Talk:Blastoise

Stallers and Sponges

What are those?TNTfan101 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume to stall the battle and absorb damage. But I'll go and remove that game guide crap.—ウルタプ 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed title for the purpose of ensuring that the discussion can be archived properly. Invalid^OS (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Work of fiction?

This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

Please explain where this article needs rewriting. It looks fine to me. --Blake (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need rewriting, but it needs to provide a non-fictional perspective (i.e. information about creation/development, reception and/or cultural impact). Theleftorium 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

um... it was created by satoshi tajiri? a weak attempt... :) while i think this is improper use of that tag, i won't remove it unless i find one that better articulates what you're after as that might be contentious. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

He means real-world content. There's no real information for Blastoise as to why, unique against the other Pokemon, the character is the way he is, or what considerations were put into effect as to why Blastoise appears in the games he does. There's really no coverage as to Blastoise's significance outside of strictly the Pokemon setting (i.e. Mew helping Red and Blue sell, Mewtwo's reception as a character opposed to as just a pokemon etc). Look at any character article on wikipedia that's GA or higher and what's missing should be obvious enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know what he means now. I think he is using the wrong template though. That template is supposed to be used for when the article acts like the subject is a real thing, not when there needs to be real-world info. It is very confusing. --Blake (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

exactly... but tags can always be fixed, the problem is just when people start citing the wrong guidelines in discussions to support their view (like WP:IN-U), kind of like saying, "this article should be deleted because it uses the word or too much." --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah... i almost forgot... you guys never responded to my question from the AFD if something like this would count as critical reception:

Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an "impressive... tank", and compared to Wobbuffett except, "that it can actually defend itself".

this is much better than the passing mention in that Observer article about it being a "tank of a turtle" because it's from an article exclusively about Blastoise, getting a response on this would really help me guage what you'd like to see. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The line is reception, but isn't real-world content. It's like saying "Mewtwo is regarded as the strongest Pokemon". That's important to note, but outside of Pokemon, how is Blastoise important? Do children feel he's a popular character? Are there studies discussion its significance to the public? That's what you need to satisfy notability on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

could you link to the guideline that says precisely what you've laid out? with those kinds of examples given? the phrases "real-world content" and "critical reception" are all your own. from what i'm reading on WP:N:

1. the source has to address the subject directly in detail
2. the source has to be reliable (i've invited other editors to view the article - pick it up at walmart)
3. the source should be secondary
4. the number is dependent on the depth of coverage (a few paragraphs? 2-3 sources seem appropriate)

-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You ever take a gander at WP:FICT?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

oh, you mean that failed guideline which the community has been whacking away at for god-knows-how-long? supporting your statement with a guideline which has failed to achieve consensus isn't very persuasive. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's underlying summary has been up there since forever and a majority of editors can and will agree with it; it's the finer details that have been on long term debate. Fictional character articles need some proof they're important to the world in some context, not just a few in-strict-context blurbs (otherwise we'd have species articles galore still).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

no, because it is few pokemon that can say they've had articles written about them. you can interpret the discussions at WP:FICT any way you like, that's a whole other discussion. The crux of your argument relies on a guideline which has no consensus, my arguements have always relied on satisfying WP:N and WP:V (which "trumps" both guidelines anyways), and being supported by the 1st pillar of wikipedia - that we exist as both a general and specialized encyclopedia. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh good lord not the five pillars stuff. If that worked in most of the AfD's I'd seen it brought in I'd be a monkey's uncle.

