Talk:Pokemon

RFD discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Pokémon

Pokemon

Digimon

Wiktionary is not a database of fictional species. --Yair rand 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel all that strongly. I supposed we should move to WT:RFV to look for attributive use. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you delete unicorn or mermaid? The only question is: are they words? I think so. Lmaltier 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is the only question; while that is your personal policy, it is not our overall policy (not even on fr.wikt I might add). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1st sentence of CFI: As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”.. This principle is also applied on fr.wikt. Lmaltier 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Including all trademarks, like these? Someone want to find attributive/generic use? Equinox ◑ 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If no attributive or generic use is found, the entry Pokémon may simply be moved into Appendix:Pokémon/P. --Daniel. 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for both of these words being fairly common use amongst younger English kids. They usually say things like my Digimon can beat your Digimon and did you just see that Digimon digivolve? While it might not be able to be used attributively, I still think that we should have an Appendix for both of these terms that list all of the species; that way, we can cover both of these terms without having to suffer the loss of them. Razorflame 13:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this goes for all toy brands. "My Transformer is cooler than yours. I'm getting an Action Man. She has three Barbies." Equinox ◑ 14:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It does. Razorflame 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a huge mistake to try to include every trademark in a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names apply here? --Yair rand 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Unicorn and mermaid are not protected names invented in 1996 to sell toys. Unless someone cites these properly according to the relevant bits of WT:NAMES, our guidelines do not allow them to remain. —Michael Z. 2010-03-22 16:38 z

They are words, but if kept should be moved to translingual. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus, though Yair rand is right about WT:BRAND; that's been applied several times since this entry was nominated. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Pokémon

Pokemon

Per the deletion debate, this needs to pass WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The last two senses might only fall under WT:FICTION, actually. Or maybe both WT:BRAND and WT:FICTION? --Yair rand (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: [[Pokémon]] now tagged with {{rfv}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed, entries deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Loads of links need fixing: [1] Equinox ◑ 10:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not that many: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pokémon. —Ruakh_TALK 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

. . . and, now we're O.K. (I never bother fixing indices, since those get generated automatically; non-content pages are obviously a non-issue; and [[MissingNo.]] is itself listed at RFV, so can get fixed up if/when it passes.) Thanks for the nudge; usually I clean up links immediately, but a few entries, such as this one and [[Spider-Man]], have so many inlinks that I procrastinate them for a while . . . —Ruakh_TALK 13:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)