Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What's the point?

This really seems kind of pointless and all around irritating to me. Not all of us fans use Bulbapedia, as it's not very easily navigable to some extent, and it's also extremely slow compared to this site.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks the pokemon need to just stick with their own page for each species. I can imagine many others were as stunned as I was when they went to look up information on a Pokemon and they suddenly got some half-arsed list that tells absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't even give height/weight information anymore!

I agree with you. -Skrb

Me too, its unhelpful to have such brief descriptions- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.191.173 (talk • contribs).

And why is that exactly? -WarthogDemon 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is now a collection of stubs that are of no use whatsoever to the average user or the average person conducting useful research. Yes, people can go to bulbapedia to get the other 90% of the facts that you have deleted but but they shouldn't have to. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to reliable, source of useful information. What you've left is reliable but it certainly isn't useful.

Well, if you feel there should be some more coverage in general about these Pokemon, check this article version; this is what I figure these list pages would ideally look like in the future. I was really surprised when a lot of the game and anime info was deleted as fluff shortly after. You could take it up with TNN on his talk page to express your thoughts over this specific issue if you like (not that I feel in anyway bitter toward him for his deletions ^_^). I am really hoping that this merge business doesn't come across as overly unreasonable by the end of the process. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, in part. This is a pointless article: It doesn't say anything about the video games, and unless there's a seperate article for that, I say we vote on this. Also, I think we should go back to the evolutionary trees: They're easier to use, they save more space than separate articles, and we can have biological characteristics on each of them, and a In the video games section for them as a whole, like when I filled in all the information for the Bulbasaur Evolutionary Line, which, by the way, was removed. I vote that we get rid of the list, and put in evolutionary lines (Trees for Pokémon like Eevee, Oddish, and Tyrogue)Stormfin 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no vote. We've already have had several months of discussion on this. See the talk page off WP:PCP. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

the meanings of their names are missing too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.90.37 (talk • contribs).

Because it's original research, we can't have the names without sources. TheBlazikenMaster 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reason: The previous 493 articles were of uneven quality, with various grammar/spelling errors, and provided 493 easy targets for vandalism. Condensed as just 25 articles, the text is 20 times easier to cross-check, revert or update. A similar grouping has been done for small year-in-topic articles, condensing 100 yearly articles as redirects of 10 decade articles (10 times faster), but the Pokémon grouping is even faster, as 20x times condensed. Consider the effort needed to add common traits (such as birthdate) to all 493 characters: just trying to verify edit coverage of 493 articles is a nightmare. Note that each character has a subheader to still allow concurrent editing of the 20 characters in each article. It is a compromised view, but simplified, as just 25 articles of 20 each; however, an evolutionary-tree article could have links into the 25 articles, with up to 493 character links in just a few (or so) similar evolution articles. WP walks a balanced line between useful information and years of grammar/spelling errors: quality can be improved by condensing articles and adding unique information under review in a limited number of articles. Never the less, some Pokémon characters might need "main articles" (such as "Magikarp (detailed)") to handle excessive details outside the 20-character list, just not 493 main articles again, please. -Wikid77 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

493 easy targets for vandalism, huh? I hope you realize that EVERY article in this website is an easy target for vandalism. Using that logic, we should merge every single article into one with a paragraph of useless information on every subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.12.152 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the entire thing? The vandalism bit was one of the minor reasons. -WarthogDemon 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the entire thing. Guess what? Every other page on this website is of uneven quality and has various spelling and grammar errors. So again, I propose we merge every single article and give each subject a paragraph of useless information. It means only one target for vandalism, means that everything will be of even quality, and makes sure that spelling and grammar errors are easy to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.196.232 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This new series of articles does not make sense even after that explanation! Deleting all the Pokémon is like making an article called "List of TV shows, and deleting the individule articles, you just can't get all the information! --24.224.26.221 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean all the gameplay information? That's for Bulbapedia. Feel free to help contribute the gameplay information over there. -WarthogDemon 17:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, TV shows actually get rewards, some critics, appearances in other media, parodies and stuff like that. But pokémon don't get much of it, especially not critics, so it's not at all like TV shows. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the point of merging. Nobody noticed this major vandalism for nearly four hours; I wouldn't have found it if not for a GameFAQs thread, where the vandal boasted about his work. Nobody wants to watchlist ~500 separate articles, and nobody wants to deal with reverting all of the vandalism that even one hundred articles can attract. You Can 't See Me! 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, someone made a small bit of vandilism and it went unnoticed for 4 hours? Like condensing and butchering half of a thousand articles into 25 terrible articles which don't even contain the pictures of the Pokemon themselves or anything useful is gonna change the problem. If anything, that's gonna make it worse. (and don't say that they are coming soon, because they've been like that for a good few months now. That shows total laziness on your parts) If someone vandilizes the middle of these butchered up articles, I highly doubt the problem will be fixed in record times.

