Template talk:Pokenum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2006 December 28. The result of the discussion was to keep.
Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2008 February 1. The result of the discussion was procedural close.

Contents

[edit] Pokémon included

This is a list of the Pokémon counted in this list:

  • First-generation Pokémon through Mew (151)
  • Second-generation Pokémon through Celebi (100)
  • Third-generation Pokémon through Deoxys (135)
  • Fourth-generation Pokémon through Arceus (107)

[edit] Use of this template

This template will be used in pretty much every Pokemon creature article. Example: Bulbasaur, first sentence. -WindFish 09:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful idea. This will save countless hours of editors' time, saving them the trouble of spending countless hours editing every single Pokémon page with the correct number. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, it makes it possible for things like this to appear in the first sentence of Pokemon articles too, as was done in today's featured article, Bulbasaur. — mark ✎ 20:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Decided to lock it down for a bit, particularly as Bulbasaur is on the main page today. --Alf melmac 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 409? I think not.

Why it was at 409 I'll never know, I just assumed that, as it was 409 before Mukkuru came along. I've counted and there are only twenty-one confirmed Fourth-Generation Pokémon, making it 407. Changed. Double Dash 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be easier if we listed all the confirmed new Pokémon here (this talk page)? That would make it easier to ensure what Pokémon had been counted to make sure that nobody duplicates any or anything like that. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps this list would suffice. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the list I use, just add it to 386 and hey presto. Double Dash 11:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Because there are some Pokémon which have been confirmed but haven't been given articles on Wikipedia (because they don't have names), I've added a list to the top of this talk page which we can update when given new information. When Diamond and Pearl are finally released and we know all the fourth-generation Pokémon, we can just replace the list of individual Pokémon with a catch-all like the first three generations. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful! Very helpful indeed. Double Dash (Talk to me!) 19:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopefully vandalism has died down

As a parting gift from me as I'm dewatchlisting this template due to lack of vandalism since bulbasaur was the main page article, I adjusted Brandon Dilbeck's counting up above to use numbered lists. Enjoy. Kevin_b_er 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 500 Pokemon Confirmed

Stop changing it.

  • 386+114=500
  • It's nice Nintendo would make a nice, round number this time.

Wikipedian06 00:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • BTW, the reason the filb.de sprites get numbered to 532 is that the internal IDs aren't always consistent with the Pokedex IDs. This has happened before with Ruby/sapphire/emerald. This doesn't mean there are actually 532 pokemon. If you lok around, every website shows a maximum of 114 new sprites/entries.

Wikipedian06 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when are we using "ONLY using the Pokédex as the reference"? What Pokédex? We don't have a Dex! Just two days ago, Lividore added Mimiroru to the list without any source at all, and it's being included in the count of 417; you can check in the list above at the top of this talk page. Wikipedian06 has provided us with three very nice links (well, two—I couldn't immediately find anything in the Serebii forums), each with 114 sprites. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • and here's yet another source: movesets of all 500 Pkmn dumped from the ROM Wikipedian06 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ryuunomai.com/pokemondp-movesets.txt

A handful of fansites citing each other does not really cut WP:V. I've pretty much given up on the Shinou Pokédex list as hopeless, but let's stop relying on unreliable sources any more than we have to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how they are "unreliable" and I'll agree with you. The ROM hackers have never been wrong with the previous three PKMN games. They dump all the data, and whatever they dump out is what the game has. Wikipedian06 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The burden lies on you to justify that they're reliable. Serebii has been taken by hoaxes, filb.de is nothing more than a forum, and Pokebeach was mostly a TCG site, last I heard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
They have dumps of all the character sprites, though. Those are just about impossible to fake, especially with 500 of them.

I like "over 400" as a compromise, so we're not dithering about specifics. It'll be a couple days before we have solid confirmation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Although I've protected the wrong version, please take some time to discuss the matter here. When there is a consensus, I'll unprotect (bug me on my talk page). Please dn't keep reverting like this - the server load is huge, and it's disruptive. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest we protect the "over 400" version? It's not ideal, but it's the most inclusive: a version everyone dislikes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would be the best way to go. Though I have no idea how direct game data backed by many screenshots is deemed unreliable. Nemu 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This probably will sound stupid, but for now, why don't we just do away with a number and just have it say "many"? I know it's imprecise, but at least we can't be wrong. It would appear in an article as "Crawdaunt are one of the many fictional species of Pokémon creatures..." It's not perfect, but I'm throwing out ideas here. We shouldn't have it locked at 488, where did that number come from? --Brandon Dilbeck 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
488 is just dead wrong, and the worst possible choice. Here are the choices that would make any sense at all:
  • Over 400. Good compromise, since we don't know exactly how many there are, but there are guaranteed to be at least 400.
  • 493. This is the number most major Pkmn websites are currently reporting.
  • 500. ROM hacking has revealed that there are 500 indices in the game's code. However, of #494-500, two are eggs; three are Deoxys' alternate forms; and two seem to be alternate versions of one of the new species. This is where the 493 comes from.
      • 494 = normal Egg
      • 495 = Manafi Egg
      • 496 = Attack (FireRed) Deoxys
      • 497 = Defense (LeafGreen) Deoxys
      • 498 = Speed (Emerald) Deoxys
      • 499 = Yellow, Bug/Ground version of Minomadamu
      • 500 = Pink, Bug/Steel version of Minomadamu
  • 417. 386 Pokemon from generations 1-3 plus the 31 reported by Coro Coro magazine and the official Japanese Pokemon website.

