Talk:Team Rocket

Archiving

I don't expect this talkpage to become excessively busy, but I decided to move all the old talk page discussion to Talk:Team Rocket/Archive 1 because I completely rewrote and recreated this article. This will hopefully decrease any confusion, as practically none of the old article content is present on the article as I wrote it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability and possible strategies for mergers

I created this article convinced the subject meets GNG and frustrated by the two existing listings of Team Rocket at List of Pokémon characters and List of Pokémon anime characters, both of which are quite terrible. I do believe the subject meets all the requirements for a stand-alone article, even if my work ended up as quite a short one. Some of the sources are quite good, notably the Yahoo! Sports article on the characters' queer legacy and all the articles on the evolution of their voice actors. Reliable sources on each of Team Rocket's game appearances (Red/blue, Silver/Gold, Ultra Sun/Moon, and Go) were easy to find as well. I didn't use any listicles here, staying away from Screen Rant, though I did use the Comic Book Resources articles I liked because they went into detail on the most iconic aspects of the characters.

@Zxcvbnm: You added the Notability tag to this article, and I would like to see it removed. I was wondering if people had specific thoughts about this article's status. Of course as the creator, I would like the article to stay as it is, because I do think the subject is notable. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who often approves and fails pages for notability, this would be a fail due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mostly, it leans heavily on a Daily Beast article reprinted in Yahoo that is from an unreliable source (see WP:DAILYBEAST). Being a tabloid magazine, it does not pass muster for notability purposes, and the other sources in the article are far weaker, largely being trivial mentions of Team Rocket. Comic Book Resources is considered a content farm and appears in almost every fictional minutia article for a reason, because that's basically all they discuss. Is it a bad thing for information? Not really, but it also doesn't indicate importance. Obviously, I am not trying to pass judgement on whether or not it is POTENTIALLY notable, but right now it does not demonstrate passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm really sad that citation isn't as strong as I thought; I really liked the article and it matches my own experiences with the characters in modern culture. That's a big blow, yes. Does Yahoo's republication mean anything? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the policy gets applied to the original writers of the piece. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would value the publisher first-and-foremost; I don't know how Daily Beast articles ended up on Yahoo but I see this as two separate publications vouchng for its quality. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I did find a decent mention of Team Rocket in the autobiography of Megumi Hayashibara, but this is likely WP:PRIMARY. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would love more information about the Japanese version of the characters, so this could be an excellent addition! I haven't found much on them at all yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

When going through the Daily Beast source I also feel like it makes some potentially misleading claims in order to back up its interpretation of Team Rocket as good guys. Such as, "they pretty regularly end up supportive of, or at least not actively hostile toward, Ash and the other heroes", which doesn't seem accurate at all. They literally try to catch Pikachu in every single episode - regardless of their bumbling nature, they are typically villainous characters who Ash is constantly fending off. It doesn't feel like it's being discussed in an objective way, which lines up with the characterization of Daily Beast as an opinionated source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I remember in watching the show and films as a kid myself, that they very frequently ended up on the same side as the protagonists, though almost always out of necessity/there being a bigger threat to be worried about. I think this might be even more common in recent seasons, though I haven't seen enough either way. Perhaps more frequently, they take on a greek chorus role when the protagonists are dealing with bigger fish. The citation didn't seem off for me, there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, regardless, the Daily Beast is questionable on its own and the other sources don't back it up with additional significant coverage. I can see Daily Beast staying in the article as a critical opinion, but not really as the main tentpole source. This may simply be an issue of finding better sources. But if no more can be found, my opinion is that it's not passing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - as the editor who moved this to main space following a request at WP:RM/TR, I think the sources listed are more than sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Sources such as Comic Book Resources and Eurogamer have the usual level of editorial control. Also, Daily Beast is not deprecated, it is listed as "no consensus". It might be touch and go if this would survive an AFD, but my opinion is it's fine as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Just putting in my 2p to say that I think this passes GNG in my book. The other Yahoo source, the Chicago Tribune source, and the Them source are WP:THREE in my book. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru the trio is notable, and held up by the references. Team Rocket as an criminal organization in the games, however, is not: none of the reception in the article current holds that up. Additionally much of the reception for Jessie, James and Meowth does not apply to Team Rocket as a group as shown in the video games. This is WP:UNDUE.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the move had approval from Maplestrip, the creator of the article, who admitted sources for Team Rocket itself were hard to find, and the current article felt like a coatrack. The discussion can be found here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kung Fu Man, and thanks for the comment. I respectfully disagree with you, however. The discussion above clearly seems to reach a consensus that Team Rocket itself is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, with source coverage provided above. If anything, splitting it into its constituent characters conveys less notability than naming them after the organisation which they represent. This article has stood the test of time so far, and I don't think the change of scope is warranted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, looking at the sources I've seen and the ones currently in the article, nearly all TR reception is intrinsically tied to Jessie and James. Anything more is either for Meowth or a scant article here and there referencing the organization. Keeping it as Team Rocket feels weird given the Trio have far more discussion than the actual team.

I will mention the discussion above seems to be referencing the Trio under the name "Team Rocket" since, in the anime and most discussion, that's how they're referred to as a group, as there are little to no other Rocket members encountered beyond them. The discussion above really only talks about the trio, not the organization as a whole. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was a bit unclear in my talkpage message. I intended to say that it was hard to find sources on Jessie, James, and Meowth as well. I don't think the proposed change, especially with the vague "Appearances" section, is an improvement. I much prefer giving full context on what Team Rocket is as a whole, and putting the anime characters on somewhat of the same level as the game characters. I think we would lose more than we would gain by limiting the scope of the article to the anime characters, especially because "Team Rocket" equally refers to both sides in parlance. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I'd argue that Team Rocket as an organization isn't as notable as Team Rocket's trio. All Reception talks about the trio more than the organization, and thus the name should likely fit to match. The organization's background in the article is definitely good info to contextualize the trio, but the trio itself is the focal point, not the team. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Because in the discussion below, merging/deleting this article away is coming up again, I thought I'd compile a list of the more in-depth and reliable sources used in the article; those that are particularly effective in demonstrating WP:N. I mostly omitted news items here (there's a ton of news about characters getting added to Pokémon Go, haha) as well as less reliable publications like post-2022 CBR.

• Game-specific:
  • IGN old
  • Diehard Gamefan
  • IGN new (also Eurogamer)
• Jessie/James-specific:
  • Yahoo (originally Daily Beast)
  • Syfy (voice Meowth)
  • Them (voice Meowth)
  • Kotaku (voices)
  • Destructoid
  • Anime Classics Zetai' does seem to have a lot of detail on Team Rocket, though it’s a pain to read on the archive.

Please let me know if any of these sources are inappropriate, or if I missed anything major. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether to refocus this article

Kung Fu Man and Pokelego999 above say that the article should forego the video game origin of Team Rocket and focus nearly entirely on Team Rocket as it is presented in the anime. Reception is almost entirely focused on the anime characters. I created the article in mostly its current state because I personally believe its more appropriate to put the game Team Rocket and the anime Team Rocket alongside eachother. WP:COATRACK might be a concern, but I believe there's enough connecting tissue here and see it as one broad topic with a full history. Kung Fu Man wrote a version of this article with the proposed scope. I would like to invite more perspectives on this topic. I hope I didn't misrepresent anyone in this summary, please let me know if I made any errors. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like a basic rundown of Team Rocket in the games and anime would be good for the concept section, but by and large, the organizationI don't think is independently notable without Jessie and James. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently I don't believe either version of the article - the broad one OR the Jesse/James/Meowth one - is standalone notable. It should be redirected to List of Pokémon characters#Team Rocket. It's possible there are more sources out there that can prove one or the other is notable, but in its current state it's liable for AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I responded to the returned concern on notability in the section above. It's fair if we want to deal with that issue first of course; that conversation had died out almost a year ago but maybe should be officially decided at some point. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I do believe the subject of the Trio is notable, just based off of what's here and a couple of sources I found while improving Ash Ketchum recently. I can probably do a source deep dive within the next few days to help improve what's here and buff up Reception. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Pokelego's sentiments here. The organization itself doesn't meet notability standards, and the reception given to the trio doesn't extend to it. Team Rocket as an organization is a *known* subject, but not a *notable* subject needing its own article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree broadly, I think "Team Rocket" is a perfectly acceptable metonym for the (notable) concept of "Jessie, James, and Meowth" and I would support including some information about the Team Rocket organization as background to understanding this trio of characters. I'm also confident that a source deep dive would uncover additional sources to support notability, just based on how long-running and iconic these characters are. User:Pokelego999, if you're volunteering to do the dive, I would suggest looking for sources that discuss their place in the history of slapstick comedy (in English sources) and manzai (in Japanese sources). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror Cukie's comment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

My stance on the focus issue has already been stated, so I won't reiterate it again, but I will say that given the article's focus is primarily on the Trio, it probably should be focused on them rather than the organization that is barely discussed by comparison. It's the equivalent of getting a notable character- in this case, characters- and then renaming the article to focus on the non-notable organization they're apart of instead of them, at least in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a pair of book sources to the article. There's a lot of both books I can't access, and there seems to be more in-depth coverage on the trio than I was able to add inside of them. Either way, given the several book sources + the Yahoo article, I'd say this is a safe keep. There's probably more I could get (I didn't sift through Valnet or the like, probably could worst comes to worst) but all in all I think this should suffice to prove notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Meowth Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge information from Meowth into both Team Rocket and List of generation I Pokémon

---

I feel as though Meowth should be merged into this article. This is due to the fact that the bulk of sources in Meowth's article refer only to Team Rocket's Meowth, who is discussed in this article as well. Meowth as a species don't seem to show inherent notability separate from Team Rocket, with the focus being on the individual, hence why I believe it's better covered on this page. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Makes clear sense to me, and I've considered it a few times myself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support Although Meowth should likely be redirected to the list of Pokemon, not Team Rocket. Still, I do not believe Meowth is standalone notable either as a species or a character (though whether Team Rocket is either is still unclear; it's possible they both belong in List of Pokémon anime characters only). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm I've given my thoughts already but I believe the sourcing in the article is more than adequate to support Team Rocket's existence. We have several book sources discussing them in depth plus some additional news sources. That's enough in my book, and worst comes to worst we can pull the Valnet card.