Or are we here at Wikipedia just wanting the easy way out of the problem? Condensing a bunch of articles into a single one with nothing on it then giving a tedious list of stupid reasons for why you're doing that seems like more of a waste of time and effort that mantaining the article. "Go to Bulbapedia" doesn't cut it. Should we just redirect every video game's articles to an IGN or Nintendo website because "Wikipedia is not a gaming website"? I think the answer here is obvious. I'd be more than willing to check over 50 Pokemon articles every now and than to make sure everything is in order. I'm a single person. I bet there are tons more out there who would do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.225.79 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the image part, the policy needs to change. Without the images, people have to use Google Images or something, that's not what we want. It's not that we're lazy, it's that it's no piece of cake in changing that policy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to ruin hours upon hours of hard work guys. I bet the people who voted to merge this don't even play Pokemon and see as some stupid game/waste of time and space. The Captain Returns 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist

My watchlistwere 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)

I think it should be 10 per page. There's not even any of the good info I used to use the pages for, and Bulbapedia is kinda crappy... ~Crowstar~^{crow calls} 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

10 would be way too small; I think 20 is decent. Plus, just having 10 on each page doesn't seem like enough to constitute an article. 10 would look stubby, 30 would look too big, 20 is just right. -WarthogDemon 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Links Fixed!

Whoo! I just fixed some of the links on this page and 21-40. -I PWN U ALL 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

The problem with that idea comes up with naming conventions. Lets say we do what you propose, that would leave Rotom, Heatran, Darkrai, Mikaruge?, Regigigas, Giratina, and Cresselia in an article entitled Legendary Sinnoh Pokémon. By omitting dialga we are somehow saying that t is not legendary. either that or the article is not comprehensive. additionally, it doesn't matter what the pokemon represent in the pokeuniverse when we're trying to decide if they should get their own article. yes arseus is the creation pokemon... so what? we only currently have a paragraph of info on him because he hasn't appeared in any movies, anime, manga or TCG cards. Mewtwo is deserving of it's own article because not only has it appeared in all these formats (actually being the star of two movies), but it's even a playable character in 3 non-Pokémon games. Yes the page will be longer than any other legendaries, but there currently isn't really enough info on any of them that would justify splitting them out of the main group article per WP:SS, which is the justification given for splitting group articles out of the lists or individual pokemon (like Pikachu) out of the groups. The article won't be very long, trust me, there's so little info. Should certain sections become so large that they consume a large percentage of the article, then they would be broken out (with a summary still still included in the orginal group article) following WP:SS - i could see this potentially happening for a Phione and Manaphy article. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Uh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that Rotom and Mikaruge are not legendary, due to their ability to reproduce with Ditto and have their child be of their species. Plus, Rotom's base stats are way too low for it to be a legend. Lower than Phione, if I recall correctly. You Can't See Me! 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ur right, my bad :) i've created the article but don't really have the time to expand it... grr... i also edited the Pidgey section on this page to demonstrate the kind of info i think should be included, and what should be left to the group articles. what do u think? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend holding off until DP's release before trying to make articles involving 4th gen Pokemon whose names are still uncertain by Wikipedia's standards... The first four List of Pokemon pages won't involve any 4th gen Pokemon anyway, so for now maybe we should just focus on those. But you can work on the Sinnoh page regardless if you like. Anyway, I guess Pidgey's section works for now. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the Pidgey line page I created is the embodiment of something I just slapped together in about five minutes, having lifted paragraphs from the separate species articles and plopped them in there as a draft of the Pidgey page. I think it needs a LOT of editing before it can be safely called a model for similar evo-line pages, so maybe the Porygon line page should wait a bit. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing we'll have to decide: Do we name them Pidgey evolutionary line or Pidgey evolution line? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I like "evolutionary line" better. I prefer having an adjective before the noun "line." Bhamv 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Articles that would result

After doing some number crunching with species, I've found that when this plan is fully implemented, we will end up with a total of 204 articles that cover the Pokemon species:

69 of those pages cover 3 or more Pokemon each (e.g. Bulbasaur evolutionary line, Wurmple evolutionary line, Tyrogue evolutionary line, Slowpoke evolutionary line, Sinnoh Legendary Pokemon, Eeveelutionary line... Hah hah, that last one was a naming joke);
108 of those pages cover two Pokemon each, such as Rattata evolutionary line, Barboach evolutionary line, Riolu evolutionary line, Chimecho evolutionary line, Zangoose and Seviper, HighwayCello and Minun - er, I meant Plusle and Minun... another joke);
25 pages are the List of Pokemon series of pages covering 20 Pokemon each, and throughout them there will be 35 non-evolving Pokemon that will be detailed in full within the lists (Farfetch'd, Dunsparce, Mawile, Spiritomb);
2 pages I assume will actually become stand-alone articles on the Pokemon themselves: Pikachu and Mewtwo.

