Talk:Burger King Pokémon container recall

WikiProject Videogames?

Does this really need to be under that project? Just because its about Pokémon, which has videogames, doesnt mean it should be under this project. --Blake (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, since when does controversy over a product not become relevant to its owner? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Its owner is Pokemon. This would be more likely to be under Project Anime and Manga then Project Videogames. The Pokeballs were mostlikly Anime-based. It has nothing to do with the Videogames. --Blake (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Uhh? The anime is owned by a video game company. "It might be based on the anime" =/= "it's definitely not based on the video games". Explain to me why this is not relevant to Nintendo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know. I just diddnt understand why it was under the Videogame project. I would understand if it was those little fake-gameboy's with the fake-gold/silver cartridges, but it is a classic Pokéball as seen in the Anime. --Blake (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: does that mean every WP:PCP article is also under WP:VG by default? -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but this article itself does not necessarily separate itself from video games. It's controversy related to Nintendo.

Also, no, but this begs the question - the anime episodes are clearly related to Nintendo, so should their be a Nintendo anime task force? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Nintendo-related anime is far too specific for its own task force. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when did Nintendo own the Anime? That makes no sense at all. Nintendo is a gaming company. That is why the Anime is so off-canon from the games and manga. --Blake (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything Pokémon is owned by Nintendo. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a joint ownership between Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures, Inc. ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I would have said that too! QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I worded my explanation a little wrong

Pokémon will always be related to Nintendo, however what I meant to say is Nintendo, the video game company had absolutely no involvement with whatever this thing was. ok QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burger King Pokémon container recall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Samoht27 (talk · contribs) 18:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Starting review as of February 26, 2025.

• @Samoht27: pinging to check the status of this review. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 It's still happening, don't worry. I have just been busy, I almost forgot, thanks for pinging. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 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): I think the article is written well, a quick check for grammar issues didn't bring anything to my attention, and I think the word choice is solid. I think this article safely passes this criteria. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Article is written fitting the manual of style completely, nothing to note here. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): Checked citations 5, 10, 13, 15, and 19, all of these sources seem to be similar in their coverage of the information, without things being conflicting. Sources are reliable for the topic, and come from generally reputable news organizations. Passes for me. b (citations to reliable sources): All sources are cited inline, see above for more information about my spot check of the sources themselves. c (OR): Article is well cited and doesn't appear to apply any new original claims. Passes. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Content isn't plagiarized from any sources that I checked. Prose appears original. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): , Passes. Article goes into depth about the subject and into enough detail to satisfy the needs of most readers. b (focused): , Article remains on topic and avoids teetering outside of its topic. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: , The important section here would be the "responses" section, I would consider this section to be written in a neutral point of view, and I don't have any issue with the specific wording. Article passes this criteria. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: , Yep, no problems here. A quick check of the history doesn't show that the article is in any sort of content dispute or prone to vandalism. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): , Article contains a single image, which is released into the public domain. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Image provides context for the larger article, and the captions provide further context for the image.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.