Wikipedian06 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

488 is the highest show screenshot of a number, so I added it because it should be able to be considered reliable.Nemu 10:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am going to say we stick with 417, or whatever the last version was before everyone started hacking? It's precise, it's definite and it's not speculatory. Highway Daytrippers 15:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Can it be changed to 493 since it's certainly been long enough? Nemu 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for that? If not, then of course we can't. —Celestianpower háblame 20:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you consider a "reliable source"? It's highly unlikely that Nintendo will have occasion to say "There are 493 pokemon!" any time soon. Maybe we should just keep it at 490, since it's easy to show that Manafi has that number. -Amarkov babble 14:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
At least with "many", we don't have any chance of being wrong. (Vague? Yes. Wrong? No.) --Brandon Dilbeck 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I consider these to be reliable sources, nothing more, nothing less. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 17:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you consider this [1] to be reliable? It's used as a source many time during the two or three Pokemon featured articles, and it's been a long enough time that it wouldn't be full of false information. Nemu 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Nintendo has never officially declared that there are 386 Pokemon, and they wouldn't do anything like it. Neither would any source that Nintendo supplies information to, e.g. Coro Coro. They've stopped announcing the number of Pokemon altogether after G/S/C last I know, and even when they do, the counts exclude "event/promotional Pokemon" like Mew, Celebi, etc. The 493 count has been consistent for nearly a week now across dozens of fansites -- it's time to get along with the damn program. Otherwise, people will stop using this template and make the necessary edits on the individual pokemon pages. Wikipedian06 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We probably should wait until someone actually gets Mr. base 120 before changing it to 493, since it technically doesn't come from the game, it comes from the ROM. For now, 'many' should be fine.-Amarkov babble 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's a problem. This article is for pokemon number 493. If there aren't 493 pokemon, then someone messed up. -Amarkov babble 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so long as we're not going to edit war, I'll unprotect. —Celestianpower háblame 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about?

I was thinking, why don't we include the Unown species? Instead of 493 how about if we put "520 (493 unique)" to clarify why there more numbers in the ROM dumps. Numbuh 201 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that's not why there are more numbers in the ROM dumps. There are more numbers in the ROM dumps because of Deoxys forms, forms of other pokemon, and both normal and Manafi eggs. Besides, "Bulbasaur are one of the 520 (493 unique) species of pokemon..." sounds really awkward, and nobody is going to be willing to change the Pokestart template and then go through each and every one of the species articles to change the sentence structure. And the different Unown/Deoxys/whatever forms aren't seperate species, anyway. -Amarkov babble 23:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nah, all Unown are of one species; there's just some that look different than others (like Spinda). --Brandon Dilbeck 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy

This template is currently at 493 Pokémon, which includes 107 fourth-generation Pokémon, but if you go to the Fourth-generation Pokémon category, you can see that there are 108 in the category. There's an error somewhere. Anyone? --Brandon Dilbeck 16:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Chimeglebell. How the hell that happened, I have no idea. -Amarkov babble 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No matter, it's fixed now! --Brandon Dilbeck 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary?

