Torchic

Here goes nothing, I'm nominating this because after months of full rewriting and being promoted to GA status, I, among others, believe that this article is ready to face the FA gauntlet that nominating an article of this nature is. While trying not to only judge this article within the Pokémon hub, this article is only second to Bulbasaur, which acheived FA.. eventually. In short I believe this article is of a high quality and please don't let your prejudices against "Pokécruft" fail this article, it at least deserves a chance. Thank you for reading this and all comments are welcomed, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Many gamers have criticized the Advanced Generation artwork as a whole..."
  2. "Torchic as a species are universally playful..."
  3. "Torchic dislikes darkness because it prevents it from seeing its surroundings..."
  4. "If attacked, it strikes back by spitting fireballs over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit..."
  5. "One of few things common to most of the Pokémon games..."
  6. "...choosing it as the starter Pokémon is considered a steeper difficulty curve than choosing Treecko, the Grass-type choice, or Mudkip, the Water-type choice."
  7. "Since Grass-type Pokémon such as Oddish, Sunkern and Shroomish are very popular early in all incarnations of the series, Torchic has a definitive type advantage against these Pokémon."
  8. "This confusion with types is not unlike Gyarados, an aerial sea serpent, being a dual Water/Flying-type, as opposed to a Dragon/Flying-type as many suggested."
  9. "It is set to appear in the un-released game, Pokémon Ranger, a Nintendo DS exclusive."
  10. "His feisty Torchic is best known for the running-gag of using Ember on Brendan's hair, setting it ablaze."
  11. "An important rule that many players overlook..."
  12. "This makes Star Cards somewhat impractical, since they can not be upgraded from their Basic stage state, and are primarily savoured for their rarity instead."
  13. "...most likely because of its initial popularity alongside the release of Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire."
This article still needs substantial work before it's up to featured level, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was against doing this to start with (damn Cel) but I shall try and give some feedback-
I'll just go and delete this article now... Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have omitted a number somewhere in there, so I'll reply generally: everything that comes from the Pokédex can be easily cited as coming from the Pokédex, so that should present no problems. For the other items, I am asking for a citations for the (sometimes weasel-worded) opinions being given. In other words:
  • "is considered a steeper difficulty" - by whom?
  • "very popular" - by what measure?
  • "as many suggested" - who?
  • "best known" - according to whom?
  • "primarily savoured" - according to whom?
  • "most likely" - according to whom?
As far as "Trivia" is concerned, a list of vaguely related notes hardly qualifies as brilliant prose; and I don't see such a section on Bulbasaur, in any case.
Finally, do keep in mind that I'm trying to provide constructive criticism here, and please don't react quite so negatively ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine it was there last week :P I've started doing most of them, thanks for the comments! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stuff I can still find or I can remove. The main problem is the theories that I generally thought up which I may need to investigate to cite... Highway Rainbow Sneakers 23:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Have you removed the other points permanently, or are you still looking for sources for them? Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just gone through and all of the points that you raise above have been fixed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torchic&diff=48253722&oldid=48100447). --Celestianpower háblame 10:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of my objections. However, the citations provided don't seem to directly support the "universally playful" and "best known" assertions; is there something I'm missing here? Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The universally playful is from the anime I think, I'll probably remove that since it's not unaminously true. The main Torchic is playful, but others have been aggressive.. so that'll get fixed. And the "best known for" has been there since before I started working on the article and never got cleaned up. Thanks for updating your opinions and I'll fix your remaining quibbles. Are there any others points while I'm cleaning up? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "universally playful" section and I changed "best known for" to "reputable". I'm not sure that's the best word but all the Pebble Version article said was "Torchic has a bad habit of incinerating people".. thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "has a reputation for"? "Reputable" isn't used in that sense, if I recall correctly. Kirill Lokshin 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Reputable" is now "has a reputation for", thanks for the suggestion. ;) Is there anything else? Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those left unstricken have been fixed now - one has a source and the other is totally removed. --Celestianpower háblame 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Now that the significant objections have been resolved, a few more suggestions you may want to consider:
  • "Pokémon" seems to be inconsistently italicized, at least in the section headings. Is there some convention being followed here that I'm unaware of?