I'm supposing 204 articles is an improvement over 493 articles, right? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reduction by just over half... not bad, I guess. Still, I can see some people might still object to the sheer quantity of Pokemon articles. Maybe the 25 list pages will be the next to go... Bhamv 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the irony there is that if it were decided that the 25 list pages were to be vaped, the 35 separate pages for the 35 non-evolving species would take their place, so we'd be deleting -10 articles. I think. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

just remember, this isn't about making people who complain about pokemon happier. It's about improving the quality of the articles and the encyclopedia in general. I personally wouldn't care if all 493 species were separate at some point, so long as they were all decent articles. You know... Feebas and Milotic probably could never become a GA on their own, but combined there actually might just end up being enough info there one day. Same with the Eevees. Btw, i've posted a comment on the pidgey evolution page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Challenge? I'll make Feebas and Milotic GAs by mid May 07 and they should not be merged if I win. Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a great plan to put a pokemon with its evolution incarnations one page but why are the articles not up yet. Did you all just dump the idea? (Speaker180 (talk)) 10:57, 17 November 2007

Yes. Where are those articles I thought everyone agreed on them? (Desk3375 (talk)) 16:45, Monday November 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 21:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

Why don't we just leave the Pokemon articles as they are and improve on them? If you cram them together by Pokedex number (1-20, etc.), then you can't fit in all the information that you should be able to anyway. If you cram them together by evolutionary line, then there will be plenty of articles hanging on their own becuase the Pokemon don't evolve. If you just leave them they way they are and focus more on improving the content within rather than the way they are organized, then we would have a better chance of getting them up to Wikipedia standards. And besides, these articles are about video game characters, they don't all need to be featurred at some point or another. The Pidgey evolutionary line is no more likely to be a featured article than one about just Pidgey because most people just don't care. Oraclelink 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, if you do do this, then it will screw with the multiple categories that each page is in. For example, Magikarp is in the Category, "Fictional fish" and Gyarados is in "Fictional dragons". Doing this would destroy their spot in those categories. Also for categories for Pokemon of certain type (which I find very helpful by the way for sorting them by type) and stage, etc. This merging project will screw up their categorization. Why can't we just focus on improving the separate articles you had in the past? Oraclelink 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

my own reasoning is a little different than many other people's. i think that if we remove a lot of the non-sourced/verifiable information we usually only end up with enough information that would fit nicely into a section. By starting out with a smaller constraint, contributors will hopefully be more selective in what they decide to add to an article, i think this measure will actually help to ultimately improve all articles. The goal isn't really featured status, but ideally someone will develop the Pidgeotto section enough that it can get it's own article and then once it has been "promoted" it will already be a GA or very very close. Flaafy has been around for a while. It will never have enough info to legitimately get it's own article (unless it gets a bigger role in the manga, video game, or anime). The most recent solution to your problem of having not enough info in lists, and leftover pokemon in evo-line articles has been to combine the two approaches. Leftover pokemon will remain in the lists, but with expanded sections. I don't really see why Magikarp evolutionary line can't belong to Category:Fictional dragons and we can solve the type problem by reintroducing lists of pokemon by type/stage/hairstyle. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i was only made aware of this today - this is a horrid, horrid idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? There is simply not enough information for most of the species to sustain an article. -Amarkov moo! 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no problem at all with the status quo as is. If Huntail is the worst of the batch as has been implied to me, then we're in excellent shape. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

All those who wanna merge should note that we have thousands of stubs,(some of them complete) so should we go on makin an outrageous mixed fruit juice of them? Vikrant Phadkay 15:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: The following point is exceedingly long. Read at your own risk. Let's have a look at Huntail's article, then.

Granted, the opening paragraph isn't really supposed to be all that, but we already have game-guide information. Then, we get the origin of the portmanteau, which is both incredibly obvious and impossible to source.

The Biological characteristics section describes it in detail, pointless because of the image already on the page. It then goes into Pokedex info for a paragraph and a half, which one of the things to add to the merged article. The In the video games section contains two paragraphs and one demi-paragraph. The first is gameguide and the last two are Smogonish OR; a few points can be salvaged here for some Pokemon with extremely notable traits (such as Shedinja's Wonder Guard and certain monsters' signature moves), but there's nothing here for Huntail. The In the anime section contains four sentences of episode information, which will go in Huntail's when the merge comes along. Lastly, the In the card game consists of a sentence and two bullet points, which might go in the merged article.

The same goes for pretty-much every pokemon that has not played a critical role in the anime at one point or another, and even then they still have a lot of cruft, gameguide, and OR. If you don't believe me, I'm going to challenge everyone's favorite Charizard...

After the first paragraph, we get into the etymology; this one is sourced to a fansite. Bad. We move on to Biological Characteristics, which describes Charizard as "a large, bipedal dragon," which anyone could tell from its image. There's a sentence of gameguide, then we get into a paragraph of Pokedex info to be salvaged.

Next up is the In the video games section, where we have a paragraph of gameguide. The following three paragraphs describing appearances in games can easily be condensed into one. Beyond that is Smogonish OR, another gameguide paragraph, another appearance paragraph which can be condensed, and non-notable trivia.