Why is it necessary that every Pokemon article state the total number of Pokemon? This template invites vandalism that gains wide exposure, where otherwise the vandalism would only be on a couple of articles. It has been used repeatedly to display obscene images, which are then propagated to all the Pokemon articles, which are in addition more likely to be frequented by children than articles on, for example, The Sopranos or the Mexican Revolution. In the four minutes on which this image of a penis was displayed on the 500+ Pokemon articles, dozens if not hundreds of people saw this image where otherwise it would only be the handful of people or no people who happened to load a single page in that time period, and semi-protection is not a guarantee against this. I don't see any benefit to having the total number of Pokemon displayed on every article. —Centrx→talk • 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will start removing it soon. —Centrx→talk • 08:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Or you could not. It gives the articles a neat and stable opening. It's fine. If you really feel the need to have it not be vandalized, try to get it protected or something. It doesn't need to be edited for a long time anyways. Nemu 11:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How is "Venusaur is a fictional species of Pokemon creature" not neat and stable? Actually, this way these intro's are written now is inaccurate. Venusaur is a Pokemon species, but it is not "one of 493 Pokemon species" unless what Venusaur is, fundamentally changes every time the number of Pokemon changes. —Centrx→talk • 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Bringing it up at WT:PCP before removing it is really a better idea. -Amarkov blahedits 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism happens. It's unfortunate that some people want to target this template, but we shouldn't delete it just because some people mess with it. I don't think we should give this template special attention just because it may be frequented by younger readers—I'm of the opinion that articles are supposed to cater to broader demographics and not to specific target audiences. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that there is no reason why every single Pokemon article needs to have the full number of Pokemon stated in it. —Centrx→talk • 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there's some reason over at the Wikiproject you're just not aware of? -Amarkov blahedits 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Because we need it to make our articles GAs and FAs, so that we have some real-world perspective on fictional species articles. Remember that? Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed above someone suggested simply saying "over 400". Wouldn't that be much better, and address both concerns? -- Ned Scott 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Centrx's main point is that it's a useless, vandalism-inviting template, not that it's too specific. There's no reason why we couldn't keep exactly 493. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of the first people to edit and use this template, I believe I can clear this up. The template was created when the first few Diamond and Pearl Pokémon had been announced, and a few more were being revealed every so often. I don’t think the number of Pokémon was on every species page at that time, but it was already on a few dozen pages, and was about to be used for more( including the formal intro to each species page, since we were trying to improve them to stave off deletion). Rather than change them all every time the number increased, we devised and implemented this template.
Obviously, with all the 4th-gen Pokémon known and counted, this is no longer an issue. I see no major reason the template can’t be substed now. Of course, there are a few things to bear in mind:
1) We’ll have the same issue next generation, assuming there is one, and the template will have to be re-inserted at that time into all articles which mention the total number.
2) Unused, the template will be deleted, and its edit history will be lost.
Still, if someone is willing to commit to the work of getting it undeleted and re-inserting it at that time, we might as well phase it out for now. Otherwise, it should just be fully protected on the grounds that it won’t legitimately change for 3 years or more. --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that there is no reason to have to say the exact number of pokemon in every single pokemon article. Do we have the number of baseball players listed in every single article about a baseball player? -- Ned Scott 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So get rid of it instead of substing, who cares? This talk page is NOT the place to discuss whether each species page should have the total number. This Talk page is for discussing THIS TEMPLATE. If you want to discuss the overall structure of species pages, go to WP:PCP. --WikidSmaht (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The two are directly related. WikiProjects do not hold authority over articles, this discussion does not need someone's approval. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The people who maintain this template do not necessarily employ its use in articles. You seem upset over the fact that seemingly every Pokémon article uses this template. You ought to bring this up where all the Pokémon articles are discussed, at the Pokémon Collaborative Project. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already notice of it at Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project, and in that notice the conversation is directed here. This talk page is for discussing the purpose and use of this template, and any circumstances about it. —Centrx→talk • 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because a template can be vandalized, doesn't mean it should be removed. Vandals should not in any way affect the content of articles. Heavy use templates should be semi or full protected. --Cat out 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There is simply no reason to have this template on every Pokemon article. —Centrx→talk • 07:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As of December 2006

Like any information that is expected to change over time, I propose we use the Wikipedia:As of notation in this template. This makes it clear to people the number isn't fixed and wanr people who read a printed or stable version that the information may now be outdated. —Ruud 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be really ugly and would remove the flexibility of how the template can be used in context. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Pokémon

Okay, I might be a total noob when it comes to Pokémon, but the statement that their are 493 species of Pokémon (which is now stated in around just as many articles) seems incorrect to me. It is not based on some official sources from Nintendo, but based on the fact that a total of 493 different species have been seen in video games. This does not allow one to infer that there exists a total of 493 different species of Pokémon in the fictional Pokémon universe, but only that, as of December 2006, Nintendo has designed and marketed a total of 493 different species. —Ruud 12:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe there was a source which said something along the line of "493 Pokemon". -Amarkov blahedits 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unreliable"

How can this number be "unreliable" when there is knowledge of it being the current known number of Pokémon up through the most recent games, Pokémon Diamond and Pearl? I understand that people don't feel that this template should be used at all, but just because the New York Times or CNN or anything, but at sources reliable within the Pokémon community list the new 107 creatures from Diamond/Pearl along with the 386 known from the previous games.

In a nutshell, the information provided by this template is reliable until the next series of games/movies comes out, and the number jumps up to 500, confirmed or unconfirmed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above? —Ruud 02:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the fact that the number keeps changing, it looks like this is just some fan website. —Centrx→talk • 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Centrx, i'd like you to review to requirements for non-scholarly sources at WP:RS and tell me where it expressly fobids fansites. In fact serebii.net fulfills the requirements of stability, independent fact checking, replicability, and recognition. It is not just "some" fansite. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This are rules to determine if a source is a reliable source, not to determine if it is not. Please tell me where it expressly includes fansites? —Ruud 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Does it expressly include everything that is a reliable source? No, of course not; that would be too long, and there would always be one more thing that was forgotten. So, the question is indeed "why isn't this a reliable source?" -Amarkov blahedits 15:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
...hmmm... no... I'm wondering why it is, just look looks like any other random website to me (which generally aren't considered reliable sources.) So, please enlighten me why this website is. —Ruud 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)