• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Bulbapedia, Shipping, etc

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,805
Reaction score
1,046
Regardless of WPM's action, the shippings part of Bulbapedia DO need cleaned up.

Frankly, if all you have to put in an article is "Well, they COULD get together this way" or something equally inane, then don't bother. That's not the sort of article Pedia should have (and yes, since Arcy is not online right now, that means I'm saying this as the acting boss of BMG. It's not a personal opinion, it's a decision.).

I propose two solutions.

1 - ONLY major or semi major ships (by definition, ships involving only one-shot characters cannot be major). - Elder, Poké, Pallet, Advanced, MAYBE Alto and Kiss (and I say *MAYBE*), etc. The ships that have shaped the community.

2 - ALL ships CAN get an article, but with only a short explanation of the name, a history of the ship where possible (ie, "This ship was first named by Ketsuban in July 2005. Fics were written and posted to fanfiction.net over the course of the month...". A list of major supporters of that ship in the pokémon community COULD also be included. Ships involving inanimate objects, hands, etc are restricted to the "list of ships". (As might possibly be ships between humans and "average" pokémon, though that one might be more of a case by case basis)

No description of the ship at all are to be presented in the articles themselves.
 
Last edited:
Damian Silverblade said:
No description of the ship at all are to be presented in the articles themselves.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of telling the people about it? I mean, saying who named it and when fics showed up of it is kinda useless if the people are left sitting there going "But who does it INVOLVE?!"
 
Ok, no description beyond a list of the involved individuals.

Also, needless to say, if a ship just doesn't have enough of a history to write ("Thsi ship was named by Ketsuban in Year X. Its name come from Y." just isn't enough), it doesn't get an article.
 
Names of the characters involved, yes. But descriptions of the type featured in the CelebiShipping article, no.
 
It'S more the fact that it's a purely speculatiev waste of space. It's essentialy the summary of a fanfic.

Pedia is not about posting "Maybe this could happen, which would then lead to Y, which might lead to Z...".

It's about postign "X happened."
 
True, but it wasn't vulgar like so many people seemed to think. And I can see where it would call for editing an article, but not getting rid of an article entirely.
 
The only two reasons I see of getting rid fo it are :

1 - Serious shipping is about romance between characters. You CAN make a case for pokémon (and MAYBE Jiri's computer, as it possibly can be taken as sentient). You can hardly make a case for inanimate objects. Serious ships get articles.

Incidentally, this "NO inanimate objects (or hands, etc)" decision is FINAL.

2 - Once you cut the badly-written fanfiction, there is nowhere near enough material to justify an article.
 
Last edited:
And I quote:

Damian Silverblade said:
2 - ALL ships CAN get an article, but with only a short explanation of the name, a history of the ship where possible (ie, "This ship was first named by Ketsuban in July 2005. Fics were written and posted to fanfiction.net over the course of the month...". A list of major supporters of that ship in the pokémon community COULD also be included.

That makes pretty much any unimportant ship fair game, doesn't it?

And to me, a ship involving an inanimate object counts as a one-sided ship, and those are allowed.
 
I do have to agree that we have to set standards for what is allowed. We can't just have everybody and their mom making shipping articles, which is quite possible when you consider that there are probably over 500 ships.
 
He stated that all ships 'can' get an article, but clearly not all ships should get an article. Bear in mind that many of the 500+ ships have only fanfiction and/or fanart as their basis, and therefore should not have an article. The fact that they're listed on the (In)complete Shippers List is enough.
 
Barb has the rights of it. We do need to put a lid on what ships get article. And perhaps restrict the number of users allowed to create shipping articles, and just delete any other shipping article that comes up, no matter how good.
 
Off MSN. Thought you'd be interested in reading it. I'm Domino, Dami is A figment of your imagination:

A figment of your imagination says:
In other news, Ket is in SOOOO much trouble with me.
Domino says:
'cause he's got no name
Domino says:
for calling that person a fucktard?
Domino says:
or whatever it was?
A figment of your imagination says:
No, for that article to begin with.
Domino says:
that article was there for a long time. It was hardly a secret
A figment of your imagination says:
I hadn't heard of it.
Domino says:
it's been there since the 'pedia started having shipping articles
A figment of your imagination says:
Well, it's not going to stay there much longer.
A figment of your imagination says:
Celebishipping should have a line in the list of ships, and nothing more.
Domino says:
I'm wondering, though...
Domino says:
where *do* we draw the line?
Domino says:
inanimate objects?
Domino says:
(Pie will be crushed, since that includes WoodenSausageshipping)
A figment of your imagination says:
Inanimate objects, definitely.
A figment of your imagination says:
But my problem is more the importance of the ship. As I see it, only the ships that have made some impact ofn the community (Rocket, Poké, Pallet, Advanced for a start, maybe some others) should be there.
A figment of your imagination says:
With their own specific articles.
Domino says:
so how is it that all those Gary/His Hand ships have survived?
A figment of your imagination says:
I mean, for putting them *as theri own article* Blacky.
A figment of your imagination says:
Celebishipping can be on the official list, as can woodensausage, and whatever else.
A figment of your imagination says:
But as for having their own pedia articles.
A figment of your imagination says:
That's too much.
Domino says:
but what about unimportant ships like Allergyshipping? That's got an article
A figment of your imagination says:
It probably shouldn't.
Domino says:
I dont see why not
Domino says:
who deems what's important and not?>
Domino says:
Besides, it's one of the few ships to come out of that entire manga series
Domino says:
heck, someone could make a case for Luxuryshipping being another one
A figment of your imagination says:
Manga ships might be something else.
A figment of your imagination says:
But animeships should be relatively restricted.
Domino says:
but why?
Domino says:
and besides, what's important to someone may not be to someone else
Domino says:
so who gets to decide?
A figment of your imagination says:
It's importance to the community in general. Like, ships that have had a BIG impact - have involved many debates, had had a wide following.
A figment of your imagination says:
Ships that have a solid history within the community.
Domino says:
what about ships that don't seem to spark debates, like Eldershipping?
A figment of your imagination says:
Sparking debate is not necessary. A sizeable following is.
A figment of your imagination says:
The alternative is to have purely historical articles.
Domino says:
that's one of those ships that never shows up on lists but yet people are like "Oh yeah, isn't that canon?"
A figment of your imagination says:
True.
Domino says:
or something like Butler and Diane, which *is* canon, and hasn't sparked very many debates or anything, and doesn't seem to have much of a following, yet is vitally important to the story?
A figment of your imagination says:
CanonShips would probably have to be articled as well.
Domino says:
even the unimportant ones like Marchello/Sophia?
A figment of your imagination says:
I don't know. *points you at the thread he made*
Domino says:
also--a random thought that probably only I or Ketsuban would think of
Domino says:
does Jiri's computer count as an inanimate object, since it appears to have some vague sencience?
A figment of your imagination says:
That's a questionable one.
Domino says:
seriously, I don't see any reason to have such a cap on articles
Domino says:
we need to stay objective, but that's different
A figment of your imagination says:
We need to avoid poorly written fanfiction summaries, which is what Ket's article was.
Domino says:
but staying objective doesn't mean we have to get rid of x amount of articles, or articles about subject x
Domino says:
we just need to do them in a way that remains objective
Domino says:
there's no need to delete it, just clean it up a bit
A figment of your imagination says:
A one or two lines article is not enough, Blacky.
A figment of your imagination says:
My two strikes against the things are :
A figment of your imagination says:
shipping, at least serious shipping, is about ROMANTIC feelings. Inanimate objects have no feelings.
A figment of your imagination says:
You can MAYBE make a case for Jiri's cpu.
A figment of your imagination says:
But not for a timeflute.
Domino says:
yet one-sided ships are allowed
A figment of your imagination says:
Hmmmm.
Domino says:
wouldn't this just count as a one-sided ship?
A figment of your imagination says:
Still questionable.
A figment of your imagination says:
Teh other strike against it, in any event...
A figment of your imagination says:
is that there just is NOT enough material once you remove the badly written fanfiction.
Domino says:
I mean heck, I know a lot of people consider pretty much any Ash ship to be one-sided, since he's so in the dark about such things, and those are on there
Domino says:
what's wrong with single-line articles? Doesn't Mimey have a single-line article?
A figment of your imagination says:
Mimey's article can and should be expanded.
A figment of your imagination says:
But other than that, if a ship can only muster a single line, then that single line (ship between X and Y, named by Z) should be on the official ships list, not in an article on its own.
Domino says:
so what if someone *could* write more than a single line? Such as the information you suggested, about who named it and the like?
A figment of your imagination says:
IF enough information can be gathered to make a full article, THEN they can make it an article.
A figment of your imagination says:
Until then, it's only BEGGING for abuse like poorly written fanfics.
Domino says:
and I don't see how what now stands as basically a single-line shipping article couldn't be expanded under the rules *you* put forth, thereby making all shipping articles essentially free
A figment of your imagination says:
HOW can it be expanded, Blackjack?
Domino says:
I mean, even other important ones can be summarized shortly. Like IceGymshipping, which strikes me as being fairly important
A figment of your imagination says:
How can you expand CelebiShipping?
Domino says:
there's still not much to say about IceGymshipping, even though it was important to Pryce's character development
A figment of your imagination says:
Keeping in mind that "Between X and Y, name given by Z, mean A"
Domino says:
And that's easy--talk about how it got the name, who named it and when, and now, of course, we *do* need to include it simply because of the controversy
A figment of your imagination says:
is NOT enough for a full article.
A figment of your imagination says:
In any event, I say NO to inanimate objects, and THAT is final.
Domino says:
Even with what I said? Even with the controversy?
Domino says:
Infamous controversies in fandom *are* fair game for the 'pedia, you know
A figment of your imagination says:
The controversy might warrant an article, but an article solely on the controversy.
Domino says:
whatever. It seems to me you're being awfully stubborn about this. I really don't see any reason to get rid of such things and you have yet to make a case.
A figment of your imagination says:
My case is as follow :
A figment of your imagination says:
1 - Bulbapedia is not for joke ships. Since a ship is supposed to be about romance, it SHOULD not (generally speaking) involve inanimte objects.
Domino says:
but yet it can include joke human ships
A figment of your imagination says:
That's because joke human ships are hard to separate from non-joke ones.
A figment of your imagination says:
Whereas the whole GENRE of inanimate-object-ships is a joke.
Domino says:
Oh, I don't know. I don't know anyone who seriously pairs Pryce and Whitney
Domino says:
do you?
A figment of your imagination says:
A rare ship and a joke ship are two things.
A figment of your imagination says:
Anyway.
Domino says:
I know many people who joke about it
A figment of your imagination says:
Wether or not I made my case or am being stubborn is besides the point.
A figment of your imagination says:
My decision IS made and it IS final.
A figment of your imagination says:
So that will be all.
Domino says:
Uh-huh. So you refuse to hear any deviating word
A figment of your imagination says:
I DID listen to your argument.
A figment of your imagination says:
*arguments.
A figment of your imagination says:
I just didn't find them enough to sway me.
Domino says:
Did you even consider them? It's like talking to a wall with you.
A figment of your imagination says:
I DID consider them. However, I disagree with them.
A figment of your imagination says:
And no, I don't have to explain why to you.
Domino says:
In a leadership position, you should be prepared to explain your stances.
A figment of your imagination says:
I ALREADY explained my stance.
Domino says:
Otherwise you're just saying 'because I say so', and that's really not enough.
A figment of your imagination says:
But it failed to convince you.
A figment of your imagination says:
So "because I say so" will have to do.
Domino says:
but I didn't go into it claiming 'my word is final'
A figment of your imagination says:
You're allowed to disagree with me.
A figment of your imagination says:
That's because you CAN'T make a decision on the issue.
A figment of your imagination says:
I'm in charge while Archaic's not on, which he's not right now, so *I*, on the other hand, am entitled to makign the decision.
Domino says:
as a mod and a section head, I should, as should all others in my situation, be allowed to weigh in on the matter.
Domino says:
the fact that you're making the decision not only for all of us, but also for Archaic, says something/
A figment of your imagination says:
Yes, that Archaic TRUSTS me to decide what's best for BMG.
Domino says:
And the reason you felt it was such a pressing issue that it *had* to be decided at this very moment?
A figment of your imagination says:
If he hs a problem with my decision, we'll talk it over and it'll be overturned if necessary.
A figment of your imagination says:
Because it cut across needless discussions.
Domino says:
there was *one* discussion.
A figment of your imagination says:
The discussion "do inanimate object ships belogn in their own separate article" is the only thing I made a final decision on.
A figment of your imagination says:
The rest is still quite open to discussion.é
Domino says:
again, I think you're being rash
A figment of your imagination says:
You're free to.
A figment of your imagination says:
In this case, however, it really won't change my decision.
Domino says:
Whatever. I'm going to post this log on the thread.
 
