Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Images 2 RFC 3 in-universe 4 Template 5 Too Cramped? 6 Merged Proposal by Zappernapper

[edit] Images

Well, I assume all the Pokemon images are going to be put in here at some point, not just Bulbasaur :D, so if you're not spending the time doing the images you can just leave that to me to do them now if you'd like. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Idunit. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Images could and should be right-aligned, I believe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like any one way is much better than the other for many people. Let's have them at the right. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

This is a request for comment on the idea of merging all 493 pokeon species articles into list articles. Pokemon that have enough verifiable/encyclopedic content to be split off into their own articles will be, while retaining their location in the list. For detailed discussions on this topic refer here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, this sub-project pretty much consists of taking what's in each Pokemon article, boiling it down to its essential best, and putting it in these lists so that the video-game reader who doesn't necessarily know much about the Pokemon species but would like to know general stuff about those species will be satisfied.

I can tell it'd take a lot of time and effort to create something like this, and I think none of the separate article pages should be made as section-redirects into the appropriate Pokemon section in the Lists until it's all mostly made. (I must say, this effort would be crippled if it weren't for the Wiki software's allowing for section redirects so that typing Raticate would bring you down to the bottom of that first list page.) In other words, there probably won't be any actual merging with redirects for months; the separate articles will likely be around for a long time, unless we're absolutely certain the Charmeleon section can't be improved based on the content of the Charmeleon article.

And of course I'm always open to viable alternatives: if there's enough consensus to do something else this current 1-20 page can always be moved or removed. However, this list concept seems to be becoming more or less accepted by others, based on this article's history, so we should just try to make this page at its best before trying to make the ones to follow. There's no way I'd want to antagonize anyone over this, having once myself been the editor who edits like this and articles like this... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in-universe

too many of these descriptions don't follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then let's fix the issue together; I'm only going to create the next List of Pokemon page once this page has been optimized to the best of Wikipedia standards. This particular page should be completely made so it can serve as a model for all the other pages to follow (though this page features more noteworthy Pokemon than pages like the List of Pokemon 260-280 page would in the future, so this particular page would become quite big indeed). Perhaps the best way to take care of this issue is to completely create and optimize the section of, say, Wartortle or Metapod, so that the other Pokemon on the page can be modeled the same way. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what we should do is strictly focus on Rattata for the time being, and completely bring it up to a standard that least violates Wiki-guidelines. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Could somebody create a directory template for the List of Pokemon series of pages that looks somewhat like what I have posted below? Thanks. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon creatures  v • d • e

List of Pokémon (1-20)  • (21-40)  • (41-60)  • (61-80)  • (81-100) (101-120)  • (121-140)  • (141-160)  • (161-180)  • (181-200) (201-220)  • (221-240)  • (241-260)  • (261-280)  • (281-300) (301-320)  • (321-340)  • (341-360)  • (361-380)  • (381-400) (401-420)  • (421-440)  • (441-460)  • (461-480)  • (481-493)

That looks good. Perhaps just a minor edit to that...

Pokémon creatures  v • d • e

List of Pokémon (001-020)  • (021-040)  • (041-060)  • (061-080)  • (081-100) (101-120)  • (121-140)  • (141-160)  • (161-180)  • (181-200) (201-220)  • (221-240)  • (241-260)  • (261-280)  • (281-300) (301-320)  • (321-340)  • (341-360)  • (361-380)  • (381-400) (401-420)  • (421-440)  • (441-460)  • (461-480)  • (481-493)

You Can't See Me! 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming a discussion has garnered the consensus necessary to use the Lists of Pokemon over your merge-by-evo-line concept; I'd rather wait until such a discussion takes place before asking anyone to make a new template. There might end up being more support for the evo-line merging concept anyway. But thanks for the input. :) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Cramped?

I like the idea of grouping Pokemon instead of giving each an individual page, but... To me, it seems as though this page is cramped as it is, and it's not even finished yet. Perhaps 20 monsters per page is a bit too much. I'd actually say that 10 pokemon per page is a bit too much.

How would grouping by evolutionary line and by similarity sound, with all of the leftover one-stage pokemon being grouped by generation? Approximately 2-4 pocket monsters per article will still seriously cut down on the number of Pokémon articles, and grouping by lines/similarities seems more meaningful (in my opinion) than grouping by number.

I have a more detailed explanation on the PCP Talk page, in case anyone's interested. You Can't See Me! 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How's about we let the community decide on that over there. Wikipedia's only appealing to users if were going to do something that a lot of people agree with. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. Sorry if I sounded pushy. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to go there or here, so I put it in both. Again, sorry. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Waitaminute, that wasn't meant to be criticizing, that was meant to imply that I approve of having a discussion about whether to do things this way or your proposed way. There's nothing wrong with putting a notice on here at all, nor did I think for an instant that you were being pushy, really. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps my above comment is awkwardly worded, so I'll rephrase it while retaining it's original meaning: Your alternative approach to merging Pokemon species could be indeed a viable alternative, so I approve of having a discussion over at WP:PCP on whether to do it that way over this List of Pokemon way. If there's more of a willing consensus to do it that way, creating the new merged pages would be easier because more Project members would be compelled to work on them. After all, Wikipedia's only appealing to users if they get to do stuff that a lot of people agree with. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Sorry, I just associated "How's about we let..." with a tone of annoyance and assumed that I seemed too persistent. In any case, I didn't mean that I wanted an automatic change to my approach. As you suggested, it would be better first to come to a consensus. Sorry again for the confusion. You Can't See Me! 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged Proposal by Zappernapper

