Talk:Mantyke

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 march 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

How do you know what's on Tamanta's back?

What pics did you see of Tamanta's back? I've only seen Tamanta from the front! Can someone post a pic showing Tamanta's back?

From: HOL, 4:51PM, May 16, 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.197.220.129 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for it, however, if you look at the sprites of it from the back( i.e. when you are using it in battle) you can see the markings. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mantyke"

Serebii.net's reporting that Tamanta's going to be called Mantyke. He was right about Perap being Chatot, but all the same, the name's not confirmed. I'm noting down the fact that Mantyke's been reported as the name, though, just like I did with Perap and Chatot, because I think it is a notable report, and mainly because otherwise this page will be repeatedly edited back and forth between Tamanta and Mantyke by newbies who think Wikipedia's uninformed and that the name's official, just like they did with Perap and Chatot. Edit: Well, I tried, but the page has already been moved and converted throughout to Mantyke. I'm expecting more edit wars on this like with Chatot, but I still think that the best way to do this is to keep it at Tamanta but with a note that it's been reported as Mantyke.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.115.72 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're in for a fun few days of moving back and forth, or so I predict... Cipher ^(Yell) 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so much. I’ve gone and boldly salted those moves. I know it’s frowned upon, but it was the easiest way to prevent a move war. Now all we have to worry about is keeping “Tamanta” from becoming “Mantyke” in the text. When it IS confirmed, we can get a Pokéadmin to clear the way for the move. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel that if there is a English name out there and one that is reported by serebii which was right about Chatot, and how other then serebii reporting english name are we really going to find out what the English names of pokemon are, because nintendo and pokemon.com aren't really going to do it.DSDark 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few ways I can think of, one of them being that the name will be known for certain when Diamond and Pearl is released for America. Another way would be for Nintendo to announce it (it's not *that* farfetched). A third way would be if it's in an (English-dubbed) anime episode/movie in which the name is *clearly* stated.—M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 23:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Newbies"? Why do you call them that? Because they disagree with you? Or because they disagree with you in what is considered a reliable source? --Raijinili 08:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume what our anonymous friend means is that the editors who make such changes tend to be unregistered first-timers, and therefore unfamiliar Wikipedia policy that precludes fansites like Serebii as a reliable source. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered users can't move pages (with a click - of course they can move them manually), so I assume he/she's talking about registered users.

And I'd like you to show me where fansites are automatically not reliable sources. --Raijinili 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, who said we were talking about moving the page? 217.44.115.72 said “this page will be repeatedly edited back and forth between Tamanta and Mantyke by newbies” (emphasis mine), meaning the text, not just the title, will be edited. And it has been, and that’s what I was referring to when I said the edits were made by “unregistered first-timers”.

As for fansites not being reliable, I don’t think I have to show you, it’s a page you linked to yourself. Some quotes from said page( bold emphasis mine if quote is marked with an *): “Self published sources such as personal web pages [...] have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking and so have lower levels of reliability than published news media”* “Anyone can create a website [...] and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, [...] personal websites [...] are largely not acceptable as sources.”* “Personal websites [...] should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website”.

I made the first change and I'm not a "newbie". I made the edit because I believed that there was no reason to doubt Serebii.net, but if that can't be done, fine. Cipher ^(Yell) 12:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mainly referring, yes, to the unfamiliarity some users have with the fact that fansites can't be used as an official source, and indeed shouldn't be used at all (or at least, so I've been told a bunch of times myself - I imagine they qualify as self-published sources). Mantyke may have been reported by Serebii, and I personally am confident after Chatot that Serebii's right, as he's clearly not plucking his information from thin air. But he's not a verifiable source and he's not official, so the information can't be taken as official. Hence my view remains that, though the page should remain at Tamanta, Mantyke should get a mention (but if somebody removes the Mantyke mention and just keeps the whole page at Tamanta, I won't argue).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.115.72 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, though. Serebii may not be a reliable enough source to change or move the whole page, but its high regard( and correct reporting of Chatot) means that rumors originating there need to be taken seriously... Not to mention that it reduces the number of people thinking we’re ignorant of the news. On another note, have you considered getting an account? For a productive and seemingly intelligent user like yourself, I really recommend it. Besides, calling you 217.44.115.72 makes you sound like a Borg. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cipher, Serebii is probably right, but it lacks journalistic credibility because it is not an official or professional news source, and it is not subject to independent professional review. I can understand why you’re inclined to believe the news, I am too. But that inclination is not enough to justify reporting “Mantyke” as fact on the Wikipedia. The project has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously, and part of helping that process along is making sure that as much of the info as possible comes from credible sources.--WikidSmaht (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The pokemon company created the fansite.Those who created the fansite has the official english name "Mantyke".