make it out of universe, you reverted an addition that should have made the rest of it out of universe(in your opinion). It makes no sense for you to pick and choose like that. I just think you have some ownership problems or something because you really seem to have the whole "my way or the highway" personality. Nemu 12:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How can it be ownership, it wasn't my edit. Personally, I just think it reads better with the second half like that. If you don't believe that the paragraph isn't out-universe, can you suggest how it can become so? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 12:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

just ignore it. The guy seems to be throwing around accusations so he can argue for the sake of argueing. --`/aksha 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that I added more woulds and coulds to make at least match the rest of the paragraph because it looks ugly to have it like that. I figured if you wouldn't let it be changed, then it should at least be the same all the way through. The ownership accusation is from the fact that you want it to be out of universe, but you reverted the edit that made the whole thing out of universe (in your opinion). It just seems like you don't want the article to change at all.

I think the "As depicted in the Pokémon metaseries" does fine in making it out of universe enough (compared to many character featured articles), but if you need more, you should maybe add things from the different mediums. Something like "The games say X, but the anime contradicts this by doing Y." It would be a little neater than that, but that's the basic idea of it. Nemu 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of universe problem

There seems to be a little bit of confusion with the "in universe versus out of universe" writing style. The section on characteristics is using weasel words rather than confirming that the topic is a fictional one. Saying "It is suggested..." begs the question "by whom?" I have to agree with previous statements about would and could, they aren't making it apparent that the creature is fictional, but rather that it is a possibilty. Remember, for an FAC, in universe or out of universe does not matter if the article is poorly written. Jay32183 20:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Pokédex? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it say "According to the Pokédex..." rather than "It is suggested..."? Maybe even refer to the Pokédex as a "fictional encyclopedia" Jay32183 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It does... about a line up. And Pokédex is linked. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Div. It got removed I think, but I added it back in. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the Div BTW. Who's talking to himself.. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That sentence looks a lot better now. Thanks for hearing me out. Jay32183 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! : ) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Videogames Section

I think that the videogames section would be easier to understand if it were subdivided into gameboy games and nintendo games, or by game. I would do it myself, but I'm not exactly sure what belongs where, so I don't want to put anything under the wrong section; it's been a while since I played the games. Defenestrating Monday 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC) So much for Rhyhorn's cry.

Trading card

Wasn't the Charizard card one of the most sought-after cards back when the TCG was new? Kids would make their parents buy them packs of cards and then throw away any cards that weren't rare holofoils. I don't see anything about that in the TCG section of the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because that's unconfirmed and may be inaccurate, not all children would through cards that weren't rare away, I wouldn't, I'd put it in my binder for later use! See, now it's totally unconfirmed, but based on facts! - ~VNinja~ 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember, it was considered to be the "best" card of the first series, mainly due to the then unrivalled (I think) 100 damage. But the thing about throwing cards away is certainly untrue for most cases.

DarthSidious 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Problem in Anime Section

In the anime section, it says that Ash's Charizard learned Seismic Toss while in training at Charicific Valley. This is inaccurrate, as Charizard used Seismic Toss during Ash's battle with the Gym Leader Blaine. So, I'm going to delete that.Leprechaun Gamer 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Look...

You need to actually go through all of the previous FACs and fix all of the problems raised. Find someone you know to copyedit it, put "charizard" into Google and pick through every single entry until you've referenced everything you can, do whatever it takes. But please stop nominating the article without doing any work on it after the previous FAC. It's not doing you any favours and you're not going to suddenly get a sea change in attitudes without some serious effort. DevAlt 23:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And please give the article at least two months. Or a month, less than a month isn't enough time. TheBlazikenMaster 00:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You say this like it wasn't just one person deciding to nominate it for FAC again. -Amarkov moo! 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's not. A separate person has nominated every FAC since the third one:

1. Minun
2. Minun
3. Minun
4. HighwayCello
5. Andros 1337
6. Rmky87
7. VenomousNinja

So what we're looking at is an entire group of people who are fundamentally failing to understand how FAC works and are constantly renominating in what I can only guess is the hope that they'll get a different bunch of reviewers who will support. When the noms happen don't matter, they could happen one day apart for all I care (and I think people who are demanding they wait a month "just because", need to buck up their ideas), but the issue is that this article is not being improved in-between. The last two FACs and peer review have consistently identified three problems:

1. Many references are unreliable
2. The quality of the prose is poor
3. The article is written from an in-universe perspective in many places.

