Talk:List of Pokémon (481-493)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Pokémon (481-493) 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] Why was this started?

This is STUPID.

All twenty pokemon on this list LOST their wikipedia pages. So much info has been lost.


Cheezdude 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


AGREE!!! this is STUPID, it was better when the pages were separated!!! who had the idea? OMG!!

I also agree, considering that most of these pokemon are legendary, and their data is very important to this project.

  • A third person chiming in to say that I feel this change was a mistake - a lot of information had been lost and I see no need for the change MagicBez 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You should join the discussion on the project talk page. TTN 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your claims that "OMG, info has been lost!" realize that that information has been confirmed as "fancruft" and is basically not important. Also, check Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pokémon for the reasons why the individual 500 articles can't be maintained.--Zxcvbnm 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

it was better before, and IMPORTANT info has been lost. or at least put that info in the new format...

Like what?--Zxcvbnm 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

look at uxie`s entry and compare it to the poor entries of the other two pokemon of the trio (azelf and mesprit)

Actually, Uxie's entry is in need of a revising. It's full of unsourced research and guesses. All the entries should be referenced to the Pokedex and/or another verifiable source of information. After the sentence, put the URL surrounded by reference tags (for example <ref> URL </ref>)

Another thing, nobody should be adding their own info in here, it's already in the main Pokemon articles and needs to be merged.--Zxcvbnm 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this being STUPID. I saw that we nominate these articles for deletion. Lots of important information has been lost, such as the in the video games section.--Ridley76 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ALSO!!!!! Why do the legendaries have separated articles but the regular pokemon have their own? A think they should at least keep the legendary articles. Tamashiihiroka 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Not all is lost, if you really want to see the pokémon's old page, just type in the name in search, click the "redirected from xxxx", then the history tab, then the archived version before the redirect by Zxcvbnm, because the pictures are still being used and not deleted, it's pretty much the same article. The reason for the redirect is for maintaining an encyclopedia like content. If you want to add game information go to Bulbapedia. Samx 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

why did u people take out the manaphy article??? 71.104.252.248 23:01, 12 July 2007

Did you even read what Samx posted on top? Stop asking until you're able to understand why. The extra information belongs in a fansite, not an encyclopedia.--Zxcvbnm 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not your average encyclopedia. I thought that the entire purpose of wikipedia was to have all of the information you can find on the internet in one convinent location. By the way, I tried the above trick, and it dosen't work anymore. 69.114.80.137 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be doing it wrong, since it works for me. Basically, Wikipedia may be a more detailed encyclopedia, but if you stuck all the information on the Internet on there, it would be too long to read through and probably appeal only to fans of that subject, making everyone else leave. That's why there are standards as to what content you can add without making an article full of cruft.--Zxcvbnm 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That does't make any god damn sence, why the hell would a non fan even be looking at these pages? Plus with the way these pages are pissing the real fans off aren't you concerned with them leaving? From the sounds of it I would have to say your not even a fan of poke'mon. So you have no idea how this makes us feel. The thing is these pages use to give valuable information, now you've got them down to a picture and a paragraph that doesn't tell me anything usefull. And we shouldn't have to go to the bulbapedia, the info should still be on wiki.

Zabbethx 8:47 am July 16

What a way to assume bad faith. We are fans, we're not concerned, this is a better way of doing things, and please be civil. Wikipedia is not a fansite. The original pages had unsourced information, amongst other things that do not comply with Wikipedia articles. THus, the redirects. If we seriously did not care, we would've deleted them instead of redirects. That's what Bulbapedia is for. We should not be making exceptions merely because other pokefans won't be happy with it. -WarthogDemon 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all I apologize for not being civil. I lost my temper when I saw the pages were getting all screwed up, so I'de like to say sorry for that. I went to the bulbapedia and it's not all that bad. Saying this I would like to make a few request if you don't mind. For starters, under each poke'mon their should be a link to their article on the bulbapedia. That way if you look for them in wiki you can get a link to find the info your looking for. Second, I would like the bulbapedia articles to look a little like the the original wikipedia articles. The bulbapedia articles are a little confusing to read and they also don't offer the same amount of details the wiki articles did. I don't know who works on the bulbapedia and I don't know to change things that well. Just a thought and I would like to here what you have to say on the subject. I look forward to your response. Zabbethx 10:51 am July 17, 2007
Bulbapedia is a separate site, so we don't have any control over how their articles look. However, they're free to copy the original individual articles in order to save the extra information. Their site works exactly like Wikipedia, so it's basically copy and paste. Putting a link to Bulbapedia under every section probably will not work, but it's perfectly fine to put one under the entire list to direct people to more detailed information.--Zxcvbnm 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well if you could do that, that would be great. I'de do it myself but I don't know much about screwing with websites. I'm just a pissed off fanboy with too much free time on my hands. But I'm glad we could come to some sort of agreement. Thanks for your time.

Zabbethx 11:24 am July 17, 2007

So apparently the stuff from ingame and the Pokedex is all fanstuff, right? Look at the old Uxie page, then look at it's ridiculous new "page". Everything on the old page is straight from the game.

And that's bad...how? It's called referencing, you have to get the information from somewhere. Making up info to stick in the encyclopedia, or typing up plot summaries, is not part of an encyclopedia, it's part of an episode guide. As has been already said, if you have the urge to put down tons of information, go to Bulbapedia and help out. --ZXCVBNM 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm not talking about the episode stuff, the Uxie page was fine without it. You don't have to make stuff up to make a good article. I could sign up and make a perfectly fine Uxie article, for instance, with only the use of things that appear in-game. Why is it such a big deal? Having "List of Pokemon ____ to ____" is such idiotic. It's cramming information. We might as well not even bother with Pokemon pages, because they don't have anything but crammed information. It's not like having seperate pages will hurt anyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.225.79 (talk • contribs).