I'd suggest the main ships as being Poke, Pallet, Rocket, and Elder. They have the most fans of any of the ships. Secondary ships that could be given articles would include Gym, Kiss, Alto, and Diamond.
 
I think Advanced classify as a main too, Barb.
 
Criteria for a Shipping article, I think, should be either:

1) Large popular fan support. If it exists, the ship can go in without any canon basis. I'm not talking about a person who rolls a 100-side dice and decides two characters go together, I'm talking things that don't happen or have any real proof but are still popular fan creations.
2) Canon basis. Misty/Ash is one example of where you can take canon clues to suggest a flirtatious relationship. Brock/Ivy is another.

Article includes a description, reasons for suggesting a ship, et cetera, but nothing explicit. PG-13 at the MOST.
 
That's right; I forgot. And another secondary would be Contest.

[EDIT: I agree with Evan's post.]
 
I think the ban on inanimate object needs to stay. It's too easy to get together a group of friends and start *making* your ship popular just to prove a point, and that make popularity a poor way to eliminate some of the less justifiable ships.
 
Last edited:
I just had a talk with Evkl on the issue. Since it is strictly impossible to determine ONE fair criteria on which article to use or not, decisions on which ships to include or reject will have to be made on a case by case basis.

Such decisions will be made by Archaic, evkl and myself, based on, AMONG OTHER THINGS, such factors as (true) popularity (ie, raising a sudden ruckus because your ship was rejected will NOT get it in), level of canon, influence on the fandom, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom