Talk:Koffing and Weezing

Y R We doing this?

I'm puzzled as to why we have hardly important Pokemon with decent list entries already getting their own cruddy pages, but some entire lists sit without citations. Are we going back to having each Pokemon with their own list again? Or what? How can we have a page on the two gas clouds without a page on Ho-oh, Deoxys, Celebi, or even Pichu. Don't do things in half-measures is all I am saying. Confused, 2D Backfire Master (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:N.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why don't we have some people getting sources as well on some of the less-cared-about lists? 2D Backfire Master (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because we do? For the most part though less than half of the overall Pokemon have any reception, and even less have development info. It works a lot better to isolate which ones are worth their own article, develop them and then tackle what's left.

...and even then it looks like only 18 of them will have their own articles or joint ones till more reception comes about. We're basically at the whims of third-party reviewers.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And a more blunt response to the question of why we didn' work on the "major" ones - same reason I worked on Dan Conner but not Roseanne Conner - didn't feel like it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For reference, a full list of Pokemon with reception and development being built can be found at WP:POKE/R. Feel free to add information to there if you can find any. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We are making these articles because they have significant notability and pass requirements. I would make every single list referenced as much as "1-20" is, but it is alot of work. It isnt hard if you know how to do it. It just takes a while. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, but why don't we just cite the Pokédex (like we usually do) on those pages with little or no references? You don't need to go out looking for reviewer stuff to add to the list to make references. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you instead of complaining about it, no offense?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2DBM, The work I was talking about is adding the Pokedex entries and episode references and such. It is quite simple, it just takes a while. It would take 5min on one article, but easily over an hour for one whole list. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

2DBM, Blake has been doing that. In fact, he has been adding the Dex references for quite a long time. But when you have nearly 500 species to do, it can take several weeks to get it all done. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, I could try something to help Blake, et al. Just need to get some time, is all. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You can use this to help guide you. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Needs Removal

This section:

Though regarded as the strongest of their particular type, they were received as weak due to the weakness of said type until the release of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. Their designs have been met with mixed reception, with sources such as GamesRadar stating approval for Koffing's appearance, while GameDaily described it as a "floating fart ball". In contrast, Weezing has been praised to a lesser extent, described as both an "abomination" and "horrific" by various sources.

is the third paragraph of this page at the time of this writing. Not only does it really not seem notable, but the last line doesn't even have source links. I propose we delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verisimilarity (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead text doesn't require referencing, as by default, it is a summary of content stated later in the article body, which is fully referenced. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As he said, the lead paragraphs are just summarized info of the whole article. This means that everything is referenced elsewhere. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Weezer

I've long wondered if Weezing's English name was intended to be a reference to Weezer. The original Pokemon came out in the mid-90s when Weezer was quite popular. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but how does that make any sense? It doesn't matter anyways. It is original research, so we can't say that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Virus?

Though I have thus-far found no official evidence to support it I believe it probable that Koffing and Weezing are based on viruses, Weezings shape beares ressembelence to that of a cell part way through the division process and beause they are poison type I find it highly likely that this is where nintendo got the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.27.204 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need a source for anything that could be challenged. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Koffing and Weezing. 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/20081029021005/http://www.insertcredit.com/features/coldfifty/201918.html to http://www.insertcredit.com/features/coldfifty/201918.html

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) 10:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dogars

The article currently claims that Koffing and Weezing are "known in Japan as Dogars (ドガース, Dogāsu) and Matadogas (マタドガス, Matadogasu)". What is the basis for "Dogars"? There's no "r" in the actual Japanese. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)