The best road to progress is freedom's road. - JFK
Texas
Charizard was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics 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.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
How do you like the article? Anything that needs fixing? --Blake (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit of prose that needs tidying but I think you've got a decent start, I did some additions of sources and reception to lend a hand. I'll probably do some more tomorrow.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Individual article?
Ummm...why does Charizard have its own article when most of the other Pokemon have been scrunched up into uninformative but tidy lists? Unlike the other Pokemon with separate articles (Pikachu for its mascot status, Jigglypuff and Mewtwo for their appearance in the Super Smash Bros. series, Mew for its cultural effect, Jynx for racist rants raised against it), I can't find a suitable reason for Charizard's importance. I agree that it is a nice-looking Pokemon, but the same could be said for many others.I'm not motioning for article deletion or anything, just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.124.110 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charizard has a bit of dev info and some critical reception. The others lack that, which is what keeps them as lists. It's not Shakespeare by any means but it's enough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you find any sources that can be used for a Pokémon, feel free to add them to the list sections. The original Pokémon articles had little to no sources. Once one gets enough reliable third party sources, then they too can be un-merged. There has even been talk of Kadabra or Mr. Mime also regaining article status. Blake(Talk·Edits) 02:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History-merge?
I would be fine with deleting this page, but is there any way this page's history can be move to the real Charizard article? Maybe move this page to Charizard, and then revert to the recent revision? I dont know if that would work or not. Blake(Talk·Edits) 19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A history merge can be done. Why did you do a copy+paste fork anyway? Gigs (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because somebody was saying people might get confused if lots of history just came out of nowhere. It made sense at the time. Blake(Talk·Edits)
I'll put a note on the page that you have requested a history merge. Gigs (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]