That's good actually, go to Bulbapedia and do so then. -WarthogDemon 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You see, Bulbapedia doesn't load on my computer, so I have no choice but to come to this mess of a place. Some people, like me, really don't like having to scroll through half the page to see something about a Pokemon. It's a disgrace. And about all the stuff being cut out that was "fancruft", I suppose the height and weight of each Pokemon is fancruft too? And don't say, "it doesn't help you in anyway". Well, neither does Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.225.79 (talk • contribs).
You act like the Pokemon articles were the only articles that ever existed. I suggest you try a library computer to go to Bulbapedia then. I'm finding it simply strange that all IP users can't access Bulbapedia yet everyone else I know can access it just fine. As for height and weight, there's been some discussion on that actually, but we haven't really decided on it yet. Go to Bulbapedia or Serebii (though I'll admit Serebii IS slow.) Otherwise just read our policies. I'll admit the merges did seem ludicrous to me at first, but seriously. Read the project's talk page closer. The reasons DO make sense. -WarthogDemon 15:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually height and weight ARE going to be included. Most likely after all the new images get put up. -WarthogDemon 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I realize they aren't, but there is so much information that isn't there that is more than speculation. I don't understand why everyone on here is so anti-getting things from SPP. You can all say its a fansite all you want, but I doubt it was a coincedence that he had all 4th Gen names a month before the English releases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.77.225.79 (talk • contribs).
It's not necessarily because it's a fansite. That's one of the reasons but the other is, that nothing on Serebii (Unless I'm completely mistakne here) is under a compatible GFDL license. If it had one, we probably would use it. -WarthogDemon 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, we're aware that Serebii does have the correct information, we just can't use if because Serebii doesn't state his source. -Sukecchi 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone should contact Serebii and have him state his sources so that his information can be included. Deoxys911 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother, he won't. -Sukecchi 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like the changes, and think that the effort would be better spent on articles that are sub-par or confusing, rather than articles with data neatly filed. I stumbled upon these changes when I searched for Magmortar and found it in the middle of a page with barely any information. The least that could be done is nothing, but the easiest and most agreeable solution is to add links to the corresponding Bulbapedia pages; I'm a pokemon fan, and I'd hate to see one of my favourite series go the same way as the many other pages that are sadly lacking in material. Then again, there's no way everything could be in one easy-to-use location; Wikipedia's purpose is merely to make some of the facts easier to find {{subst:Unsigned65.95.226.216}}

We've all been encouraging people to go add onto Bulbapedia anyway. -WarthogDemon 21:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, maintaining 500 articles that are all unencyclopedic is not my idea of a good time. If you want to add things about Pokemon, go to Bulbapedia and help them instead.--ZXCVBNM 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this! I just went to find information on Arceus and it hardly has anything on him that I wanted! This is a STUPID IDEA started by STUPID EDITORS! Change it back to the way it used to be! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldenGashBell (talk • contribs) 03:39:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

That's why there's Bulbapedia. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. If you still disagree with this, try to do so while being civil. Thank you. -WarthogDemon 03:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, I'm sorry for not being civil. I've had a rough day with the guys from the Zatch Bell! articles, so yeah. Secondly, I just liked it better when Pokemon had their own pages. To me, it seems like Wikipedia is shirking off their responsibility as an encyclopedia and giving the work to Bulbapedia to come up with the information on these Pokemon. The articles have definitely gotten smaller. It's just not really fair. btw, the link to my userpage is broken. How do I fix it? Golden Gash Bell —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:58:38, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Wikipedia is not shrugging off its responsibility as an encyclopedia, it's merely becoming more encyclopedic. As far as you liking it, try WP:ILIKEIT. I won't go in to details as it's been said over and over again. Basically, the articles are not notable, they have no information or notability out of the universe of the game. SpigotMap 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

this is stupid. look at all the comments in opposition to this list. it's a clear violation of WP:SNOWBALL. had any of these pokemon been put up for deletion, the consensus would have been to keep, but by not putting them up for deletion, you people get to cleverly avoid "decision by consensus".

you people claim pokemon is unencyclopedic. how are the pokemon in this list any different then the pokemon that do have articles?

wikipedia has had two pokemon as frontpage featured articles. how can you people say, on one hand, individual pokemon articles aren't encyclopedic, and then, on the other, say that Talk:Bulbasaur and Talk:Torchic represent among the best wikipedia has to offer?

further, i suggest you people read WP:UNENCYC. people who would think less of wikipedia for it's having articles on pokemon aren't likely to read about pokemon on wikipedia, anyway. so among those people, you're not building wikipedia's credibility. yet among the people who would look pokemon up, you're ruining wikipedia by trivializing what they care about. you're probably breading a whole new generation of vandals, too. why should i respect wikipedia's policies when wikipedia doesn't respect me or my contributions?

you people say wikipedia isn't a game guide. well here's news for you. it's not a paper encyclopedia either. and further, having articles on every single pokemon doesn't make wikipedia a game guide. your insinuations that it does are ridiculous. wikipedia isn't a programming manual, either, despite the fact that "the consensus is that being a unix command is already a valid basis for an article, so individual C, C++, and C# functions will surely follow" (from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Standard_PHP_Library).

you say that the articles have no notability outside of the universe of the game. so? Bildad doesn't have much notability outside of the universe of the bible. why don't you go delete him, too?

you people recommend Bulbapedia be used, instead. riiight. maybe wikipedia should just delete all articles on math because mathworld.wolfram.com exists? just because another resource exists doesn't mean that that material should no longer be included on wikipedia.