  • The numbering for the general references and the numbering for the footnotes will be confusing if the article is printed, so the "Books" and "DVDs" sections should probably use bullets intstead.
  • The text is slightly confusing at times (e.g. in the "Characteristics" section: "This powerful fire also serves as its ammunition in battles. If attacked, it strikes back by..."; presumably the second "it" refers to Torchic, and not the fire), so a few rounds of copyediting might be beneficial. If I have some time later, I'll try to do a bit myself.
Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kirill, all done. I copyeditted the largest section, and Cel did the whole thing, but it would be great if you could do one too. Thanks for everything, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A note about the titles. They're not meant to be in Italics because they're generic. Thanks again, 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Overall, it is a good article, but not yet to featured status. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
..If I shouldn't talk about non-related information in the article, how can I go into later? You've kinda contradicted yourself, it's talking about the franchise, and that's the standard intro anyway. Bulbasaur (if you're all going to bring it up then I will) has that reference!
As far as I knew, citations were meant to be placed where needed, rather than where they were short, but I shall ammend all these problems.
Your lovely quote is describing the anime.. what if you haven't ever heard about the anime?
..Well they aren't relevant.. could you please expand on that?
Could you please expand on " The tone is a problem too, as it has been noted above."
Thank you, your comments are welcomed. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't see how I contradicted myself. I said remove the non-essential parts of the article and move them to the Pokemon article. Also, if you haven't heard about the anime or manga, you're more likely to look at those pages first, instead of a particular Pokemon's article. Also, about irrelevant details, here's an example:
    The Pokémon anime series and films are a metaseries of adventures, seperate from most other versions of the Pokémon video games. (An exception to the rule is Pokémon Yellow, a game based on the anime storyline.) The anime follows the quest of the main character, Ash Ketchum, an in-training Pokémon Master. He and his companions travel around the fictitious world of Pokémon, battling other Pokémon trainers and capturing Pokémon.
    The name of Torchic is not mentioned once in that paragraph, so it tells me that it doesn't really have anything to do with this particular creature. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The contradicting was that you originally said that I should mention stuff from the intro later in the article. You later went on to say that it was worrying how the articles talks about other stuff. Kinda contradictory, huh? Anyway, you people can't stop arguing! Titox is saying "remove information that isn't from the Chicken bloodline" and ALoan is saying "making it plebb-friendly"! Meh, I'll deal with this a point at a time, tis easier.
You are suggesting removing all of the descriptive information, which makes it harder for the general reader. I value your opinions, but I don't agree. *sighs* The Bulbasaur article is just the same, and I know I shouldn't compare the two, but all of you are so I might as well. I don't whether you're complaining that this article is one up from Bulbasaur as "the next of Pokécruft crap" but it's not! It's a few people writing, and hoping that it doesn't crumble. And I can easily Torchic into that, I didn't see it as a problem. And the manga? The articles are dire. End of.