We get to Charizard's most prominent In the anime section. The first four paragraphs are about Ash's Charizard, which is understandable. A bit of condensation can take place there, though it's not too bad. However, the following four paragraphs are on minor appearances and can be significantly shortened. In the manga is excessively long and invests too much in describing the backdrop when it should be focusing on the action. Condensable.

The last two sections are also excessive. It's essentially a list of every Charizard product to ever come out. Some of it could stay upon condensation or listifying, such as TCG appearances. But a lot more than not can disappear (Wow, Charizard's face was on a pillow!).

I can see Charizard's article become eight to ten long paragraphs, about the size of its In the anime section. In fact, some of the anime portion overlaps with what would go on Charmander's and Charmeleon's headers. Hence, them being merged.

Thank you for reading that. Have a nice dayYou Can't See Me! 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

People of the Pokemon Project, I have returned by the grace of God! Rally to me!

I had told everyone before that this merging idea is outrageous. And see now, with no proper planning on how silly articles would look like after the merger, everything has been[or will be] screwed up. Please end this discussion fast or simply give up this heaven-forsaken idea. I(t's taking too long. Vikrant Phadkay 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is by no means a "heaven-forsaken idea," nor do the articles look silly in everybody's eyes. However, this is indeed taking too long... You Can't See Me! 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout guidelines proposed

I've gone ahead and created a subpage at the project here -> WP:PCP/Layout. Even though we have like four discussion forks (AFD, PCP, here, Pidgey evo line article) hopefully this crisp new talk page will centralize everything. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you like folks, the project and most of its articles are finished anyway. Vikrant Phadkay 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just made Spearow evolutionary line before noticing your comments on here... I notice you have plans to try and get separate Feebas and Milotic articles up to uncontroversially acquired Good Article status to see once and for all whether the 493 separate species pages can hold up on their own against Wikipedia's strict content policies, and that's honestly a good way to go about it. But bear in mind that Bulbapedia was always meant specifically to be the Wiki that features separate articles on each Pokemon species, because Bulbapedia is meant for Pokemon fans, while Wikipedia is meant more for a general-interest population of readers. If things don't turn out the way you'd like, you could always log into Bulbapedia and work on that, where the sourcing constraints of Wikipedia disappear and it's something a lot more fun and perhaps constructive; I'd log into there and try to help make that the ultimate Pokemon reference myself if I had the time. Best of luck, Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of the separate evolutionary line articles? If you're limiting the list sizes to twenty per list, why not just place them on those? It seems sort of pointless to have a bunch of lists with a lot of the same information as their target articles. You may as well just link from the large list instead. Nemu 21:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there are 33 (If I remember correctly) non-evolving/connected monsters, so removing the 20s list would actually add articles. The other way around, removing the pokemon by line articles would heavily cramp the 20s list and make it consistently go beyond 32kb in a best case scenario, and I can easily see a single article reach 70+ kb in a worst case scenario; not to mention, listing by 20s is already arbitrary as it is. This was the easiest system we could find, courtesy of Zapper. You Can't See Me! 03:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It just seems like it would be better to try and go for twenty five featured articles plus whichever single Pokemon split off instead of twenty five featured lists, a number of GA evolutionary line articles, and whatever is split off from those. There will be more work on the EL articles than the single articles, but they'll still be pretty neglected. If there are just a bunch of focused lists, it shouldn't be hard to model them after Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Regarding size, I quickly just copied and replaced the entries with Pidgey's section from the EL article, and it seems to be around 40kb. If the average size will be a little larger, these wouldn't get too large. Nemu 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the mindset I had when I tried to put my original merger proposal past WP:POKE here, and it was the merge plan A Man In Black and a couple others supported - just having lists and then featured separate articles. The opposition to merging it like that did outweigh the support for that, however, and when I tried to start off this merge plan myself, I found first-hand that Wikipedia magic is only conjured through bona-fide consensus, as I found it absolutely difficult, straining, and time-consuming to try and make giant descriptive merge-pages myself without much willing help to back me up. Not to mention the fact that had this plan went through, there would have been constant revert warring on the merged list pages as to how much and what kind of info should/shouldn't go into each section, as well as a lot of debate and dispute over which of the non-Pikachu and non-Mewtwo species of Pokemon deserved their own article (I can hear it now: "Rayquaza" is the third Hoenn super-legendary, so it should get its own article!" "No, it's hardly notable to readers not familiar with Pokemon, so a separate article on him is cruft!").