and to all you people dismissing arguments by citing WP:ILIKEIT - read WP:IHATEIT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.214.5 (talk) 17:00:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Torchic was removed of its Featured Article status. Someone obviously didn't think that was the best Wikipedia had to offer.SuperChencho 06:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And so did Bulbasaur. That page is a mess right now.SuperChencho 06:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
so fix it. do you think the only solution to articles that have deteriorated in quality is to delete them? if i vandalize an article, that article has deleted in quality. using your logic, i guess the appropriate response isn't to revert the vandalism, but rather, to delete it? or how about merge it into a list? great idea!
and your insinuation that "somebody" didn't think it was the best that wikipedia had to offer is irrelevant. "somebody else" did. otherwise, it wouldn't have been a frontpage featured article. what gives "somebody" more authority then "somebody else"? 209.209.214.5 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But Torchic and Bulbasaur were not vandalized. I revert vandalisms, too. They simply got filled with information that was either original research, fancruft, unverifiable, or game guide-ish. Once you remove all that stuff, you have your articles significantly downsized.
Look , I do not know who heads up the Feature Article wikiproject (if there is such a thing) or whatever, but they gotta be pretty high in the Wikichain, in my opinion. And people make mistakes. More than once sometimes.
Having one page for each Pokemon does not make it a game guide. That was not one of the reasons for the merge. What makes it game guide is the content of the articles, which is pretty in-universe sometimes.SuperChencho 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
this is what Torchic looked like when it was on the frontpage. Torchic. giving it a cursory glance, each paragraph looks quite well sourced to me.
i also do not think in-universe exclusive material makes wikipedia a game guide. wikipedia is only a game guide to those who chose to use it as such. chances are, if you go to the front page, click on some item, and keep on clicking, you're not going to magically come across a pokemon article. in fact, i have a hard time imagine anyone coming across a pokemon article by accident. so how does that make wikipedia a game guide? why would a game guide have an article on the iraq war and a ton of categories with a ton of articles in those categories about the iraq war? pokemon diamond was released after the iraq war, yet my own guide to that game doesn't mention it.. 209.209.214.5 03:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And upon further inspection, you'll see that the Role section gives a lot of information that reads like a game guide, like what it's effective and what is not effective, when Torchic evolves, and why it would have difficulty against Roxanne. And those sources? Serebbi.net, not necessarily reliable because you can't verify his sources (I know that the site can get true stuff, but I believe the WikiProject Pokemon was trying to avoid using that site as a source).
as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streisand effect (2nd nomination), rhe only sources wikipedia needs to verify are its own. news stories often quote an "anonymous source". how do you propose wikipedia verify those "anonymous sources"? Valerie Plame was outed by an "anonymous source" as was Watergate. that said, there's a lot more to the article then just the role section. 209.209.214.5 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am just going by what was already established here. We were trying to find more reliable sources for Pokemon Evolution (which has a lot from Serebii.net), before it was decided to merge it with Game Mechanics. ~ SuperChencho 17:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your Iraq War comment.
show me a post-2003 game guide that discusses the iraq war. you can't. because game guides don't discuss it. yet wikipedia does. thus, the only conclusion one can draw from this is that wikipedia is not a game guide.
pokemon articles account for only a fraction of 1% of the articles on wikipedia. in a game guide, articles on that game would account for 100% of the articles. thus, wikipedia is not a game guide. 209.209.214.5 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read this: WP:NOT#GUIDE. ~ SuperChencho 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
the role section of Torchic doesn't contain instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. therefore, your link doesn't apply (btw, i do disagree with the link - wikipedia provides instructions on how to calculate the greatest common divisor, for example, or how to prove the euclidean algorithm). all the role section does is place Torchic in the proper context, with relation to other pokemon and other games 209.209.214.5 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The very next line reads: "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." SuperChencho 05:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
again, i don't see how any of those apply. (copying what i said earlier) all the role section does is place Torchic in the proper context, with relation to other pokemon and other games. as such, it is not a tutorial, walk-through, instruction manual, game guide, or recipe. do you think it is any of those? if so, which one and why? 209.209.214.5 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am tired. This is going nowhere fast. ~ SuperChencho 05:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody is merging because they hate pokémon, so don't point them there. TheBlazikenMaster 17:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking through this lenghty discussion, nor am gonna check for a response, but ... why is this happening across Wikipedia? Meshing together articles because they're related is counter-productive. This article has been the most bothersome example. How do we visually identify these Pokemon? The artists put in a lot of effort, and the crazy appearances of the Pokemon is a major aspect of the Pokemon universe! As of this article, I am now on the hunt for a proper area to complain where it will be heard. --TerraGamerX 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is the articles do not pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), which is a true statement. Complaints aren't going to change this. The only way you can retrieve the articles is to assert the individual notability of every Pokémon through providing non-trivial, reliable, verifiable secondary sources that comment on the individual Pokémon. Have that and you can construct an argument. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's extremely well known doesn't mean we have to add article about every last creature. Most of those are only known by Pokémon fans, and we want info that applies to everyone, not just fanboys. TheBlazikenMaster 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let's just delete articles on Dingodile, Shakespeare, Bionicle, Deep Space Nine, Macintosh apples, Sonic the Hedgehog and quantum physics. Most of those things are only known by those who like them/study them, and we want info that applies to everyone of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.225.79 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All of those objects contain real world information, mass notability, and reliable sources. The same can not be said for most pokemon. SpigotMap 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Since when was Sonic the Hedgehog and (ugh) Bionicle considered real world information? Those articles are not facing such trivial difficulties. Why would a nonPokemon fan be looking at these pages anyway? The articles flowed better when they were separate and more concise. Besides, isn't Pokemon a multi-million dollar franchise (mass notability), which mostly revolves around video games (which are reliable sources)? 75.41.113.38 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to be a fan to look for something. I often look for something I don't know on Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You can't make good arguments with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Sonic is way more notable than Huntail, or let's say Skiploom. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Even without the absurd WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS theories, there is no denying the fact that information is indeed lost. It doesn't even mention that Darkrai recently starred in a movie, for instance.75.41.113.38 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at the edit histories of the individual articles, I have to say that I'm appalled at their quality. The introduction in every single article was worded almost identically, and was very sparse and uninformative (failing WP:LEAD). Many of the details in the articles were, again, worded very similarily in each article. Most of the details in the articles were on how to use each Pokemon in competitive battle (failing WP:NOT). Several articles had trivia sections (failing WP:TRIVIA). Most articles had few or no in-text citations (WP:CITE), and many of those that actually did have citations were from unverifiable and unreliable sources (failing both WP:REF and WP:V).
The articles were lazy. They contained no third-party sources (see the discussion on Talk:Bulbasaur), and met none of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Even the two articles that actually somehow reached FA status should have never been promoted abiove GA. The pages were nothing more than a travesty. Even most of these lists have few or no in-text citations to back up what is said, and the information was copied word-for-word from the original articles before being merged. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just transfer the information to Bulbapedia

Can't you at least give articles to only the starters and the legendaries? The REST of the Pokemon being grouped , im ok with. OR you can transfer all the information to your lack luster sister, Bulbapedia. I mean, come on!!! It uses the same Media Wiki engine as Wikipedia, so why cant you at least transfer all the info to Bulbapedia??? MudkipNDS 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)This has been the BBC World News. Goodbye.