I disagree with your opinions on removing all of the information, because if you do, all will you be left is a fan-page. Which is what you're all expecting. Thank you for the comments, could you please strike out anything we've ammended? Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anime paragraph has been fixed. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

better, must do better. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that User:Celestianpower deleted my objection as well as User:Everyking's comment. You can see his change here [[1]].--Ataricodfish 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep cool, Cel didn't do it on purpose. There must be an explanation, he wouldn't have done it on purpose, it's totally out of character. And why would he delete Everking's comment? It's in our favour.. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I'll chalk it up as an accident for now. I left a message on his talk page as well, and obviously don't hold the deletion against you as you didn't do anything wrong. --Ataricodfish 12:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and in response to your comment, I've been pouring over Nintendo magazines, and all I've found so far is Torchic shaped pasta curry, is that what you meant? :P Highway Rainbow Sneakers 12:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. :) To be honest, I don't think that Torchic or many of the 360 Pokemon can get the information to turn it beyond a well written fan guide and into a encylopedic featured article, and I felt the same about the Bulba article, but that's the past. I'm not dismissing Pokemon as lacking noteability, as some of the objections above. A FA on Pokemon, Pikichu, or possibly Meowth would have sizeable information on it's influence on culture, sales figures, designer comments, etc. I personally don't think you can find that with the other 357 Pokemon, whereas you could probably answer each of my above concerns with Pikichu. There is much much more that could be written in this article beyond an episode guide which wouldn't help any non-fan of the series. That's the information I'd hope for this and any article on a fictional character. --Ataricodfish 13:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there I could do to improve the article? Opposed to pinning down Ken Sugimori for an interview? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, answering those questions above would be helpful. My point is, you shouldn't HAVE to pin down Ken Sugimori to improve this article, there should already be articles, sales figures, interviews, criticisms, etc. available in publications. If there isn't, there's probably not enough information to move this beyond a Good Article to a Featured Article. If there is, it's vital its included to demonstrate Torchic's importance.--Ataricodfish 13:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well can you comment on the actual article? I do appreciate your points, but it's like worrying about the plates when the kitchen's on fire. I can check around, but I don't see how you should completely fail an article based on the fact that information doesn't exist. Thank you for the comments, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how nice the plates are. :) As for the article itself, I'm not downplaying how well its written. I think it's a very good overview of the character and his appearances. However, I feel that there's a different standard for good articles and featured articles. While the writing is fine and I suppose the information is accurate (I'm not familar with the later games), it feels lacking "real world" information. He's noteable as he's a Pokemon character and that's fine, and the article TELLS me that but doesn't SHOW me it. There should be *something* out there about the influence behind the character -- after all, for whatever reason, the designers chose him as a central character to the later games, so they must have felt he was more special/marketable/etc. than the other characters. The article is good but not ready for featured status as the encylopedic information is lacking.
However, although I believe my objection is actionable and my objection remains, perhaps we just see a difference of opinion here. I have high standards for the FA articles, and although the article is fine as a Cliff Notes to the character, it doesn't back up its importance outside the Pokeworld (if that's a word). Who knows, perhaps I'm the only one that feels this way, and then our debate is a mute point and it will pass through FAC. Best of luck with your nomination either way, and I appreciate that our conversation has remained civil and productive. --Ataricodfish 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about deleting the comments - it was totally by mistake. Accept my apologies. --Celestianpower háblame 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I think about it logically, Torchic is considered cute and aethsetically pleasing, which is why it's used for marketing in Japan (clothes, gashapon, keyrings etc) I could probably cite it somewhere about the underlining "cute" ploy from the anime and somewhere else, and all of this to the section with the toys and other merchandise.. would that be of any use? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Celestian, apology accepted, thanks! --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highway, that actually might answer something for me as to why Torchic is more noteable than other characters, although I don't know if completely. Obviously, an outside source would have to describe his "cuteness" and why he's marketable, but if something is found, that would be excellent. It's definitely a good direction for the article. It shows that Torchic is something more than just a drawing in a cartoon, and that's what I'm hoping to see. --Ataricodfish 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written the first section, hopefully its okay. I'd like to hear any thoughts on it, because I have no clue what I'm doing. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But saying that a Japanese cartoon character is notable to the real world for its "cuteness" is like saying an American superhero is notable to the real world for having special powers, or more comparably (in terms of scale of pervasiveness)like saying an American actor/actress used in advertising is especially notable for being good-looking. The correct term for the "cuteness" discussed here is kawaii and this quality is endemic/epidemic to huge swathes of Japanese popular culture. There's nothing special about Torchic being "cute"/kawaii. Bwithh 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Torchic has been marketed especially in this manner. Pikachu isn't marketted as "kawaii", it's designed as cute and positive, both for male and female youth. Torchic has. Nintendo has shoved all the attributing factors into Torchic to make it specifically popular, being a Fire-type, widely the most popular of the starters, made it "kawaii" to gain female support, gave it weaknesses, its unsteady footing and its original problems with the early in game bosses, such as Cyndaquil in the anime who couldn't produce Fire for a long time, plus it evolves into Blaziken, one of the most powerful Pokémon in the game, which attracts male gamers. Torchic's design isn't just a coincidence. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that Pikachu isn't marketed or designed as "kawaii"? The wikipedia article on kawaii cites Pikachu used in airline marketing/branding as one of its main examples, and the wikipedia article on Pikachu him/her/itself says that "Pikachu is so cute that in the anime and various manga, most trainers choose to keep it from evolving". In a Dec. 1999 article about the Japanese business of kawaii in Wired magazine uses the example of Pikachu in airline marketing in its lead paragraph[2]. But my larger point is that there are so many many many examples of cuteness in Japanese pop culture and marketing, from fashion advertising to government information campaigns to military recruitment advertising, that it's hard to see how Torchic is being "especially" marketed as cute. Also, kawaii/cuteness isn't narrowly identified with female consumers - in Japan, its just as much a popular aesthetic for men as well (though with more sexual overtones).Bwithh 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't WHY Pikachu is popular. They plugged it on the show BECAUSE they thought it was cute. There isn't any marketting with Ash going "I want Pikachu!! He's so cute", which is there is, more or less, on Torchic. I actually am fixing Pikachu, and I haven't gotten to that, Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse. Thank you for your insight on Kawaii, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 00:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pikachu isn't evolved because its so popular. Having it makes you feel like you're in the show. There a love sickness not to turn into a giant, ugly, orange mouse." Um... okay. what? Bwithh 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Torchic IS kawaii, Pikachu ISN'T, Torchic has been marketted this way, Pikachu was marketted in a SIMILAR way, but not quite. Pikachu was chosen as the lead Poke because he was likeable by both boys ang girls and because he was funny. You could argue there was minor kawaii there, but Torchic is completely kawaii. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have supporting external references for your position that Pikachu is not kawaii and Torchic is especially so? otherwise... POV/original research Bwithh 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there -- I've read over the additions and its not quite what I mean. In terms of marketability, there would have to be a major source that would back up the "cuteness" in marketing specifically to Torchic. Something like The Wall Street Journal or Business Week or a toy industry trade journal. What I'm hoping for is something specific to Torchic in terms of what makes him unique by reputable outside sources. Yes, I'm sure his cute appearance is a selling point, but really, few of the 360 Pokemon are really repulsive and the same could possibly be said of the other Pokemon. Right now, it gives the appearance of POV, even though I agree that a major selling point of Pokemon are their appearance. What makes this difficult is that an article or quote has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general. And obviously, I'm not just looking at marketability as to why Torchic was important. A focus on how Torchic was created, designed, influenced, influential, etc., would be excellent, but it has to specifically be about Torchic and not Pokemon in general. --Ataricodfish 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it starts out with "multi-billion-dollar[1] Pokémon media franchise" - the "multi-billion-dollar" is totally unrelated to this article and seems to exist only to prove this article's worthiness (in fact that is the general feeling I get after reading this, unfortunately)
  2. The second part of the first paragraph (starting with "Its main purpose in the games") reads very awkward to me and almost like a run-on sentence. suggest rewriting
  3. "In all three versions" this is a new paragraph but there is no connection to what the three versions are - normally when you start a new paragraph you start to talk about something completely different, either that or more context. Perhaps all the game introduction should be in one paragraph

There are more, but really those kinds of problems persist. The writing in general is slightly fannish but not too bad - if someone were to rewrite it again to make it flow better it could be a FA easily - it is a pretty short article as FAs go so it shouldn't be too difficult. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I have some notes:
The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on
"Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?