I guess the best way to get through to you that something is wrong with the approach to the article is "in an encyclopedic sense, how is Blastoise more significant to the real world than any other species still on the lists?"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

it is one of the most well known. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and completely arbitrary. In fact, I would say Blastoise is a lot less known than Squirtle. Artichoker^[talk] 15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and to the fact there are many very recognizable Pokemon such as Gengar and Snorlax. So why is Blastoise still more significant than both of them Zapper?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)actually it's not my opinion... that would OR. i referenced that in the article... or did you not even read the thing before sending it to AFD and making judgements about it's merits? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i know i have been responding quickly, but i really need to be getting to sleep. i'll respond later, cheers! --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

goddamit.... Blake, through good intentions, has removed that from the original article.... bah..... perhaps this is why we were having such issues... i was going off of my memory of what i had written, not realizing some important things were removed, read the original restoration to get my point. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's seems like a weak perch to cite it as one of the most well known based off only that one source. And that's still the only point you seem to have made regarding why it's more important than most of the other Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the template from the article per Blake's comment. I mixed the pages up... again. :) Theleftorium 16:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i restored the original prose to the lead so that blastoise's notability is more obvious (another, weaker mention was made in the anime section).... but ok... i'm really logging off now. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the first sentence back, but this time put a different characteristic. As I said in the edit summary, the lead is a summary of the whole article. Look at Pikachu and Charizard. I think that is a perfect place for what species it is and where it is found. Remember that for FA, you need 4 pharagraphs in the lead. I know that it is almost impossible for any Pokémon to get to FA, but still. --Blake (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't need four paragraphs in the lead for an FA. Artichoker^[talk] 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, you don't necessarily need four paragraphs in the lead of a featured article. The number of paragraphs in the lead is based on how big or how many sections the article has. Theleftorium 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I dont know where I read that. Anyways... it is still good to have that in there. --Blake (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man: how is Blastoise more significant to the real world than any other species still on the lists?

Zappernapper: it is one of the most well known.

Kung Fu Man: that's still the only point you seem to have made regarding why it's more important than most of the other Pokemon

wow... so the way to argue your point is to request I provide how Blastoise is more notable than pokemon X, and then to come back with, "well, that's just one way, i want another". I am done with this type of discussion, this article met your requirements. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a terrible person to argue with...But anyway my point is you're citing "it's well known". A lot of characters can be called in a publication well known, iconic, etc. But not all of them have articles. So what makes Blastoise really important compared to those that aren't up? More directly why an article on the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

please avoid personal remarks. anyways, the large majority of pokemon can not be cited as being well-known... no one's calling Buizel "iconic". --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, just some idle criticism. Regardless of your point there are quite a few that have been called such by various sources, and it could be argued that even Squirtle's more well known. So is "it's well known" the *only* example you have?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

so? did i miss the part of your personal set of inclusion guidelines that says "a topic needs to have multiple examples of real-world relevance" sorry, perhaps you should write them down and submit them as a policy proposal to replace WP:V. and i wonder why you at first accuse me of making arbitrary claims, and then go and make them yourself ("... it could be argued... Squirtle's more well known"). So what if Squirtle is more well-known... i'm not claiming it isn't. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

and a personal attack is when you are making comments about other editors as people... you can comment on my responses, my prose, my ideologies, but you cross a line when you say "you are a (negative comment)", it might help if you read WP:NPA (you just can't be wrong can you? most people at least apologize for being misunderstood when told to refrain from personal attacks) --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Most people don't go and demand an apology either unless they're desiring conflict. And you're, once more, still missing the point: you've propped this whole article on one statement asserting it's well known for real-world notability. You can shout policy-policy-policy, but your article is on a lofty point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i wasn't demanding an apology, i just said most people at least apologize for being misunderstood (which is a non-apology anyways). I am not missing the point, you are - even when you state it... i've propped up the article on one point and that's enough, i have community established guidelines backing me up, you don't. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're so certain, post that you believe you've achieved notability on WT:N and see what people more familiar with the policy say.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let it go.

