Talk:List of Pokémon (121-140)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Pokémon (121-140) article.
Article policies
GFDL PokéBall design
Pokémon Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pokémon, which aims to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
PCP To-do:

Contents

[edit] Does not evolve?

Why is eevee listed as "does not evolve"?

The coding for the box doesn't allow multiple things to be listed. Someone that knows how to format those correctly will likely fix it soon. TTN 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've figured out a way to type it in so that both links work, though it looks funny. Should I try to do that for all the required pokemon? -WarthogDemon 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the same problem applies for stuff like Poliwhirl. There has to be a way to display 2 or more links at once.--Zxcvbnm 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, now all linking needs to be done manually, but multiple ones will work. TTN 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Condensation?

Why did people condense these Pokemon into one page? It used to have a lot of detailed descriptions! Tell me why!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.253.83.88 (talk • contribs).

See WP:PCP. -WarthogDemon 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And FYI, "condensation" is what happens when water changes from a gas to a liquid. Rest assured we did not liquify the pages. -WarthogDemon 19:52, 24 July 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. -Wikid77 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike it. There is a lot more potential information in the original Pokémon pages. I used them for reference all the time! Bifgis 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why there's Bulbapedia. -WarthogDemon 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I liked it better previously as well, provided much more (useful) information and is now severely condensed. For efficiency I suppose, though I won't be looking up information on this subject here anymore now that it basically just says what is already common knowledge.Sdws17 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also condensation can mean converting something to a more condensed form and not just that liquid thing. 66.240.17.13 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Condensation?

But what wiki used to interest people is that, it has issues such as controversies on the Pokemon pages which carried a controversy, such as racism issues. But now, what wiki has is the same with other Pokemon sites, or rather, carry even less information! I consider what wiki is now MORE USELESS than other Pokemon sites, because what it interested other people are gone!

It used to be very useful! Why do you want to carry the same information with other Pokemon sites? If you want to be the same, why would people come here instead of proper Pokemon sites? 218.253.83.88 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Um . . . I can guarantee you many people came to check things other than Pokémon. And as we've said before, everyone is free to add on to Bulbapedia. -WarthogDemon 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So you suggest people to look up Pokemon stuff on Bulbapedia instead of here? But to say the truth, the resources wikipedia used to have were very valuable to many people, and useful to many people. Cherubfish 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah. Gameplay information and pokemon universe information is s what Bulbapedia is supposed to be there for isn't it? -WarthogDemon 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
But why would wikipedia want people to go somewhere else instead of using wikipedia? 218.253.83.88 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a competitive business we're running... -WarthogDemon 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is supposed to be good for knowledge for people that know nothing about the subject. Game info is useless to them. See what Wikipedia is not, oh and go to Bulbapedia if you still want the pokémon stuff. TheBlazikenMaster 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, we're not aiming to be a repository of the world's knowledge, just a reference. Places like the Internet Archive are way ahead of us on the "cataloguing" part, Wikipedia is just to neatly organize notable information in one place. Anyone wanting extremely detailed information are expected to find primary sources or visit a community which specializes in that info.--ZXCVBNM 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to register to edit Bulbapedia :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with registering? -WarthogDemon 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding some main articles

27-July-2007: As in many subjects, there might be a need to re-expand some major Pokémon characters into "main articles" (such as an "Omastar (detailed)"). However, 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. Also, someone interested in most of the 493 characters can read just those 25 articles now, rather than having to access up to 493 articles to scan the similar information. However, a highly detailed character might need a recreated "main article" as in other subjects, just not 493 again. Thanks. -Wikid77 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Omastar would be notable enough for a main article. However, some articles about the most famous (in the real world, mind you, not based on how useful they are in the game and/or anime) will be kept (see Mewtwo).--ZXCVBNM 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that those with a controversy, (such as racism issues like Ludicolo and Jynx, and the copyright issue for Kadabra) should have their own page, so that people know what's going on around them, I mean so that people know about the controversies. But to say the truth, why not group them in evolutionary lines instead? That is a more fair way and more systematic. Cherubfish 10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why bother if they're not notable except for the controversies? Those in themselves aren't enough reason, because they were pretty frivolous (Did Uri Geller really expect to win?)--ZXCVBNM 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It takes one or two sentences to mention controversy and a reference. How does that merit an article? SpigotMap 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 23:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell happened to all the useful information here? Now everything's in one page, and none of the information I was looking for is there. Why are people intentionally making wikipedia less useful to browsers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.206.142 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magikarp Moves

Under Magikarp, it says that they can learn solar beam and hyper beam, yet there is no citations for this clam. I have raised 6 Magikarps to this level and the moves never came. Also, Bulbapedia and Serebii do not mention it. That is enough reason to believe the claim is false, however I do not want to step on any toes, so I'll wait for a response to this message before changing anything.

Alyosha 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If nothing says anything, it means it's just made up, madeup info doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Just remove any info like that: Remember this: Wikipedia:Be bold.