Okay, so Zaphnathpaan - er, I mean Zappernapper - has come up with a merge plan that I think might work out even better than what I originally proposed at WP:PCP and attempted to put into effect here: merge by evo-line with the Lists of Pokemon to back it up. Here's what some of this would look like in practice, then:

This page would remain as it is but each of the 20 Pokemon sections have only the most basic, important info about each Pokemon, and they have main article links to their respective merged-by-evo main articles, connecting to Bulbasaur evolutionary line, Charmander evolutionary line, Squirtle evolutionary line, Caterpie evolutionary line, Weedle evolutionary line, Pidgey evolutionary line, and Rattata evolutionary line. List of Pokemon (21-40) would be the same, but I feel Pikachu and Raichu, and later Pichu, are notable enough to get their own individual articles. List of Pokemon (41-60) and (61-80) would be the same as well. List of Pokemon (81-100) contains the first non-evolving and non-notable specie, Farfetch'd, so it gets its fully detailed section in that list page per Zapper's plan. For the rest of the Lists up until Mewtwo and Mew (which may need to be part of their own shared article), the other non-evolving non-notable Pokemon that need to be described in the Lists are Kangaskhan, Pinsir, Tauros, Lapras, Ditto, and Aerodactyl. And Pokemon species that don't evolve into each other but are clearly tied together, such as Lunatone and Solrock and each of the Legendary Trios, get shared articles as well.

I think this could work to be both a major merger improvement to the current setup of 493 individual specie articles and one that does not cause any Pokemon specie to be overly denied of space for information about it on WP. Everyone should be kept happy, if not be made happier. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this plan. As for the Pikachu line, however, I'm not sure if all three should get their own articles. I mean, they all definitely have more content than the average pokemon, but I don't know if Raichu or Pichu have enough to fill an entire article. Pikachu can for sure, though. Perhaps the Pikachu line article can consist of one huge section for Raichu, one huge section for Pichu, and one normal-sized section with a Main Article link for Pikachu. On the list articles, Pikachu can link directly to his full page while Raichu and Pichu both link to the Pikachu line. You Can't See Me! 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good plan too. I agree with YCSM in that Pichu and Raichu probably aren't notable enough for their own articles. In fact Pikachu might be the only Poke to deserve his own article. Bhamv 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

definitely agree about pikachu line. you know of course that someone is going to come along and eventually complain that we're repeating info on pikachu in three different articles though right? Then again, two of them are technically lists so i think that will be enough of an argument to dissuade people from fighting this. This is also how pokemon like Mewtwo should be handled. To avoid subjective naming schemes we should group all legendaries by release (e.g. Legendary Kanto Pokemon) this will also help us to avoid naming problems with the legendary dogs/beasts/whatsits. Then within that article we can create sections that group the legendaries further:

==Legendary birds==
lead
===Articuno===
===Zapdos===
===Moltres===
==Mewtwo and Mew==
lead (like Cinnabar diaries)
===Mewtwo===
===Mew===

or for Johto

==Legendary Trio==
lead
===Raikou===
===Entei===
===Suicune===
==Legendary birds==
lead
===Lugia===
===Ho-Oh===
==Celebi==

i think you get the idea. Should any of these have enough information to expand into their own article (like Mewtwo) we follow the guidelines at WP:SS. Now the only other thing is that we need to ensure all individual articles link to both the group article and the list. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at this point I believe the only way we can get this ball rolling is to actually start on it. :) We should first modify this page and its sections by your plan - removing the current content of each of this page's sections if necessary - and start making the merged evo line articles' sections before making their content. I think I'll leave it to you to start us off on these first pages before I follow suit with the other pages involved, as I'd rather not charge into this blindly and risk making something that's not what you have in mind. Let's make this thing reality so that everyone else will feel more willing to edit and therefore give this thing momentum. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I created Pidgey evolutionary line... There's definitely going to be a lot of editing around of this necessary before we continue further. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job with the Pidgey line. I'll use that as a reference for the Porygon evolutionary line, which I'll begin on soon (Huzzah for my favorite Pokemon line!). As for grouping legendaries all together by generation, it seems like a good idea at first. But then, you get to Shinnoh with no less than a dozen legendaries, which is a bit too much considering that Shinnoh has the rulers of time, space, and the underworld, as well as the Pokegod himself. Perhaps group Trio pokemon by the generation (Kanto legendary trio; Johto legendary trio), group those with obvious connections (Latios and Latias, Manaphy and Fione, etc), and then chuck the rest into *region* legendary Pokémon. You Can't See Me! 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)