2. The tendency for many pages to attract zealous guardians. I've had spelling errors immediately backed out. I expect that 99.9% of potential contributors quit at this point and never return.
3. Diminishing subjects to cover. All the "major" ones are done, all that's left are the billions of pieces of harmless trivia that deletionists decide, apparently at random, to do away with.
Note also that half the editors are under 22. This is probably why you can find vast articles on Pokemon and deletionists go around flushing articles on anything that happened before 1990.
> Note also that half the editors are under 22. This is probably why you can find vast articles on Pokemon and deletionists go around flushing articles on anything that happened before 1990.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Vast articles? No, the Pokemon articles were purged pretty early on; look at lists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_characters or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_%28202%E2... which devote a few lines to main characters or major pokemon, and just compare some with their respective entries in Bulbapedia (where the Pokemon Wikipedia editors ultimately fled to escape the deletionists, much like the Star Wars editors earlier fled en masse to Wookieepedia).
Even the Pikachu article has been eviscerated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu (Hope you enjoy a list of awards and mentions... It's 'out of universe' material donchaknow)
Of all the things to complain about, you're going after the fact that wikipedia has 15 printed pages about important characters in a cartoon with over 750 episodes? This is a list of important, plot-affecting characters; you're just failing to appreciate the sheer scale.
At the very least complain about the species list if you want something ill-fitting for an encyclopedia.
1. The rise of deletionism.
2. The tendency for many pages to attract zealous guardians. I've had spelling errors immediately backed out. I expect that 99.9% of potential contributors quit at this point and never return.
3. Diminishing subjects to cover. All the "major" ones are done, all that's left are the billions of pieces of harmless trivia that deletionists decide, apparently at random, to do away with.
Note also that half the editors are under 22. This is probably why you can find vast articles on Pokemon and deletionists go around flushing articles on anything that happened before 1990.