Too right, there's too much info here, and not enough on Bulbapedia. Samx 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, why don't you transfer it yourself instead of complaining here? It's the Bulbapedia peoples' job to transfer the information, not ours. Just copy it from the page histories and paste it there instead.--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm already on it. Samx 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason we can't go to bulbapedia is because it's extremely slow.--Ridley76 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? I've been there many times. Hasn't been slow to me... -WarthogDemon 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

D00de! We are suposed to have more information than bulbapedia and NO ONE CAN STOP US CUZ WE WERE INVINCIBLE UNTIL NOW!--Arceus fan 22:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game data

Please include game data, like attacks perhaps or what games they appear on. Or at least something similar. This is slightly annoying. 86.5.13.121 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a gameguide. Go to Bulbapedia or gamefaqs for that. -WarthogDemon 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because an article features basic data/information doesn't make it a game guide. It only adds to the quality of the article. Deoxys911 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
A list of attacks is a game guide, since it has no value other than to players of the game.--ZXCVBNM 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Ever seen those nutcases out there that say, "Oh, this Pokemon is evil because it uses an attack that steals its opponent's soul."? I'm pretty sure they would find it helpful to look up the Pokemon on Wiki and see what the attack actually did. 69.220.61.32 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SOME game data must obviously be included. And by this, I mean Name, Number, and Type. However, if a pokemon has a Signature Move (used either primarily or exclusively by them), then it may be worth mentioning. Likewise, it may be useful to at least mention what games the pokemon initially appeared in (for example, Pikachu first appeared in Red and Blue with a special role in Yellow, while Ekans appeared in the same generation, but was only in the Red version) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.226.216 (talk • contribs).

We already have have the names, numbers, and types in the infoboxes on the lists. -WarthogDemon 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

There is no source for the "fact" that Arceus' wheel looks like an A from the front. Also, this is not true. If Arceus' wheel is viewed from the front it looks more like an X, although this also has no proof and is just an opinion. Until a reliable source or proof that it looks like an A from the front is given I am removing this. On a side note, please do not re-add it like last time. Deoxys911 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that it looks nothing like an 'A'. However, I would challenge the notion that the appearances of the letters of the alphabet are matters of opinion.72.213.131.244 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uxie

This page has all the legendary pokemon, exceot Uxie? Where did it go? 216.184.40.173 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_%28461-480%29#Uxie >_> -Sukecchi 18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If you noticed, the page goes in numerical order. Uxie just happened to be one number below the cutoff of this page. It's not "Legendary Pokemon", its all pokemon numbers 481-493. Uxie is 480, and so he is on the previous page. 24.15.53.225 14:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Data