So, I personally warmed up to Zapper's merge compromise plan because 1. it allows for a whole kingdom of Pokemon species articles laid out so that no actual information would be lost in the transition, 2. having that kingdom of articles still allows for a lot of room to go into detail into the many species, which should make a lot of Pokemon fans extremely happy, 3. it's a helluva lot easier to create, as I found when I created Spearow evolutionary line from Spearow and Fearow in practically a matter of minutes, and 4. contrary to AMIB's concerns over evo-line merging, I believe that we'll have far better articles in general that cover, say, Mime Jr. and Mr. Mime together, because it's easier to inform the reader how one evolves into the other, there's more context in between them, more practical information will take up the space of the article (and therefore there will be less trivia and game-guide needed to fill up the page and upset Wikipedia's strict content policies), and that may even improve the quality of the sourcing. In that sense, not only does shifting from 500 pages about the species to just over 200 seem a very easy and practical way to answer the concerns of many Wikipedians outside the Poke-project while keeping most within the Poke-project quite content, but I'm not sure if the shift should even be considered that drastic a change. Like I said, no quality information nor room for quality info should be lost in this merge plan. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the plan to create general sections in the evolutionary line articles (role in the games, anime, ect) instead of just keeping the single Pokemon separate? I can see wanting to keep the information together, but if it's just copying and pasting existing information to a list type format, while there already is another set of article in a list format, I don't see the point. I guess if general sections are possible, that should work out. Nemu 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like this? If so, that could be a legitimate point of discussion over at WP:PCP/Layout. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense in the long run. Personally, I would go for all on the lists, but I certainly wouldn't whine about that format. Is there a plan to get this up and running soon or is the project still too split on how to do it? Nemu 17:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The split on how to do it is one factor. Another may be the opposition, and a third is that most of the collaborators are busy with Diamond and Pearl for the time being.

Erm, I just started a Porygon evolutionary line draft in that format, and I will try to make one using the current format soon for the sake of comparison. There are also hidden images; just edit, remove the tags, and preview to see the article in its fullest.

Why Porygon, you may ask? Well, it is one of the most subtly notable pocket monster I could think of in terms of video games (signature moves, changable types, notable evolutionary process, highest SpAtt, SSBM cameo) and in real-world impact (Epileptic Soldier Porygon). Plus, it's my favorite Pokemon line! That aside, I'll get a new draft in by next week. You Can't See Me! 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. (Reindenting)
It's not quite a complete draft yet. A lot of it is C&P from the existing Porygon line creature articles. You Can't See Me! 08:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not understanding any reasoning for this

Some hardcore fans want all the information. Why can't we just leave them as they are? It's so much simpler and gives more information (for example, for those who use a Pokedex other than the National. I think these pages are just causing clutter. --Michaelritchie200 13:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't they go over to Bulbapedia, the Pokemon wiki for all fans of Pokemon of all levels of hardcoreness? Wikipedia aims to present notable subjects like Pokemon to more of the world's general populace of readers, including those who don't know much about Pokemon but might like to know some general info about them, and for them it has been agreed by several users that merging by evo-line is a big improvement in presentation over 493 separate specie articles. Besides, there will probably be no actual and good information about Pokemon species that would be lost over this merge. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But it's been working fine up until now! Maybe the evo lines could be condensed into one page per family, but I don't see why any further than that. --Michaelritchie200 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Has it truly been working "fine up until now"? Apparently it never worked out all that fine because for the past half year at WP:POKE people had been complaining about how most of the 493 species have articles with sourcing reliant on fansites, therefore making them sub-par-quality sourcing by Wikipedia standards, and how most of the pages can never make it to Featured Article status because of that and the fact that most of these species aren't famous in reliable outlets like IGN and the news media. The half-year of debate ended up with about a dozen of us and probably more agreeing that merging by evo-line would either fully fix or tone down all the problems with all these articles, and this current merge effort resulted. Therefore, know that all this didn't just come out of the blue from a couple of complaining users recently, it's been a long-standing and legitimate issue that's now being handled in a way that leaves no one disgruntled.

That said, I'm glad you agree with us on the merging by evolutionary Pokemon lines, as it makes sense to cover Gligar and Gliscor together because it's much easier to illustrate how one evolves from the other, but as for the others, such as Plusle and Minun and Volbeat and Illumise, they are being merged together because there's information in the games and anime and card game about them as if they are duos, so therefore better context is provided in these "pair" articles. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If sourcing is a problem, that it won't matter if there are 10 articles or 493 articles. I am opposed to any kind of merger, every Pokemon should have their own article. Putting them into groups of 20 (or anything like that) won't solve any sourcing problem. TJ Spyke 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But I think it would help it to a degree; I think the parts of the Pokemon articles with bad sourcing are the parts that aren't good Wikipedia content anyway, such as game guide, OR, and the like, but because of the way the 493 species were made to be independent pages, these pages are short and stubby and rely on unhealthy Game Guide and OR to "fill them up with info", and pretty subpar sourced info at that. If clearly related species were merged together, however, there would be more material for those pages, in which case the badly sourced "filler info" would no longer be needed to fill the pages up, and can be removed. And since the bad sourcing would disappear, that might be considered equivalent to better sourcing - it's at least an improvement, and that's all what this merge project aims to be, a mass improvement. If we were really trying to implement a mass fix to these articles, well, most of the species might be deleted by outside administrators, and I sure don't want to see that happem, and neither would a lot of us others, like Zappernapper (talk · contribs) and Vikrant Phadkay (talk · contribs). BTW, I'm starting to believe that these 20-pokemon-pages aren't the best idea also, I'll have to explain what could be a viable alternative elsewhere. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the merger would leave acceptalbe articles unmerged. If say Charizard was to becaome an FA status article, and Charmander and Charmeleon were both sub-par, would the three be merged? I think if they were it would be a loss as an excellent article would no longer exist. But if they weren't merged and say only Charmander and Charmeleon were merged, and this trend continued for all Pokémon articles, the pages would be, for lack of a better word, ugly and not uniform.--Tempest115 20:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Should that be the case, we always have our good friend, Template:Main. You Can 't See Me! 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tempest, you are half-right. In the Charizard example, Charizard would retain it's own article, but also have a brief summary on the Charmander evolutionary line article. For an example of this check out User:Zappernapper/Eevee evolutionary line. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why?