Why do you even want this article out there? You shaved it so much THE LIST ARTICLE has more information then this does. If you want, add the references there, if they aren't already there. Either find new stuff or stop reviving this dead article. Nobody is going to change their mind unless you get something new to back you up. --_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

not counting the lead in this article, you're right; the list article has 34 lines of text, this has 32 (on my browser). however much of that information in the list article is inappropriate original research that would be removed eventually (entymologies are OR unless you have a reliable source, and who made the comparison to Bowser?). Other technical information detailing blastoise's possible moves in the video games were removed from the article by others, so i would suspect that they'd find it equally inappropriate in the list, had they noticed it. Colonol Warden has added some interesting information to the TCG section, and i begrudgingly added the Kazaa reference. Blake, the principle is interpretation of WP:N and what kind of significant coverage satisfies it. Neither the guideline nor the parent policy (WP:V) tackle that sticky issue. Many like to use justification that we are not a guide, so guide information doesn't count, but we are also not a news source, scientific journal, or blog even though we may use these kinds of sources in creating articles.

I have already stated that i am fighting this so hard because of the framework in which Kung Fu Man set up the merge discussion. We don't vote here, for a myriad of reasons. mostly because the outcome can change depending on the level of exposure (AFD vs. article's talk page), the length of time the vote is open, the day of the week, etc. If other editors were willing to work towards a compromise, and at least accept the fact that written guidelines and policies do not address this issue explictly, we could have a conversation about it and perhaps come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. Of course, this is what WP:FICT has been trying to do for a long while now and our conversation merely exists as a microcosm of it. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kazaa

Is there any proof that the name is derived from the Pokemon? Kazaa+Blastoise+Pokemon is turning up nothing, and the USA Today article just mentions the name change, not any significance behind the name. All in all it's pretty trivial and possibly unrelated from the looks of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The program's name or the company itself? I get these two reliable sources and a few others: 1 and 2 from this search by removing the word Pokemon from the search Antonio López ^(talk) 17:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes got that myself, but what ties it to the Pokemon? There doesn't seem to be anything confirming the link between the two.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends, what other word or name does "Blastoise" come from, it's not like the name just popped in their heads or it's not like the word or name is original. Antonio López ^(talk) 18:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's in risk of being original research however.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

i am aware that there are no online sources linking the two, and it will take more time to try and find an offline source. I had waited on adding it because of this issue, but decided to post it in response to a comment made in the merge discussion. It seems fairly obvious since the name was created after pokemon, and the fact that nintendo has patented all names they can. a long time ago it was figured out that simple google searches were not going to help create indiviual articles, and while some people are loathe to do grueling research through print, sometimes it's an ugly reality (btw, i commend you and artichoker for taking the time to add info from the non-fiction pokemon books out there like Pikachu's Global Adventure). --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That comes across as original research however. If you can't prove the two are related you shouldn't toss it out there. You need to be careful of WP:POINT by the way, your statement to Blake implies that's a big part of what this is.

In all honesty, if you want to pull this article off so bad, why not take it to a subpage and then build upon it? Really getting tired of fighting this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the bit. There is absolutely no indication that the company name is based off of the Pokémon. Listing it in this article is original research. I too am becoming exasperated; consensus on WT:VG is clearly to merge. Artichoker^[talk] 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blastoise special move not mentioned in article?

Hydropump is not listed on the move set? Can't use it? Anyway Thank You for trying. --Hydromaniatt4 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just small tweets and changes

So, I was thinking about just changing small bits and pieces of everyones contribution and such.
I also noticed that we don't have a picture for Blastoise, so I would like to add that in.
Some small changes I will be making will probably be along the lines of: Hyperlinks, Picture, Moves Section, and many more!
Hope you guys like that! Another note, I'm only going to do the move set on the first generation of Blastoises with the wikipedia style table, so if you know how to make a cooler looking table go for it!
Aquahead (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Blastoise (Pokemon).png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Blastoise (Pokemon).png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mega evolution?

Should blastoise's Mega evolution from X & Y be added to this page? info on it can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyk31 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been added to the page before you posted here. We have mentioned that it exists as a gameplay element, but have not yet put its characteristics in that section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blastoise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=91965
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829150029/http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/blastoise to http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/blastoise
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150419064944/http://www.chicagotimes.com/44935/pokemon-name/ to http://www.chicagotimes.com/44935/pokemon-name/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)