The data on Pokemon 491-493 seems a little questionable to me. It states that all three pokemon will be able to be obtained through a Nintendo event which gives an Azure Flute. It also then states the signature moves or abilities of each of the pokemon. How was this data obtained? The Nintendo event hasn't happened yet. How do we know that the member's pass unlocks the door in Canalave city where a guy pulls you in and forces you to dream of Darkmoon island? It all hasn't happend, so I don't understand how we know all this. And I don't see any sources citated in either of the three pokemon's sections. This is information about future events that we do not know are even going to exist; the data must be at least citated or it will be judged as Original Research and deleted. 24.15.53.225 15:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If serebii has the info, and tons of hackers found the processes, it's good enough for me. Also, the signature moves are right. I own the three.Dagron12345 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
People have hacked into the game or found glitches that allow access to things in the game that they normally shouldn't have access to without a certain item and the like. You can find stuff about these hacks on Youtube videos and the like. That's enough proof for me.69.220.61.32 18:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And that would be original research, now wouldn't it? 24.15.53.225 02:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(That was me in the other post; I forgot that I wasn't logged in.) I dunno, would it? It's pretty obvious proof... A video of the game itself sounds like pretty concrete evidence to me.BabyCharmander 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia policy states otherwise. I'd recommend just saying that a special event is needed to unlock Arceus, and leave out the process of obtaining him.--ZXCVBNM 04:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why leave out the process of obtaining it if we KNOW how to obtain it? BabyCharmander 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Because we don't actually KNOW how to obtain it. A video on YouTube means nothing. As I said before, this would fall under Original Research. Though I am usually against upholding WP:OR, in this case I have to agree with it. This information was obtained by hacking. It is original research. We should include that they exist, and we can include their moves and such, but the way they should be obtained should be taken out of this page until the Nintendo event ever happens. I mean, for all we know, it might not happen at all. The Darkrai event already happened in Japan, and we have no idea when or if there's going to be one for Darkrai or Arceus or Shamin in any other place...24.15.53.225 21:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But the hacking proves that the data is in the game and has been translated. Therefore we KNOW how to get the legendaries. I don't see why the information can't be included.BabyCharmander 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys? Ever heard of experts on making fake videos? There are some people that can make misleading videos because they are experts in editing. That's exactly why YouTube isn't reliable enough. I would believe the video, but I'm just saying it's unreliable because of experts in editing videos. TheBlazikenMaster 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
and what do you suppose would be more reliable? ooh. maybe if nytimes.com did an article on it, it'd be reliable? even though that article probably wouldn't allow for reproducibility whereas a video does?
i mention reproducibility because that's an important condition that must be met for something to be a scientific theory. that's why cold fusion isn't taken seriously by the scientific community. if science were operated as wikipedia is, the results of pons and fleischmann would be mentioned in textbook's across the globe. i'm glad the world doesn't work the way wikipedia does. if only wikipedia could catch up to it. 209.209.214.5 01:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, this doesn't have anything ot do with scientific theories. Even if you *know* this fact to be true, it's still original research, and there's a small chance it could be wrong. Plus, I doubt it's even encyclopedia material, since showing people how to hack the game is gamecruft. If you discovered cold fusion, it wouldn't be encyclopedia-worthy either until you published it.--ZXCVBNM 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
common sense trumps the no original research policy. see Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:NOR is stupid for a more detailed discussion. including material whose truth can be verified by reproduction "is not OR, it is making an obvious conclusion that should be apparent to any educated person, which is specifically allowed". as for your gamecruft comment - see WP:CRUFTCRUFT 209.209.214.5 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No. WP:UCS is an essay. WP:NOR is actual policy. As for the game guide information, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Such information should not be included. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
who do i believe? Sephiroth BCR says that common sense does not trump the original research policy and Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:NOR is stupid says that common sense does trump it. what a conundrum we find ourselves in. maybe you should go to Wikipedia talk:No original research#WP:NOR is stupid and tell them just how wrong they are. i'm sure they'd like to hear your opinion. maybe they'll even point out the policy of WP:IAR (since you prefer policies over essays).
as for WP:NOT#GUIDE - see my earlier comments. Talk:List of Pokémon (481-493)#Why was this started?. towards the bottom. including data obtained through hacking does not qualify as instructions, advice, suggestions, a "how-to", tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, or recipes. do you think it qualifies as one of those? if so, which one? why does george washington's Image:George Washington Signature.png not qualify as an instruction if a particular pokemon's signature move does? 209.209.214.5 05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What you have cited is a discussion about the policy. It has absolutely no bearing on the content of the policy. There has been no consensus to change the policy in a manner that you have advocated; ergo, your discussion is a discussion and nothing more. WP:IAR is not relevant here simply because it is not a blanket excuse to avoid rules or policies whenever you see fit. Read WP:WIARM. You have not stated either how ignoring policy in this case would benefit Wikipedia, when it does not. As for which criterion of WP:NOT#GUIDE, it's obviously falls under "game guide" information, or information that is relevant solely to a player of that game, and thus not suitable for inclusion. Adding things such as "Pokemon X is good because of its high statistics" or "Pokemon Y can be found in location Z" falls under this, as well as being original research. And if you're confused, essays are merely statements by users on their views on policy. Policy is actually determined by consensus and enforced on Wikipedia. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
what I have cited is an interpretation of policy and it absolutely does have bearing on the policy. you have a different interpretation of the policy then me or the people in the talk page. that does not mean that you're interpretation is flat-out right and everyone else is wrong. or maybe you think wikipedia policy can be summed up by saying "Sephiroth BCR is always right"?
as for WP:WIARM - that's a discussion of policy. look at the top. it says "This page discusses a part of a policy in greater detail or expands on the policy, but is not itself a policy." didn't you just say that policies are immutable and discussions have no bearing on them? so why do the discussions you cite have bearing while the discussions i cite don't? maybe that's the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule kicking into effect?
as for your refutation of my WP:NOT#GUIDE point - how does it fall under "game guide" information any more then this entire list does? and "information that is relevant solely to a player of that game" is not a direct quotation from WP:NOT and thus, per your own argument, isn't relevant. most of this information is relevant solely to players of pokemon. most of the information in the stargate articles ZXCVBNM has contributed to (and gotten a barnstar for) is only relevant to people interested in the stargate universe. being solely relevant to a niche group is not relevant. and your examples are disingenuous. "Pokemon X is good because of its high statistics", for example. to say something is good or bad is POV. to say Pokemon X's signature move is Y is not. you're misrepresenting my position and in doing so are committing a red herring 209.209.214.5 06:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
My interpretation of policy is certainly not always right. However, in that discussion, you are proposing to remove WP:NOR as a policy. Obviously, this is not the case, and has not happened. As of now, WP:NOR is still policy and will be enforced as such. To do so otherwise would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; ergo, your discussion has no bearing on the execution of policy. I cited WP:WIARM to illustrate commonly accepted usage (and incorrect usage) of WP:IAR. You have not stated specifically why you are ignoring WP:NOR in order to improve Wikipedia, and merely citing WP:IAR is not a sufficient rationale to fulfill that. As for the WP:NOT#GUIDE concern, the information within a game may be used as an attributable source for information in the article. I was not committing a red herring simply because I was illustrating examples of game guide material. If you notice the topic of the article, my examples are relevant. In any case, you're being quite the hypocrite by calling any direct quote not from WP:NOR my own interpretation while attempting to use an interpretation of policy to refute my argument. You're also committing an error by assuming that only people interested in the Stargate universe would read a Stargate article. That that user has received a barnstar is simply due to his good work on those articles and has absolutely no relevance to this argument. That "Pokemon X's signature move is Y" is original research so long as you cannot attribute it to a source in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
yes - i did want to delete the article. the subsequent points that were made, however, have placated me. that's why i'm not pursing it, anymore. and if you read those points, you'll see discussions about how WP:NOR can be abused - about how you and people like you are abusing it. common sense does not constitute original research.
to dismiss the comments made by the other two people but to attack me is to commit a ad hominem. but i suppose the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule permits them when you make them.
also, i have stated why WP:NOR should be ignored. because, as is discussed on WP:NOR's talk page, things that are painfully obvious do not constitute original research. as Dhaluza stated "the policy is not stupid, but that does not mean that stupid people can't use it stupidly".
about your red herring - it's a red herring because what you added was POV. whether a particular signature move is good or bad is a matter of opinion and opinion does not have any place on wikipedia. yet you interject your opinion, anyway. you create an example that you say demonstrates why WP:NOT#GUIDE should be respected but then also throw in WP:NPOV violations. but by throwing in WP:NPOV violations, you're confusing the issue - you're introducing something unrelated to the discussion and then attacking that which is unrelated. this is the textbook definition of red herring. but i suppose the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule permits that, doesn't it?
about my alleged hypocracy - i don't have a problem with you interpreting. i do, however, have a problem when you think you can do it but then try to explain how my doing it is a violation of wikipedia's policies. you're the hypocrite - my refutations of your points on the basis that they're interpretations are merely to illustrate the hypocracy of your own stance. but as i'm beginning to understand, hypocracy is acceptable according to the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule. atleast when Sephiroth BCR is the person who's engaging in it.
you also say that people not interested in stargate might be interested in facts about stargate. yet you also think people not interested in pokemon will not be interested in pokemon facts. whether those facts were obtained through hacking or not is irrelevant. you just assume that no one is interested in them. why? what makes pokemon different? or maybe that's the hypocracy provision of the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule kicking into effect?
unfortunately for you, the "Sephiroth BCR is always right" rule isn't official wikipedia policy and you would do wise to stop using it 209.209.214.5 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