What is the point of this article? There is already an official list of all 493 species and each individual species has its own page, so I have no idea why this article would exist. 68.60.11.184 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, within the past seven months there was a lot of hefty discussion threads about this, where a generally large consensus at the Pokemon wikiproject was reached that to increase the quality of coverage of the Pokemon species (less need for game guide and original research, potentially better sourcing, etc.), many of the Pokemon species that can't hold their own as articles should be merged together by their evolutionary line. (A sub-page to WP:POKE was created for the merger here, where links to all of the relevant discussions for the past seven months are posted for everyone's convenience.) Porygon evolutionary line is an example of the type of article that would result from this mega-merger. The main thing with merging by evo-line is that there's a bunch of Pokemon that don't have evolutions, so they might end up kept in their own articles without any improvement whatsoever.

To avoid non-notable non-evolving Pokemon having their own subpar pages, Zappernapper (talk · contribs) proposed that we have this series of list pages as a supplement to all the merged evo-line pages where the section on each Pokemon that is not so notable and does not evolve is fully comprehensive for that species. As a theoretical example, in List of Pokemon (81-100), the section on #83 Farfetch'd would be much bigger than all the other sections, because that section is essentially Farfetch'd's article on Wikipedia, and searching for Farfetch'd would redirect you to that section. Essentially, this series of List pages is supposed to help in covering Pokemon that can't be merged by evolution line anywhere else.

You might be thinking that this is a rather awkward way of achieving the agreed merger, as there are no unevolving non-notable Pokemon in the first 20 numbers which are covered in this page, so none of the sections here is a full article's worth of coverage for a single species. I myself am not sure if this is better than trying to group unevolving Pokemon together directly. I had made a proposal here about the concept of merging non-evolving Pokemon together like the Legendary Birds or Dialga and Palkia instead of leaving them to their sections in this series of list pages. If you believe merging leftover Pokemon together directly is better than having them described as sections in this series of lists, you may comment in that discussion. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This has now made this section of Wikipedia completely useless. Why would anyone even bother to visit here when there are simply better sources elsewhere? That sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia ... Obrysii 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're complaining that there are places like Bulbapedia that has the information you want, instead of a site that doesn't allow gameplay information? *Sigh.* Like I said, Bulbapedia. -WarthogDemon 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm complaining that a website that prides itself on having all sorts of information is rather senselessly deleting so much material in a rather pointless way, that manages to accomplish nothing except drive users to other websites. Why go to another website when this one (was) obviously superior? Obrysii 02:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a competition, if people don't like this one, they can go to another one that doesn't care about encyclopedia value. This has been gone over hundreds of times now, please spend 5 minutes of your time and read one of the past discussions. The merge is happening/done, the articles are being removed, very small change that they will ever return. Unless you can prove that they all have notability in themselves, please leave this lone and read past discussions, any question you have has been answered. Spigot Map 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Bulbasaur has ample verifiable content to maintain its own article, so I have demerged it. See the discussion for this here). Thank you. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupid

These lists are stupid. This also limits the amount of information about the pokemon. They should not be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colletyon (talk • contribs).

See the merging topics at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. I thought it was stupid at first too, but this way is much cleaner and more efficient. -WarthogDemon 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But they use less information, like the orgin of the names (Fushigi-dane = Mysterious-leaf) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colletyon (talk • contribs).

I play the pokemon games, and the old articles told the stat's of all the pokemon, which used to be helpful, these articles tell very little about the pokemon at all. The gamers are getting ripped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.191.173 (talk • contribs).

Surely the gamers aren't blocked from Bulbapedia which has been stated many times before. -WarthogDemon 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I used to like these Pokémon entries in Wikipedia. Now with this lists, I do agree with the word "stupid" to describe this idea...

The articles are not fully finished. Wait a while longer. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I am very polite on Wikipedia, but THIS IS STUPID!!!!! WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THEM TOGETHER!? WHY?! I am done, if this is what will happen to my cherished Wikipedia articles, then I am just going to explode! P.S. I hate this article! --24.224.26.221 22:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS, then go to Bulbapedia. It can use the information. -WarthogDemon 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It seems almost as if IPs = Opponents to the merger and established editors = Proponents of the merger; if you're one on either side of the = sign, then you're also what's on the other side. But anyways...

I've been around Wikipedia and the various other wikis long enough to find out what exactly is the big idea behind Wikipedia's heavy content policies: Wikipedia as an encyclopedia posts general, practical, reliable, verifiable, and notable information about subjects that are themselves all those things, because it's meant to appeal to general readers across the world. Whereas other specific wikis are made by fan communities for fan communities in a sense, like SmashWiki to the Smash Bros. community and Bulbapedia for the Pokemon community. Since in Bulbapedia it's all about Pokemon and made by and for the Pokemon community, information that appeals only to Pokemon fans is outright welcome at Bulbapedia while it is removed as cruft on Wikipedia because it would not have much practical appeal to a wider range of readers; I'm sure even Nintendo gamers reading Wikipedia who don't play Pokemon wouldn't appreciate more specific information than what's in these list pages currently, let alone readers searching for Astronomy and Theology and History-related subjects. The Pokedex information kept in these list pages is the most appealing information each Pokemon could have to your average reader, which is why that's the only thing currently displayed as the content for a lot of the sections. (Though I am of the opinion that there should be at least some more information in all these sections.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am currently with WikiProject Pokémon on the French Wikipedia (fr:Projet:Pokémon) and I used to translate the articles directly from the individual articles. Were the histories merged or do I have to ask an administrator for the previous versions of the articles? Thanks in advance. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You add "?redirect=no" to the URL and then click history: the penultimate version is the last one before the merge. For example, for Weedle, go to [1] then click [history]. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks. The history is therefore still with the redirect page. Thanks! ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just transfer already!!!

Just cooperate with your sister Bulbapedia (they use the MediaWiki engine too you know...) and add the Pokemon stuff over there. What's so hard about that?!?!? MudkipNDS 77:77, 77 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of us plan to, but you know, nothing's stopping YOU from pitching in to help over there. O_o -WarthogDemon 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this

I can understand why Pokemon like Ivysaur and Wartortle would be merged. However, why would you merge pokemon like Charizard, Squirtle, and Charmander who have more info with the anime and other things than most characters from other series? I don't see how it benefits anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazydom2 (talk • contribs).

Some are being debated right now. As for the majority; pretty much as you said: had more encyclopedic content than others. This is better organized. -WarthogDemon 00:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the page...

If Raven's combined template becomes a reality, one can assume that all of its sections will be set to "hide" by default. If that is the case, the navbar will also be hidden. So, perhaps a smaller, more readily available template, such as the one represented by the table below, could be added to the top-right corner of the article where an image would typically go.

List of Pokémon 1-20
<<<Prev.	Next>>>

I personally have no idea how to make this kind of template such that the numbers and the prev/next links change based on the current page, so I can't create this template myself. But if anybody's interested... Thoughts? You Can 't See Me! 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I am aware of the several similar comments to this. So instead of criticizing this article for it's lack of coverage, short brief and unhelpful descriptions, pointless article creation and hard-to-find information [*cough* sarcasm ], i will actually suggest something. Instead of creating so many articles dealing with evolution, why not create a massive evolution chart with nothing else. No descriptions, no extra information. Maybe just a thumbnail per Pokemon. Sure, this idea must have been discarded a long time ago, but i might as well give it light once more.

Question 1: Why is Abra evolutionary line alive when List of Pokémon (61-80) is there ?
Question 2: Unfortunately i did not get the time to read all the comments, so tell me, are the original 493 articles going to be scrapped ?

Pokemon on Wikipedia is deteriorating every second. With new articles created for every minute detail, it's not an encyclopedia anymore. [ended up ranting after all. Oh well.]

I am not sure where to place this comment so it is here for now.

×Ťũ§ђάґÑ× 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer 1: Dunno. It won't be around by the end of this, though, so don't worry about if it will disappear.

Answer 2: Yes, they will be scrapped. Not deleted, but rather converted into redirects. Some select few will stay. Other than Pikachu, which ones will stay have not yet been decided.

As for the surplus of evolution articles, those also won't be around. Those were our first attempt at merging articles before TTN and several others decided that it's better to go with the lists. Evolutionary line articles that still exist will eventually merge onto the list. We already had an old List of Pokemon by evolution article, but it got the axe; I can't find the AFD, so I don't remember the exact reason, but it was something along the lines of cruft or unnecessity. You Can 't See Me! 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

only a small paragraph for each Pokemon now?

Dude I don't see why this would be changed when it was great before. There used to be a big page for each pokemon with a ton of info and stuff but now there are like twenty per page with a small paragraph on each one. I can already tell you this won't be useful to anyone because it wasn't to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.232.128 (talk • contribs).

For gameplay information go to Bulbapedia or Serebii.net. Meanwhile if you want to understand this better, I suggest you skim WP:PCP. -WarthogDemon 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok but why should I have to do that when I could just come here for all the info? And that page you gave me doesn't tell me why the pokemon now only have one paragraph instead of a full page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.232.128 (talk • contribs).

