Talk:Charmeleon

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Pokémon

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Image Copyright

Is this image copyright free? RickK 03:57, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you click on it, it gives the Pokémon copyright. Sonic Mew 12:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Concern for the "characteristics" section...

It says that the horn in the back of its head is really a penis... Um, is this true? I'm suspecting it's vandalism, and if it's not, how about a source to verify it? If you can't put an outside source, at least state the episode or place where this was found. Abby724 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it got removed, I suspect it was just some random bullshit. TheBlazikenMaster 02:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

This seemed really well-written. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's listed as "Good Article". TheBlazikenMaster 00:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article being well-written isn't a reason to not nominate an article for GA status first before instantly tagging it, (nominating first is mandatory) and definently doesn't say anything about every other criteria in WP:WIAGA. I've removed the GA tag. Homestarmy 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone can do mistakes. I know it was just a simple mistake nominating it. But that's ok, not every article has to be perfect. If every article was perfect, there would nothing on Wikipedia to do other than vandalism reverting. I'm not saying it's a good thing that it isn't a good article. I'm just saying that not everything can be perfect, and everyone can falsely tag articles. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be perfect to be a GA, but it at least can't just bypass the whole system and not even have an adequate review to boot, part of the review is often how a reviewer can suggest improvements to be made in an article, and "this seemed really well-written" doesn't help much. Being well-written isn't the only GA criteria anyway.... Homestarmy 02:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]