This section became far too intense. It isn't about "Sephiroth BCR is always right", or hypocracies, or any of that crap. That is irrelevant to this, as you aim it at each other, as opposed to actually discussing the article. At simplest value, uncited information is not allowed on wikipedia. We know arceus, darkrai, and shamin all exist. Using common sense, which wikipedia also encourages, there are enough images of arceus and shamin that are all the same, plus they are listed on all the pokedex websites. If we are all discontent with removing these three pokemon entirely, which, by the discussion, I can see we all are, then we should at least remove how to obtain them. It sounds just plain wrong to have the paragraph say that Arceus is obtained using an Azure Flute that will probably come in an event sometime in the future. When, if, the event happens, we will include the information. We have no idea if the events ever will actually happen. Their pictures, and a brief discription of their signature move, is borderline acceptable, because it can be verified only with the online pokedex's. Youtube videos have no merit; they're just videos. However, the method of obtaining them is technically unknown. The only reason we know of the Azure Flute and all that is because of original research in the form of hacking. If we are to keep these three pokemon on wikipedia for reference purposes or otherwise, then we should at least cut out some of the contradictory data about them including how to obtain them. 24.15.53.225 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If we are all discontent with removing these three pokemon entirely, which, by the discussion, I can see we all are, then we should at least remove how to obtain them.
WP:NOR apparently applies to wikipedia articles but not to discussions. or atleast that's the only thing i can figure when you make outlandish claims. i suppose Talk:List of Pokémon (481-493)#Why was this started? doesn't count? i suppose everyone in that discussion who said they oppose the merging of the articles actually doesn't exist?
Youtube videos have no merit; they're just videos. However, the method of obtaining them is technically unknown.
turn that around. Pokemon games have no merit; they're just games. any point that can be adlibbed to apply to anything else isn't a point at all.
also, it doesn't matter if the "official" method of obtaining them is technically unknown. there is no known method for getting to Super Mario Brothers#Minus World, either, yet i don't see you deleting that section. maybe you just didn't know about it? well, now you do, so go nominate it to prove that you're not discriminating in your application of wikipolicy. also, go delete Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Hot Coffee controversy. like you said, "the method of obtaining [the minigame] is technically unknown. The only reason we know of the minigame and all that is because of original research in the form of hacking"
The only reason we know of the Azure Flute and all that is because of original research in the form of hacking.
see above. go delete Super Mario Brothers#Minus World and see how quickly your edits are reverted 209.209.214.5 06:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

209.209.214.5, you're right, but most people helping with the merging are pokémon fans. If what you want is an article for every single pokémon, I'm sorry that won't work out. Especially for little used pokémon like Whismur. TheBlazikenMaster 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting information?

Why does Arceus's info state that it's like a llama and then say later that it's like a horse? Isn't this rather contradictory?—Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyCharmander (talk • contribs)

Fixed. SpigotMap 06:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT HAPPENED TO MY INFORMATION?!!

I gave each section vague information on the exclusive attacks only these legendary Pokemon can learn, and it all gets reverted?! Now, if it were a game guide, I'd be telling what levels they learn them at. Feats-O-Strength 11:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I removed them, but I'm sure whoever did had a decent reason for it. We are trying to keep attacks out of the list and only give a brief overview of each Pokemon. SpigotMap 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read the section I posted two above this one entitled "Questionable Data" or something of that matter. As I said, all the information on their special moves and how to obtain each pokemon is original research. It came from hacking, proved by Youtube videos, which are hardly reliable sources. Once again, I do not usually enforce WP:OR like this, but in this case I couldn't resist myself. The information was just too disputable. Hacking is original research. There is no question or doubt there. 24.15.53.225 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nimda (computer worm) must be original research, too. after all, it's an example of hacking. go nominate it for deletion, why don't you 209.209.214.5 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll gladly point you to WP:OTHERSTUFF and I hope you'll gladly refrain from using that argument again. Also I'd like to point out that it's not YOUR information. What goes in an article is decided on what the majority of the editors want, and what follow policies and guidelines. SpigotMap 07:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF is stupid. why do some articles get to "violate" policies that others don't? WP:OTHERSTUFF is a non-answer, per WP:JUSTAPOLICY and to quote you, "I hope you'll gladly refrain from using that argument again".
as for what a majority of the editors want... look at Talk:List of Pokémon (481-493)#Why was this started?. looks like a majority of editors don't agree with the mass merging of pokemon.
as for what follow policies and guidelines... that's what we're debating. but apparently you think that some articles can violate guidelines and others can't. your position can, in fact, probably be summed up with this:
"All [articles] are equal, but some [articles] are more equal than others."
recognize that quote? it's from Animal Farm 209.209.214.5 08:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the point to WP:OTHERSTUFF is that THIS ARTICLE is up for debate at the moment, NOT other articles. What happens in other articles is not relevant to this one. SpigotMap 08:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as the "THIS LIST IS STUPID" conversation. Most of the people opposing it are unsigned fanboy IP posts, people just strolling by. They don't have to deal with all the AfDs, clean ups, deal with hoards of unencyclopedic material that comes in, or the fact that almost every pokemon fails to meet notability guidelines. SpigotMap 08:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
and my point is that this should be allowed, by precedent. do not, however, make the mistake of assuming this is my only point. i have made others. go read "Questionable Data", as 24.15.53.225 suggested.
but about this point by precedent... by selectively applying "policies", you're only going to result in ill-feelings. you're going to make people who thought their contributions were worthwhile feel resentment. you're going to turn them into vandals. how does that serve wikipedia? you can't tell these people not to take it personally because you are picking on them. are you actually having information obtained through hacking deleted on other non-pokemon articles? if not, you are picking on these people and it's not fair. it does a disservice to wikipedia and to new editors.
and if you're not picking on these people, then prove it. go delete the sections of article i mentioned. show pokemon-fans that you're not just picking on them - that you're picking on everyone.
as is, by picking on pokemon, exclusively, you're saying "lots of articles suck, but i hate pokemon, so i'll just target that one" and that's the wrong message to send. read WP:IHATEIT
finally, as for "unsigned fanboy IP posts"... read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. your malicious characterization is also an ad hominem. you really do selectively apply policies, don't you? not only to articles, but to yourself. look at me!! WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL don't apply to me because i'm a registered wikipedian and i'm better then you!! i'm also better then User:81.168.80.170 (who's gotten a barnstar), User:217.45.252.26 (another barnstar winner), and User:212.88.98.187 (another barnstar winner). how many barnstars have you won? zero? sad 209.209.214.5 08:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I did go and tag that article with fact tags and will delete sections which do not get verified. As far as fanboys, I will stand by that. They were all screaming about losing the information which is helpful to fans. Personally I've never even seen/played Pokemon before I started editing wikipedia, as it was never big where I live, so I could care less about which information is or isn't in the article, I go by policy. SpigotMap 08:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