If you read the first paragraph it explains why Torchic is so important, because its a Starter Pokémon from the games listed. If you think it would be better to put that note at the bottom of the first paragraph, I can understand that. But I think that would make it more "ready very awkward"
Thank you for your comments and I would like further information on your notes. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Bulby FAC was harrowed because of its lack of information about the importance of the franchise, and other people will complain, its something you can't agree on" - yes, one of the parts of FAC is learning which objections to ignore (or at least press for a reasonable one) - often people who comment simply dislike the subject and will object for unactionable or unreasonable things or even to the article itself. Hopefully Raul discounts the obvious biased ones in the end.
""Its main purpose in the games" seems okay to me, can you suggest anything better?" - BookOfJude rewrote this and it is better now

Anyway, the main problem is that I've looked at a hundred or so of these, and this is one of the first ones I feel a strong need to rewrite large parts of - and I'm a fairly poor writer myself :\. For example, my last edit squished an embarrasing spelling and grammer error. What about the wikiproject - couldn't you get a set of new eyes to make a whole article pass and fix it up? Because that's all it needs as far as I'm concerned. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure if that would help, Cel and I are about the best writers in the WikiProject that are interested in fixing them. Most of them are useless newbies, sorry to say. Could you maybe make a list? I know that seems a stupid way to do it, but if you could make a note of all the problems then I can combat it. I can't see any major ones but I'd be interested on your thoughts on the matter. Also, I didn't mean that Raul should ignore those complaints, Cel, Kirill and myself, as well as others, believe the intro is fine. Tito and yourself don't. There's not really a middle ground but I think its more important to have some reference than none. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lot better now on that level - so I'll withdraw for now. Bunchofgrapes is on the money though with a lot of his/her criticisms of the article - take care of those and I'd like to support as well. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your further comments, I'll probably deal with them one by one (I read the first and started itching to reply) so here goes;
From the introduction to "In the Pokémon video games" is referring to all Torchic. Anime and Manga are referring to seperate Torchic owned by people. The Trading Card section is somewhere in between. Its set in the relevant WikiProject Style guide that all Pokémon names are singular and plural "One Torchic, two Torchic, red Torchic, blue Torchic." Highway Rainbow Sneakers
So is "Torchic" a species name or the name of a Character? Try to substitue the word "sheep" into many of the article's sentences, and you'll see what I mean -- they are nongrammatical, unless if you assume you are dealing with a specific sheep that someone has confusingly named "sheep". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, its used to plug Pokémon better in the anime. Pokémon in the manga tend to have their own nicknames. The original names are used in the anime so after people finish watching it, and they go looking for it or buying a toy they don't ask "I'm looking for a toy called Fred!" Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? It's still a problem for the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What someone has suggested to me is to write "This article discusses both Torchic as a species and individual Torchic owned by trainers." , but I doubt that'd be appropriate for an FA. I found Celestianpower's (think it was him anyway) comment when he wrote the Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style: "Like sheep and fish, the plural of Pokémon is the same as the singular, and the same is true of each species, i.e., “One Snorlax, two Snorlax, green Snorlax, blue Snorlax”." Thoughts? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just treat it purely as a plural species? "A Torchic is...", "Torchic are", "May and her Torchic", and so forth? Kirill Lokshin 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common error that many people make when writing. There also seems to be different between the generations; I would more likely say "A couple of Bulbasaurs" than "A couple of Torchics". But it's something to be aware when reading and writing. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Characteristics section is meant to be in "Pokémon world". It's taking information straight from the Pokédex, and in-game tool that logs all the information on Pokémon. So you can't really keep original research without keeping it in the Pokémon world.
Probably, I tried to cite it as best I could. Would any rewording help? I guess not but oh well.
Well, Serebii is used for all the guides because it is the only collection of fan guides anywhere on the internet really. All of the other sources are non Serebii.
Thank you for your insights, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More