Talk:Gardevoir

In the games

Fixed an inaccuracy stating Gardevoir cannot learn firepunch. Added psychic to the moves "thunder bolt and ice punch" as moves popular as a sweeper, since it's unlikely a sweeper will pass up same type attack bonus. 82.41.225.84 11:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro is describing Pokemon in general, not Gardevoir... it's not very good. 65.101.174.127 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's decsribing what Gardevoir's job is in the series, it just happens to have the same job as other Pokémon. It's fine, and what is expected of any decent article. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In Japan

Gardevoir is popular in Japan like Jigglypuff.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.115.227 (talk • contribs) .

Have a source for that? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I found a Japanese fanart website about Gardevoir,Kirlia, and Ralts Fans so I thought wow. Gardevoir is popular in Japan. Here's the site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.18.115.227 (talk • contribs) .

It looks like a fansite, which isn't a reliable source. Sorry, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 06:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why is there no mention of the word 'gar'? Gar means to compell, and the Pokedex clearly mentions Gardevoir's complusive nature when it comes to protecting its trainer. So I believe that Gardevoir's name is a combination of 'gar' and 'devoir' for 'compelling duty'. Bliksem 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. There are a dozen possiblities, and they'll probably all eventually be removed because a lack of citations, but add it anyway and I'll see which is referencable. I can easily just reference a web dictionary, saying there are numberable possibilites. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the part about the definition of it's name being a combination of "Garden" and "Resevior"(I didn't complete what I said because I'm new to editing pages and accidently hit enter out of habit) because if that were the case, it's type would be far from psychic(most likely water/grass)and it's dex entry would be different. Natch42 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, when I first saw Gardevoir, I thought it was a Grass-type and it's hair was a leaf or something.

SSBB characters list

Gardevoir is the only Pokemon on the japaness SSBB characters considering list.

I really hope so! Gardevoir rocks! But could we dod something to fix up the article just a bit?Cherimu is beautiful! 16:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Japaness? Last tim I check it was still Japanese.

Be nice! You could use some spellchecking yourself! Floramage! 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So?HHS.student

Ugh. Floramage! 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is this list? I'd love to see that. :o Oubliette 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

I've cleaned up this article and nominated it for a GA. Please improve it further if you can. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

In my opinion for this GA Review, this article has passed all the necessary GA criteria categories. If no one has a problem with this, I will award it GA status in a few days. Please give me your feedback/comments/complaints (if any), so we can improve on this article if needed. INFORMATION CENTER (T • C) 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This is now a GA. INFORMATION CENTER (T • C) 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GA removal

Far too much of the video game section is unnecessary opinions and guide content - okay, so it's commonly known to be a special sweeper, but that's just an opinion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed some extraneous details. In any case, try to fix the problems before complaining about them here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It was after a small amount of looking through the article, meaning that there could very well be other similar problems.

Also, I'm simply reviewing the article - no more my job to fix the article than it is to fix a game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pornography section

It's is necesary to have a quarter of the page be about it's pornography? Wouldn't a slight mention be more fitting? Afterall that image is the one that shows in google when visiting this page... 88.8.235.164 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the character's notoriety is about porn. If that makes you uncomfortable, welcome to wikipedia. As for the google image, that's an issue with it not using the infobox image: the section's size has nothing to do with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. 88.8.235.164 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit trimming the last paragraph. Imo, the last paragraph spends too long on individual opinion from a single source. It's be better to cut some of it and focus on keeping a neutral and broad encyclopedia page, instead of focusing on one article. If people want to read more of Ms Henley's opinion, her article is cited, linked, and archived for a reason, no? ~2025-31582-14 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If it was a brief bit certainly, however it's cited for a contrast opinion and a full article that examines the different aspects from her point of view as an established journalist. Such has been done before in other instances without issue i.e. Shepard's various comments on Raichu. I don't see a reason to cut out valid observations from her.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Eh, alright ~2025-31582-14 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gardevoir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 06:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) I'll have this done shortly Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

Everything checks out

Conception and development

Explain why the typing was changed

• Added a bit noting the typing was new to X and Y, there's never been a specific reason from what I can find for why Gardevoir's evolutionary line was changed.

Appearances

"the related anime" feels like a awkard way to phrase it considering how the rest of the section is.

• Reworked this sentence.

Critical reception

"placing 9th on The Pokémon Company's 2020 Pokémon of the Year poll" ref seems to indicate that Google held the poll

• Added a second ref clarifying that it's an official poll by Nintendo.

The way the citations are placed it seems like ref 31 seems to back up the Dualshockers claim

• Reworked the sentence a little to bring up the Dot eSports statement

link TheGamer

• Fixed.

References

Why is Behind the Voice Actors reliable? It appears to be user generated.

• Behind the Voice Actors has been used in several GAs at this point, as they have a policy of confirming voice actors. That said apparently this was not the case. I replaced it with another ref attributing it to Kei Shindō; Maumaumau is used by other outlets in Japan and I've used it on other GAs.