<deindent>Do you even know how a barnstar works? ANY editor can give it to any other editor. They don't even have to have a reason, it's just a friendly thanks. Some editors even give them to themselves for some reason or another. I didn't bother to go through all of the IPs you gave because the first was an almost inactive editor who hasn't even contributed to any Pokemon articles, why did you mention him? SpigotMap 08:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, none of them have. i mentioned them because they have barnstars - because they're regarded by some as exemplary anonymous editors and because you seem to think that all anonymous editors are scum. are these editors - which have received distinction - scum, as well, just because they're anonymous? 209.209.214.5 14:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem with anonymous editors is that their IP changes if they change their router settings, move computers, or use a proxy, so you can't really give awards to them because they'll probably just change their IP later. Making a username makes it much easier to recognize someone.--ZXCVBNM 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Important note to: 209.209.214.5, stop pointing people to WP:IHATEIT, nobody is saying that pokémon sucks here, so stop pointing them there. I hate to point to another policy, but I have no choice: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, yeah stop assuming SpigotMap is a pokémon hater, if SpigotMap was, he/she wouldn't even bother to help out with the merging. TheBlazikenMaster 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On that note, i'm pretty sure SpigotMap, as with all of us, assume most edits are in good faith. You don't need to make a fuss about all this because an edit you made was reverted or taken out, just look for another source besides YouTube. It can't honestly be that hard if what your looking for is verifiable. Ageofe 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
you're right - it shouldn't be hard. the problem is that it's wasted effort. someone posts a non-youtube source and it'll still be deleted. people delete entire articles because there's not a BBC, CNN, ABC, etc, citation. why would pokemon be any different? never mind the fact that WP:N doesn't require you have a BBC, CNN, ABC, etc, source anyway.
plus, any source is going to be inferior. youtube shows you how to reproduce it. reproducibility is one of the basic tenants of science. an experiment that is not reproducible is not worth the paper it's printed on, so why is a source that doesn't yield reproducible results considered better, on wikipedia, then a source that does? 209.209.214.5 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
finally, helping to merge doesn't mean you're not a pokemon hater. it could just mean you're trying to lead us down a slippery slope that'll eventually lead to pokemon's deletion. obviously, deleting a bunch of articles, out of the blue, won't work, so you merge them. then after you've whittled away at those who might defend them, you nominate these merged articles for deletion 209.209.214.5 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it was a wasted effort. I looked on Yahoo and Google, and when I finally thought I had found some sources worth mentioning it turned out that they drew their info from Serebii and YouTube. I don't have any gaming magazines on me to look through, but you might find something in there (though I doubt it). Ageofe 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So many Pokemon lost their pages and they didn't even keep their pictures!I wanted to make Cherrim out of clay,lol,but now I have to use another source of pictures.And I know many,Wikipedia was one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.134.75 (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the image part, I really hate that they had to go. We have to change the policy somehow, have an agreement so most of us will be happy. But own pages can't be done, since it didn't have much encyclopedic info, and every article began with the same thing, that doesn't describe the creature like it's supposed to.
I really want the images, there must be a way to get them back. TheBlazikenMaster 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

Is Wiki this useless? Where are the pictures? This article really needs to be visual. Isn't that obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.123.89 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, pictures are clearly encyclopedic, if there was something I could do about it I would, but unfortuntely there isn't anything I can do. TheBlazikenMaster 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Werid

When I get e-mail I will join bulbapedia and copy data for each poke'mon and put it there. This will force the data to be put in sperate articles therefore fixing this mess.--Arceus fan 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what we're encouraging everyone to do. (And I should really get off my lazy butt and do so myself.) -WarthogDemon 21:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Bulbapedia uses a different copyright license, so you can't just copy it. 69.182.87.75 16:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Besides you are just an annoynmous user.--Arceus fan 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't depend at all. Unless Bulbapedia is GFDL, it will be copyright infringement. Please do not attack anonymous users, many anonymous users have edited wiki for years anonymously. SpigotMap 03:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giratina

I argued this before back on the individual pages, and i'm saying it again here. There is NO evidence to support any connection between Giratina and Dialga and Palkia. I am sick of people here claiming this as fact when there is zero evidence supporting it both in-game and out. I have deleted this fan-speculated info from the article, and i don't want to see it restored unless someone can find some proof to back it up.The Great Morgil 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should only have connections if they have reliable sources. 69.177.215.87 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can still put the articles in this article--Arceus fan 14:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Acftually you may not because that's not why we have the lists. -WarthogDemon 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no choice but suggesting you to go to Bulbapedia, please since you want the good info so much, you should go there. Believe me, it's a lot better there. What you are doing here isn't helping at all. You really should be helping them out there. We are making the lists to get rid of unnecessary info. I'm giving you an advice, go there. If you keep on adding unnecessary info you could get in trouble, I'm only typing that because I know how you feel about this, (I felt the same when this started) and don't want you to get blocked for adding irrelevant info. So please go to Bulbapedia, that's the best place for you. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We should stop edit warring because now this information does not belong on wikipedia especialy annoymous users.--Arceus fan 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't speculation nor is it original research but the upcoming movie, Giratina and the Bouquet of the Sky!, shows that there is a true connection between Giratina and Dialga and Palkia. Link toon 03 (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)link_toon_03

[edit] Spacial Pokémon?

I've played Pearl and it lists Palkia as the Spacial Pokémon and that it has "control over space" - could someone please explain to me precisely what this means? I understand the ability to control time (Dialga) but I don't fully understand what it means to control "space". 82.153.230.243 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) JiltedWii

Time and space are a pair. Time is the aspect of everything progressing, whereas Space is a more physical aspect like matter and its location. Coordinates I guess is the measure of space. Both concepts of time and space are not tangible matters, time is progression and space is existence. If you have the power to manipulate space you can cause teleporting, telekinesis, dimensional rips, and all possible physical controlling. A fine reference is Neo of The Matrix. All of his abilities involve the manipluation of space in the Matrix. If that poor summary isn't enough, perhaps you could just look up time and space. --TerraGamerX 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaedus?

I'm sorry, but WTF? Archaedus is not Aruseus' official English name. Pichumaster is completely wrong in editing Arceus to Archaedus purely on whim. I'd fix it, but I just registered yesterday. Someone else mind lending a hand? Also, this is a page from Bulbapedia that proves that I'm right. RaidonMakoto 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then revert it. If it's obvious vandalism, reverting is the secret tool. TheBlazikenMaster 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried that first. Since its locked, it won't let me revert. I fixed everything, since I remembered I had an old account here :D Aqua rust 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, anyways, its fixed now. Probably should have said it was locked, so I couldn't edit it with my new account... I plan to stick with this one anyways, but I'm glad I still had that account. RaidonMakoto 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it should be obvious that it's locked due to the lock icon in the corner. I didn't know you couldn't edit since I didn't know your account was new, that's all. TheBlazikenMaster 18:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just bolded the part in which I said I was new. Its okay though XD RaidonMakoto 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it's ok. You're too late in bolding anyway. I could have reverted it myself anyway. I don't know why the hell I didn't. TheBlazikenMaster 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of English and Japanese names

I have already challenged this organization in other articles, so I will show you what is there, and what it ought to be.

What it is: English name (Japanese Raw romanization of Japanese, Actual romanization in Japan)...

What it ought to be: English name, known as Actual romanization (Japanese Raw romanization) in Japan,...

If the English name is completely different from the Japanese, why should it be in the MOS-JA template? It is better to keep the MOS-JA template with only the Japanese name and keep as little as possible within the template. Of course there is no policy stating that the latter should be used, but there is also no policy stating that the former should be used either.

Since the English name, the Actual romanization, and the Raw romanization are distinct, using the MOS-JA format on only the Japanese name clearly marks the fact that the *actual Japanese name* is X at first glance. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "raw romanization" and "Actual romanization in japan". There's only different romanization systems. One is typically used in Japanese schools, etc, while variations on Hepburn are more popular in English speaking world. Wikipedia's manual of style says that all articles everywhere should use what they call "Revised Hepburn" and they lay out the rules for transliterating into this romanization system. These additional "translations" of the japanese names often aren't translations OR proper romanizations under any established systems. People just collapse some Us and Os and declare it a name. The Japanese don't use these names that are friendly to the American ear....they typically use the katakana itself
The "actual" japanese name is the one in katakana, and there's only one acceptable romanization on Wikipedia. After that, if we're going to include these additional translations of the names (which are Original Research and therefore should be removed completely, but I was trying to avoid even fighting that point, since I know proper formatting can be such a battle to begin with!) then they should be relegated to an extra note, filling the "extra" or "extra2" space TheBilly (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Billy, the above thesis is mistaken. The actual name is what is written in roman characters. The only reason the "raw romanization" exists is that the Japanese have to approximate sounds not native to the Japanese language. Katakana is used for "foriegn" names. Even though Pokemon are brainchilds of Japanese, they deliberately used "foreign" (non-Japanese) styles of names. "Ghos" is the Japanese name of Gastly, NOT "Gōsu." "Ghos" is not "an additional" translation of the name - it is the name. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know full well how romanization works, and can read hiragana and katakana perfectly well, that's why I oppose these bastardized extra names in the first place; having knowledge of the use of japanese characters, I know these are incorrect TheBilly (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Those *are* the names, whether you like it or not. Let me use another example... In Death Note the name of the shinigami that assists Light is "Ryuk," not "Ryūku" - the official guidebooks romanize it as "Ryuk," and English versions romanize it as such too. リューク is nothing more than a Japanese approximation of "Ryuk." The katakana for Pokemon characters is nothing more than Japanese approximations of the actual names.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't act condescending towards me ("whether you like it or not"). As an administrator, you should follow WP:CIV and avoid petty attacks on the other person. Secondly, we're not talking about Death Note, we're talking about this. I don't know about Death Note, whatever that is, so I can't have an opinion on it. What I do know is that "U"s at the end of words are commonly dropped, so that example is highly questionable. But it's not correct to spell it "dess" instad of "desu". It's not acceptable to pick and choose our own versions. Any of these alternate romanizations need to either be sourced or taken with a large grain of salt. Since there's no source it's unreaonable to go a step further and enforce them as the correct, absolute name! TheBilly (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My point is that Ryuk is not a "Japanese" name and should not be treated as such. These Pokemon names are not "Japanese" even though they were made by Japanese people. The reason why we use the template is that the characters were created by Japanese, but we would only use the katakana if the actual official romanization was unknown. Now, I have seen the opening credits of the Japanese-language Pokemon show and have seen the names... in Roman characters. I know they exist. The question is where. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy of these names aside, the original issue was one of simple formatting. This is an English-language encyclopedia, and one of the general principles to apply in all situations is that we should keep that in mind, and write for English speakers. It's just confusing to put two names together like that, e.g. Charizard, Lizardon. Unless the pokemon's last name is Charizard and his first name is Lizardon, the japanese should be separated out, as it's only of minor importance. All the Japanese should be a parenthetical, because this is an English-language encyclopedia, and Japanese names are just an extra bit of information of very minor importance. TheBilly (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, or perhaps one could try this...
Charizard, known as Lizardon in Japanese - Then a person quickly looking at the article will have no chance of mistaking it for a proper name. A person who reads carefully will easily understand what is going on. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and in the example of Charizard, "Lizardon" is the parenthetical. We have "charizard", then his name in katakana, then the romaji, then finally "Lizardon in original japanese language versions". That was the format used in many of these when the supposed "true" name differed from the romaji, and so in any contributions I made I kept that format where appropriate. Sure, we should be bold, but we should also keep in mind the goal of making a quality encyclopedia, and consistency is one factor TheBilly (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Billy, I am willing to replace every instance of the former usage. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if you're going to make sweeping changes, establish a consensus first over at Wikiproject pokemon or something - WP:CON. Be bold, but don't be reckless (another policy quote) TheBilly (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'll do it later to gauge opinion - As there is no actual manual of style (as said earlier, the old style page is gone), there is no current written pact for or against a certain style. With MOS-JA several standards *are* written in stone. Even so, it may be best to bring this with the WikiProject to see how it goes. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures would be cool

I'm not much of a Pokemon fan, (I was reading the Death article and supposedly there's a pokemon that looks like the Grim Reaper) but pictures for this article would be cool so I can see what they look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Six string brad (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree more, I'm really annoyed by that policy. What makes lists any less special than articles? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyright paranoia. And I don't like the policy either. Blue Mirage (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I am so gonna make a rant about this, useful encyclopedias HAVE pictures. How the hell are the images in this list copyright violation if pictures in non-list articles aren't? This is madness, treating lists different than article. You can count on that, I will be making a YouTube video discussing this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it either, but the reasons why can be found at User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation (especially 6.10). MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you get nintendo event

Hi guys it's me Kisame24589, and I'm wondering if anyone can tell me how to get different nintendo events for Pokemon Diamond/Pearl, thanx

I am sorry this isn't the right place to ask. Discussion pages are to improve the article, you should try to go to a community or something. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just for consideration

Since Origin Forme Giratina is mentioned on your list, why not mention Sky Forme Shaymin since CoroCoro just released the information. I didn't "research" this under the terms of Wikipedia. I just found out about it and thought it would be useful.Link toon 03 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)link_toon_03