Finding references can be difficult, I concede, but it does not seem to have occurred to one person on this page to maybe get a copyeditor in. WP:LoCE and WP:1FAPQ#Project_resources offer people who have volunteered to copyedit articles, has it occurred to a single person to drop them a line and at least get 1a sorted out? No. This is a crisis of imagination and resourcefulness that I was hoping to correct in my message, but I certainly don't think this is one rogue editor repeatedly nominating. DevAlt 08:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

HighwayCello hasn't been around for many months now so I think he is currently irrelevant in this regard. However I do agree that the article really is getting too cluttered (the anime section is particularly messy and too jam-packed with trivial info, making it look unprofessional) and there's too much reliance on serebii.net (A fine site but it's being cited too much). This article really needs serious, effective trimming (again, mostly in the anime section) while still retaining key events. There's just too many commas and phrases in there. Nintenboy01 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

I've filed a Good Article review over this article, the immediete delisting did not give a justifying comment on the talk page, (Step 5 on the GA/R page) and what was in the edit summary does not seem sufficient to me to justify why this article is failing to at least be marginally well-referenced. Homestarmy 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to give a reasoning? I think it's pretty clear. If not, one word: Bellyzard. Multiple words: Wikipedia is not a guide. But this article is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I guess I pretty much killed this article... So, sorry... - ~VNinja~ 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that, Venomous? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

VenomousNinja is sorry because he/she nominated it for featured status before it was ready. You don't have to be, no one is expected to be perfect, not even the biggest smartasses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BlazikenMaster -_-... Anyway, I'm sorry because I worked on this article, and now it's been removed from the good article list. So, yeah.. Sorry. - ~VNinja~

The article isn't dead yet. It hasn't lost an AfD debate, it doesn't fall under speedy criterion, and it isn't going to be gutted due to the bio policy. Just work harder at it and make certain it examples a good article before nominating it again, that's all. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No more article

Since there is no longer a charizard article, is the option of FA out of the question, or are we going to recreate it?

While I'm making my own list of OOU info/notability info, add anything you can think of here.

Just in case I miss something. Thanks! - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging. Knew it was coming..

Look guys, alot of this stuff in here is fluff. I mean someone looking for a summery about Charizard doesn't want to know how it was in a book. Or a summery of what it's done in all of the pokemon anime. Brawl is signifigant I'll admit, but just point them to Dojo or adding a small comment on the merged page will suffice. In short, why won't you merge it? There's info on it sure but there's just as much info on other merged pokemon. Take the info to Bulbapedia. They are reallly working on getting a complete encyclopedia of Pokemon. General article here, descreptive article on Bulbapedia, what's wrong with that? Pine27 13:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just that Charizard is one of the more notable Pokemon, and although Bulbapedia has a lot of stuff it also seems to have more cruft and fan opinions in articles so it might mislead some people. Maybe the article here just needs a bit of trimming. Getting rid of the "Bellyzard" thing was a good start. Nintenboy01 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is notable but does it really need it's own WIKIPEDIA article? Serebii has advice on battling, that stuff can be removed from Bulbapedia and the stuff here can be added there, allowing Charizard to merge like the rest of them. Charizard was a version mascot and is notable, but not really more so than other version mascots, which at last check, most didn't have their own articles(Pikachu not included) Pine27 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer that Charizard, Mewtwo and some other Pokemon had their own unique articles, but I won't really contest their removal. Tell that to some other editors though, and they'll get pissed and restore this full article again. Nintenboy01 01:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously one of the most popular Pokemon. I'm betting there is plenty of "out of game" references for this Pokemon, especially considering the many many toys and appearences it makes. Heck, Charizard is more or less playable in Smash Bros, and has at least appeared in every Smash Game as an NPC. Charmander was in Austin Powers 3 as a cameo haha. When people think Pokemon, if they dont think of Pikachu first, Charizard is the next one on their minds. As a friend of mine said "what self respecting Pokemon master has never used Charizard" and that has some truth in it. I believe Charizard, with some clean up, could make a really outstanding article, but it'll take some work, especially finding sources from the days of red and blue. If I recall correctly, didn't Time run something on Pokemon? Might be some info on Charizard in there. Balladofwindfishes 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Robot Chicken Parody?

It should be mentioned that he appeared in the Robot Chicken Parody of pokemon/Pikachu, and made an elephant noise. I'm too lazy to find sources myself, someone else do it. 209.226.248.112 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Charizard's DVD.

Do you guys think it's good enough to add it to the trivia on Charizard's page on Bulbapedia? TheBlazikenMaster 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TCG Controversy

If you want to add some out of game information about charizard I'm sure there are plenty of news reports of "incidents" that happened with Charizard's Trading Card. Considering the news I remember about it, there should be plenty of news sources to add this in. Balladofwindfishes 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article revive

How do you like the article? Anything that needs fixing? --Blake (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of prose that needs tidying but I think you've got a decent start, I did some additions of sources and reception to lend a hand. I'll probably do some more tomorrow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual article?

Ummm...why does Charizard have its own article when most of the other Pokemon have been scrunched up into uninformative but tidy lists? Unlike the other Pokemon with separate articles (Pikachu for its mascot status, Jigglypuff and Mewtwo for their appearance in the Super Smash Bros. series, Mew for its cultural effect, Jynx for racist rants raised against it), I can't find a suitable reason for Charizard's importance. I agree that it is a nice-looking Pokemon, but the same could be said for many others.I'm not motioning for article deletion or anything, just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.124.110 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Charizard has a bit of dev info and some critical reception. The others lack that, which is what keeps them as lists. It's not Shakespeare by any means but it's enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you find any sources that can be used for a Pokémon, feel free to add them to the list sections. The original Pokémon articles had little to no sources. Once one gets enough reliable third party sources, then they too can be un-merged. There has even been talk of Kadabra or Mr. Mime also regaining article status. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)