Why is Fanbyte reliable?

• Fanbyte is recognized as reliable on WP:VG/S and the author of the article has been published in many other outlets according to MuckRack, as well as the related journalists in the article.

Why is Automaton reliable?

• Automaton has been cited by other media outlets on both its Japanese and English ends, and I have used it on other GAs without issue.

Why is this an acceptable use of Dualshockers?

• The source backs up the Dot eSports statement, and cited here specifically for the author's opinion. I've used Dualshockers in similar manner on other GAs without issue.

Weather the website is linked or not is inconsistent

• Should be fixed

Dating format in the refs is inconsistant

• The date template at the top of the article should fix this, unless I mistaken? The formatting seems to be consistent looking through the refs.

Misc

Earwig has under 30% overlap

The image license checks out

The lead image needs better alt text. Desribe what it looks like , probably could just copy it from the design section

• Should be fixed.

Image 2 needs alt text

• Should be fixed.

Overall

@Kung Fu Man: Ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I think I've addressed everything, let me know if there's anything else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep it simple (TheGamer edit war)

the summary of the problems raised by me:

Blatant advertisement problem: the passage reads more like a personal reflection piece than concise encyclopedic commentary. That problem itself is inflamed by the name dropping of the journalist and the origin of journalism by itself. Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize reception, not dedicate large chunks of text to emotionally charged personal criticism from one reviewer that does not speak for anything significant outside of the opinion piece itself. Lastly, the text claims that this piece is talking for some mysterious "other fans" entity to justify its addition when the source itself does not mention such group

Undue weight: this gives a single reviewer way too much prominence compared to the rest of the reception section. One opinion source, even a reliable one, does not justify an entire paragraph that implicitly frames the view as representative of “other fans” without broader sourcing showing that interpretation had significant coverage elsewhere too.

False framing of the dispute: this content disagreement is being intentionally turned into an argument about transgender editors or transgender viewpoints when that was never the issue. The objection is about weight, advertising, and representation in the article. The identity of the journalist is irrelevant to whether the material complies with policy, and bringing it up only derails the actual discussion. If you're still unsure check my talk page for further replies on this topic. ~2026-30076-32 (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing in that that reads like an advertisement. It's a full article covering a wide range of points, and as pointed out to you, several other articles (i.e. Ivy Valentine or Gerudo for example) will sometimes cite an article or paper in a singular paragraph. The other article aren't cited as heavily because there weren't as many points to take from them, have you considered that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

various sources are required to make general statements (i.e. "sources think gardavorior is pretty cool") or to prove notability (i.e. having an article), but not to make any statements or present any info. this, especially on a pokémon as "divisive" as gardivieur, means that a paragraph stating that fans (tentative term) being disproportionately horny and not shutting up about it followed by a statement about the same citation's author thinking that's annoying is fine and dandy

i also have no idea where you got the ad thing from, since that's not what an ad is consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

TP, refrain from edit-warring while the discussion is ongoing. You have made 9 reversions today, so I could easily sanction you, but I won't, as long as you stick to the talk page. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Support trim: WP:UNDUE is a legitimate policy point to raise. There is quite a lot of text dedicated to that one source from TheGamer. Outright removal isn't necessary, a trim is certainly permissible. 11WB (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I think a trim could be fine, but what specific info ought to be cut is important. "We should trim it" doesn't really settle it, because how much should be trimmed may come into dispute. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I trimmed down some of the quoting, but I feel there are several points to cover with Henley's article:

• She's viewing it through the scope of her own identity
• Considers it one of the series' best designs
• Sees it has having wholesome traits which encourage the sexualization but also shine in particular games like New Pokemon Snap
• Online media has made it hard to discuss or even find art of the species, tarnishing its legacy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin, that would be for @KFM and the TA to resolve. 11WB (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@11WB You can't say "it should be trimmed" and then not say what you think should be trimmed. That's essentially a not-vote, especially when the person in question wants the paragraph removed. Give something to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the dispute. Trimming is generally self-explanatory: reducing the word count without losing substance. I am about to head offline, so I won't see any further replies until then. 11WB (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

One final point, it would be appreciated if my words were not misquoted. I didn't say "it should be trimmed" or "we should trim it". I said that a trim is "permissible" and that I support that. 11WB (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that whether you think it is permissible or should be done means that you've identified ways that it could or should be trimmed. I also don't think that's a matter for either the IP or KFM to discuss; as this is a collaborative effort, everyone's free to weigh in. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a confusing reply. Per WP:BRD, and the reversions that have well exceeded the WP:3R (by both parties), this absolutely is a dispute between the TA and KFM to resolve. I identified a compromise, I am not obliged to then give instructions on how to complete that compromise.

Step 3 of WP:BRD#How to proceed states:

'Discuss the changes you would like to make with this person...Apply your agreement. When reverts have stopped, you are done.' 11WB (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

BRD only applies to the edits themselves; anyone is free to make suggestions on the talk page about how content should be altered or a dispute ought to be resolved. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)