  As for Meowth, would it be possible to have redirects to both page, perhaps with a hatnote at the top to link to the other? Not sure how effective it'd be because of the specificity but it could work. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Redirect Meowth to the list, and have a mention of the standalone Meowth pointing at this article in the notes section of that list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's fair. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose to Team Rocket, or at least to consider other options, support to a list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but merging into Team Rocket would make "Meowth" the only Pokemon redirect that becomes covered on a page, not about Pokemon or a list thereof? I'm coming across this as we've been hit with like, 50-60+ Pokemon redirects over at WP:RFD yesterday, and it's reinforced to me that Pokemon redirects should generally be pointing at the respective list of Pokemon where appropriate, or at their article if it exists. This would become an exception that might not be necessary. If this ends up being merged as "not-notable on its own", it'd might be better to put the most important content into List of generation I Pokémon#Meowth (although the entry there is already quite beefy), and then put the relevant links and hatnotes to Team Rocket as warranted. I don't think people searching for Meowth are guaranteed to be looking for Team Rocket; people searching Meowth are looking for Meowth first and foremost. I guess it also depends on how much "Meowth content" would be added to the Team Rocket article, and whether it's mainly from the game or anime perspective. "Team Rocket" only shows up sparsely on the Meowth page in the anime/reception sections, mainly. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Out of all of the sources in Meowth's current Reception, only refs 42, 43 (Though idk if that one is anime Meowth or not), 47, 48, and 50 are referring to the species. Every other source is to the anime version of the character. I can't some of the older sources in there due to age, but a few of these definitely don't seem substantial. Most analysis or commentary of the Meowth character is specifically focused on Team Rocket's Meowth specifically.

  I will note that Meowth's a unique case, since he's practically the only major Pokemon character in the anime who has a major reoccurring role to function in a similar role to that of the human characters. As a result, he's a much more developed character than something like Ash's Pikachu, and that leads to his character in the anime being very distinct compared to his species. I'd argue the most important content is of his role as a member of Team Rocket than as a standalone Pokemon species. As the Reception here is entirely focused on the character Meowth, and not the species of Meowth, it makes more logical sense to be merged here than to the main list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough; I agree that Meowth is a unique case compared to the rest of Pokemon, as Meowth has been fleshed out well in the anime, much more than other Pokemon. But wasn't the initial judgement about how Meowth doesn't have great standalone-coverage, hence the idea to merge? Team Rocket is already about the grouping of "Jessie, James and Meowth" as a trio, and the Meowth article currently exists as a standalone entity. I don't yet know exactly what content from Meowth is going to be merged. Surely not the entire Meowth article dropped into the page? (Meowth's wiki page has twice as many bytes as Team Rocket's). If the entire article gets merged, it would create a lot of overlap with the existing Meowth content at Team Rocket, and give undue weight to just one part of the trio, I'd think.

I'm right with you that some of the best sources in Meowth's reception section only exist in context to Team Rocket Meowth. Meowth is often looked at as a member of Team Rocket, so those can for sure be merged due to its relevancy, (keeping in mind that Team Rocket's reception section already talks a lot about Meowth as well). But afterward, the rest of the species / video game / other information should be condensed sent to the "List of generation I Pokémon", where it is appropriate to add, I'd think, as Team Rocket's notability and reception are primarily written with the Pokemon-anime perspective, so a Meowth design / video game / special cutaway might feel out of place.

I think that, at the end of the day, it comes down to the execution of the merge; particularly what Meowth content is kept where, as well as where the leftover redirects point. From my perspective, any information about Pokemon (as Pokemon) would be best located on its respective "List of Pokemon" before all else (in the absence of a standalone article). Very predictable, least shocking, don't have to go looking for the biggest source of Meowth information, etc. (Could be convinced otherwise though, depending on an appropriate scale for the merge). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely don't support merging the whole of Meowth's article to this. Some of Meowth's basic information should be added for context, probably, namely a bit of info on its species, but I wouldn't suggest merging the entire article. I wouldn't be opposed to your suggestion, though, since it seems the best of both worlds given that you're right in that the species conception info isn't really too fitting in an article featuring the TR Meowth. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think I support redirecting to Team Rocket over the list of gen 1 Pokémon, though either is fine. I think the character Meowth is more notable than the species Meowth. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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.