Talk:Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

I’m really not sure why we can’t list each Pokémon in alphabetical order. It seems practical, in my opinion. 67.131.39.118 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the requested move box down below. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish. I struggled for a moment to see if we have a policy relevant to ordering titles referencing multiple topics, so far the best I've found is WP:AND which does support the situational ordering being offered here: It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang., so as this is unopposed, I will move it as requested. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Pokémon (Sword and Shield) → Arctovish, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Dracozolt – Perhaps the proposed name is clunky, but eliminates confusion. For one, the disambiguation of "Sword and Shield" is vague for non-fans. There are also Fossil Pokemon besides these four in Pokemon Sword and Shield, the Crown Tundra DLC adds the Cradily and Armaldo evolutionary lines to the game, as seen here. This makes it unclear which Fossil Pokemon the name is referring to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can see two main arguments here
  • supporting because every other standalone pokémon article is named after the pokémon (plus the currently still ongoing discussion on magikarp and gyarados)
  • not supporting because absolutely no one would think that anorith and the actual tentacle monster in a kids franchise were introduced in gen 8 (on that note, all fossil pokémon outside of gen 4 were reintroduced in the crown tundra, so eh)
  • supporting adding the franchise name to the parentheses
cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. That'd definitely make sense to title it after the Pokémon themselves — it'd definitely make it a lot clearer. However, I'd probably list them in the order Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish, as that's the order they're typically listed in in-game and out-of-game (including in things like the Pokédex). Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    seems like the best option, honestly
    oh god we're probably gonna need redirects for every order of them cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, just redirects from each individual name. The 24 permutations of name orderings are very unlikely search terms and we don't need to catch all of them. The search bar is quite smart and will help readers find where they want to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Fictional characters has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Pokémon has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, support ordering per Paintspot. I agree that the current parenthetical is impenetrable and not ideal. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: Unopposed as to where this vote goes, even if I feel the proposed name is clunky. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to lie... Maybe we just make an article called fossil pokemon and add all fossil pokemon there. Toketaatalk 15:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would support it, but only the gen 1 and 8 fossils have any sort of notability, and even then omanyte and kabuto only have notability outside of the context of mainline pokémon
half of the people i know don't know what gen carracosta is from, or that it's a second stage cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the concept of Fossil Pokemon really notable? I sincerely don't think it is. So it would have to be "List of fossil Pokemon", but we already have Pokemon lists for every generation, making it totally redundant. Ultimately, individual articles on any notable Pokemon grouping is the best we can do under notability standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dracozolt, Arctozolt, Dracovish, and Arctovish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Greenish Pickle! (talk · contribs) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, this is my first GAN review. I'll start later. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept[edit]

  • "The four are revived from different fossils-" replace the "-" into ":".
  • "Fossilized Dino-" perhaps rem9ve "-" and replaced it with ","?
  • ", such as Charles Dawson's Piltdown Man." remove the comma

Appearances[edit]

  • Link NPC

Reception[edit]

  • "ScreenRant disliked it" Who disliked it? put the name of author and link screenrant
  • Link Polygon and italize it
  • The journal of geek source has an author, add the name of author like ScreenRant above
  • Italize the "TheGamer"
  • italize the screenrant again
  • "and Cara Liss's creation of them has been likened to Dawson and the Piltdown Man" who os dawson and the piltdown man???
  • "In the game's competitive scene, the Pokémon have gone on to make an impact." Can you reword this to a better one?

Sources[edit]

  • ref 8 - add date of the article and name of author
  • ref 18 - add name of author
  • ref 19 - add name of author
  • ref 22 - add name of author
  • ref 24 - add name of author

That's everything what I can find. Once everything has been resolved, I'm happy to pass this one. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle! Made changes where applicable. Dawson and the Piltdown Man are described as a hoax earlier in the Design and characteristics section, but if you want me to add more detail anywhere, let me know. Otherwise, I believe I've patched everything else up. Let me know if I need to make any more changes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that make sense. Good job! Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dracozolt,_Arctozolt,_Dracovish,_and_Arctovish&oldid=1219233146"