The reason the page didn't tell you anything is because I accidentally referred you to the main page instead of the talk page. I meant here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. And the other question: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gamesite. (Don't get me wrong, I love Pokemoe though.) -WarthogDemon 00:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Bulbapedia more, since it's less messy. Anyway, they were merged because they had too much game info and anime summary. TheBlazikenMaster 00:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that of the Pokemon sections created thus far, Darkrai looks like it's in the best shape, filled with a manageable amount of info that would appeal to casual readers of Wikipedia (which is the site's target demographic). If possible I think all sections should look like that. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the image above the infobox in order to show it's current condition so we can always tell what the "model" is: [2]. -WarthogDemon 19:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete this and all similar lists

This list is terrible. There's almost no out-of-universe stuff, with what information there is being regurgitated from the game itself. If we're going to get rid of Pokemon articles, we might as well get rid of these lists as well, since they're devoid of worthwhile information and make no effort to demonstrate their notability.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a game guide, or a TV guide, the previous articles had too much of that. We had to do something, adding to a list was the best solution. Well, I didn't came up with that idea, but this was done for a damn good reason. Please try Bulbapedia. TheBlazikenMaster 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

These lists are nearly 100% game guide. How is that the best solution?--Nydas^(Talk) 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No they aren't, can you see any info about the stats of most of them? I think not, most of them are the pokédex entries mixed into few paragraphs, how the hell can that be a game guide?

Sure there are some game info, but it's not as much game guide as you're saying. Oh and go here: WT:PCP if you still have problems, and tell them there they are gamecruft, believe me they are a lot less than they were. Again, I don't wanna argue with you, take that argument to the WikiProject. TheBlazikenMaster 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not game guide (i.e. 'Butterfree's early availability'), then it's in-universe plot summary.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's useless that we have conversation on this alone, try to go to WT:PCP you will get better responses there. TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont think theres anything wrong with it telling Pokemon's stats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 22:49, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Once the issue with images get resolved, I or someone else will most certainly add height/weight for each. No gameplay stats though. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But there is, the problem is it's a gameguide, which Wikipedia is not. TheBlazikenMaster 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean other than height/weight? Because I thought we only draw the line after that... -WarthogDemon 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to 69.47.191.173. TheBlazikenMaster 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. :P Sorry for my brain fart. -WarthogDemon 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's a simple mistake. TheBlazikenMaster 21:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Ivysaur and Squirtle is in Super Smash Bros. Brawl and appear when Pokemon Trainer summons them. So can someone add it?

Right, it's been added. I'm pretty sure this is how one does it with these lists: use one sentence in each of the 3 Pokemon's sections to state that that Pokemon appears as a playable character in Brawl when the player plays as the Pokemon Trainer character; that's very practical information, but any additional info would probably qualify as either Original Research or Game Guide. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reference for this? --Chris Griswold (☎

☓) 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Can someone add the attack that the Pokemon does? You can see the attacks on www.smashbros.com

No, This is not a Game Guide. Spigot Map 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link

This is just a suggestion. Many people seem to be overly upset over the loss of individual articles for each Pokemon. If all the extra information is being put in Bulbapedia anyway, why not put an External Link section at the bottom of every article that is a List of Pokemon and list Bulbapedia as an external source?

And, if you really don't like Bulbapedia that much, then help make Bulbapedia a better place. Every Pokemon discussion article has at least one complainer over this matter. I wasn't on board with this decision either, but it really defeats the purpose of having Bulbapedia if you are going to repeat that stuff here.SuperChencho 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it myself. You can always delete it if anyone thinks it's not a good idea.SuperChencho 05:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. In fact I'm going to add that external link to the rest of the articles, hey I will even quote your words to the wikiproject so they can have their opinions. TheBlazikenMaster 08:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I want someone to delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.1.161.132 (talk • contribs).

Deleting this article will just make no info on pokémon at all. Try Bulbapedia if you want more pokémon info. But by removing this article, the pokémon will NOT have their own pages, it will just make things worse. Please go to the site I suggested. TheBlazikenMaster 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want it deleted, put it up for deletion. Spigot Map 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect!

Caterpie shows a prominent osmeterium! I think that's a neat thing to add! The entire reason we had these articles is so people who knew something (like Pochiena being named after a prehistoric hyena-relative) interesting could add it in. At the very least, the page should say it's protected at the top, cuz right now it's just confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Well, the name origin is oringal research. But you're right, the article does in fact need the protection. I have no opinion on that Caterpie thingy, but I added a tag. TheBlazikenMaster 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series

A discussion on the recent removal of fair-use images from this series of articles has been posted at the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. Morgan695 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

VERY ANNOYING! It's so stupid to remove those pictures. So much effort was made to post them, and everyone found it useful. 210.176.70.2 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what everyone can agree on. I personally find it ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This policy is absurd in the context of fictional creatures; fictional people I can perhaps understand, but not with creatures that are so hard to describe. Regardless, policy is policy. The best we can do is find a way around it. You Can 't See Me! 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Old wikipedia pages

I moved the individual pokemon pages which redirects to this page to the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki. Since they are filled with information that is mostly game related I thought it would be still relevant to be saved and updated. --Cs california 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives