Talk:List of Pokémon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of Pokémon is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 9, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2017Featured list candidatePromoted

Reviewing notable Pokemon articles[edit]

Hi, so I did this with List of Mortal Kombat characters and List of Street Fighter characters, where I and other editors share our thoughts on what Pokemon species are notable and what might need merging. This is a twofer, where we can both establish a simple consensus before any AfD or merge may be proposed, and we can try to strengthen the quality and notability of these articles. Pinging @Kung Fu Man:, @Pizzaplayer219:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Haleth:, and @DecafPotato:.

Below, I'll list all of the species, and I'll ask that participants either mark whether they want to Keep an article or Merge an article. If you are unsure, either don't !vote one or the other or mark that you intend to review it. If there are four Keeps with no Merges, I'll move it to the Keep section. Any discussion can take place in the discussion header. Even if a species is in Keep or Merge sections, you can still !vote on them - they're just put there to help keep things organized.

Bulbasaur

Charmander

Charizard

Squirtle

Pikachu

Jigglypuff

Meowth

Psyduck

Kadabra

  • Merge The lawsuit details could be moved to Uri Geller with brief mention in the Pokemon list. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's some good coverage beyond just the Uri Geller controversy that I feel justifies Kadabra's separation. Admittedly some source trimming/searching is in order, but I feel it's got grounds to stand on its own. --Pokelego999 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I feel Tarkus' assessment is appropriate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cubone

Mr. Mime

Jynx

Magikarp

Gyarados

Lapras

Eevee

Snorlax

  • Merge TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Reception is a little lacking right now. If nothing turns up after a search for sources, unopposed to Merge, though I feel Snorlax has a good chance at having some sources turn up. --Pokelego999 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Extensively searched and couldn't find anything other than a few lists. What's there is also questionable as a lot of the sources are quick blurbs.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mewtwo

Mew

Pichu

Unown

Lugia

Lucario

Greninja

Popplio

Mimikyu

MissingNo

Discussion[edit]

Of these articles, the only ones I feel confident about merging is Lugia, and I left Wooloo out since there's a merge discussion going on for it as it is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put some Keep votes in there for ones I think are obvious. I would need to take a closer look at everything else to determine notability. I'm not convinced the starters are all individually notable. I think a better vote option instead of Merge would be Review or something like that, because right now you're asking people to make a quick determination on notability. And I really don't feel comfortable saying Merge on anything; only Keep for the obviously notable ones. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I like this approach. This way no one mistakes this for a merge discussion. Which it obviously isn't, but we've already seen some people rush in and start complaining without reading the discussion. Might help with that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Set that up, adding that if you're not sure, just don't vote on that individual Pokemon. Also, to be clear, I don't think the starters are inherently notable, just in case that is a concern. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However then you have the issue that maybe there are 7 people that have concerns about Lapras, but aren't so sure in their feelings / have not had time to review enough to suggest a merge, but 3 people voted Keep, so it looks like a unanimous Keep, but in reality there is a substantial amount of doubt. Thus, this discussion should be treated as a casual place to direct focus and drive improvement, not give the appearance of a merge discussion which it has now. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I would not move species into a "Keep" section. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think this part is more to help figure out what ones are worth devoting extra energy too and which we feel may not be. Thin the pool so then they can be improved in a more concentrated manner, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns with this approach, namely that abstains are not considered, but whatever, you guys can put them into buckets if you think it's helpful. TarkusABtalk/contrib 05:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't really care that much, it was only for organizational purposes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, some like Pikachu and MissingNo. obviously will be kept, I am getting reminded of this AFD here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I also didn't want to even have a theoretical risk that I left a Pokemon whose notability isn't cut and dry. Ie, where do you cut it off? Should I exclude Charizard or Bulbasaur or Jigglypuff? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really surprised that people voted "keep" at Unown article while Mimikyu being voted as "merge". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as it is Mimikyu doesn't have sources in the article. I still have to search for some, but I feel confident that that'll change (though who knows?). As for Unown, Unown has research material on its use to "teach the biological concepts of classification and phylogeny to students." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I add my votes to these? I'm a bit confused on how to do that, haha.
Though I must ask, if we vote "merge" and that becomes the consensus, are we going to open a merge discussion and discuss further there? Regardless, though, I'll probably end up doing a deep dive for sources to see if I can't find anything for the Pokemon who are primarily merge votes by the end of this. I appreciate the nudge to reassess the articles here, though I hope this leads to attempts to improve the articles in question before we go anywhere with merge discussions, such as like what's going on with Mimikyu right now. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not a mergist, but I am a realist. So I'm not gunning for, say, Lugia to be merged, but I haven't had much success fixing the issues that make it prone to being merged. This itself won't be used to justify immediate merging, but I'll probably open a merge discussion for Lugia if there isn't any marked improvement in notability. My ultimate goal here is to have zero merges, but that's not likely I reckon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote just by just putting your signature on the list under each Pokemon TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While reviewing the articles while casting my votes, I feel Psyduck, Kadabra, Cubone, Snorlax, Gyarados, Pichu, Lugia, Lucario, and Greninja should have searches for sources performed as with Mimikyu. As of right now, their Reception is the most lacking out of all the articles, and thus, improving those articles should be prioritized, though I feel they all have potential for it. I'll probably go on a deep dive for sources myself in a few days time. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure why you voted all of them as "Keep" already if you aren't sure yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I voted Keep as they all have good potential to be kept. I left comments on the ones I felt had a good shot at being Merged that I was fine with Merging them should not enough sources come up. I prefer to keep articles unless it can be definitively proven that they can't be established separately. If that can't be accomplished, I'll probably end up falling into the Merge side. I have personal thoughts on a few of them, but I feel I'll save that for after a source deep dive. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my research, I have found that Lugia does not have adequate sourcing to show notability. @Pokelego999: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't doubt the thoroughness of your search, I'll still do a check for sources just in case something was missed. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the thing of it - I can't really take the burden of demonstrating a lack of sources, because it's impossible to show a lack. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the guy who mass nominated Doctor Who characters for afd? If you can't find anything substantial then its not notable, the same faith goes to the Pokemon articles. but you know, I'm still a bit surprised that 2 editors voted merge at Mimikyu without checking yet, thou others seems to be fine. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenish Pickle! The only reason I'm being slightly more picky here is that I know Pokemon already had massive clean ups in the past when it came to AfDs, and that there's at least some effort for notability in all of these cases, unlike the majority of the very poorly sourced articles on small topics I nominated.. Regardless, if nothing can be substantiated, I do intend to hold to the same faith I had there. So, for example, if I perform a search for sources on Lugia and find nothing, which is what Gherkin says, then I'll agree that a merge would be for the best. I'll probably end up beginning my searches relatively soon, I've been busy recently and haven't had the time to begin on these. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'm in no rush to see any articles merged, so no deadline or nothing. Just don't take too long, aight? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course, I'll probably begin within the next couple of days. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed three searches as of right now. I'll get started with the elephant in the room, Lugia. Combined with the current state of the article and my search, Lugia just doesn't have enough to work with to justify an article. The info on its development and some of the stuff in its reception section is worth keeping, but I just couldn't find anything beyond listicles giving it significant coverage. The best I found were these:
https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-go-real-shadow-lugia/ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Secret_Mythology_of_Pok%C3%A9mon/E-26EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Lugia%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT82&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Monster_Kids/bqFdEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Lugia%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT140&printsec=frontcover
And I don't think it's enough to justify the article's existence. I'll be changing my vote to merge for Lugia.
I next decided to tackle Gyarados, which, while I don't think it needs to be dealt with anytime soon, could do with some more stuff. After a search, I found these sources:
https://comicbook.com/anime/news/detective-pikachu-artist-teases-charizard-vs-gyarados-battle-photos/ https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/31/15702192/magikarp-jump-guide-gyarados https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/pokemon-prototype-omega-scyther/ https://screenrant.com/detective-pikachu-magikarp-evolve-gyarados-writer/ https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/pokemon-go-players-ignore-justin-bieber-as-they-rush-to-catch-a-gyarados-74165 https://nintendowire.com/news/2020/09/14/pokemon-gyarados-poke-lids-surf-first-into-the-kinki-region-of-japan/ https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-05-24/uniqlo-pokemon-design-contest-grand-prize-winner-disqualified/.147095 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Epistemics_of_the_Virtual/GaHKFZ4S_KMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Gyarados%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover (Iffy because of unseen pages) https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/jist/article/view/3110/2831 https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/70887/1/Published_Version.pdf#page=9
Some of these might be worth something, though some of them are talking about Magikarp a lot more than Gyarados. I'll be sticking with Keep on Gyarados, but I'm still unopposed to changing my vote.
I also tackled Lucario, though even without my search I'd still argue this article is worth keeping just based off what's there already. I won't be changing my vote on that, but I did find some more sources that may prove handy for improving the article, though I'm not sure how useful they are.
https://hypebeast.com/2021/8/lucario-poke-lid-kurashiki-city-okayama-prefecture-unveiled https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2019/jul/14/lucario-infinite-aura-looks-what/ https://gamerant.com/super-smash-bros-wiiu-3ds-lucario/ https://www.ign.com/articles/greninja-voted-most-popular-pokemon-by-players (Mostly discussing Greninja but discusses Lucario's high rankings a bit as well, admittedly there's probably a better source somewhere for this one)https://www.myscratchpadslcc.com/news/ (This one is a bit iffy in my opinion but I figured it was worth bringing up just in case)
I'll try to keep going through searches over the next few days, but I've been relatively busy, so I can't rush through these as fast as when I was doing Doctor Who AfDs a while ago. As such, I may also have missed some significant sources in places I'm unfamiliar with. If anyone finds anything that they think can help, please share. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Lugia, while the dev commentary is a bit neat it can be summed up in its notes, and I feel it's just overall too weak as an article. Beyond that though just a head's up @Pokelego999: eventhubs is marked as unreliable per WP:VG/S, and GameRant/TheGamer etc can be seen as touchy to use, especially for trying to assert notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I try to minimize GameRant sources as much as possible, but even then I still felt bringing up any potential options for sources was worthwhile here. Also didn't know that about EventHubs, thanks for the head's up.
As for Lugia, not saying it's enough for an article, but definitely capable of being summed up in the notes section. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Do you have any objections to me merging Lugia then? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Given that everyone else in this discussion has also said merge, and it's the only page here to have a 100% merge consensus so far, I'd say opening a discussion for Lugia is a given. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a discussion. Honestly I would've gone more for a BLAR, but I feel this is the safer route as there's likely to be someone to chime in due to it being their fave.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I feel opening one for Kadabra wouldn't be a bad idea either: what's there just doesn't hold up and if I cleaned out the junk references, there wouldn't be really anything outside of the controversy. I simply don't feel there's enough meat there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did a brief search just now for Kadabra. I think the argument is there to merge, given the majority of sources I found for Kadabra was about the controversy. I think there's hope to keep the article, as there may be sources I missed while scanning through them, but I agree that a merge discussion with Uri Geller may be beneficial.
I will note while searching that I found these
It's a Dark World - Google Books
These are the creepiest Pokemon to ever exist - WIN.gg
Sources are a bit iffy but might be worth something. Just sharing anything I found that yielded potential promise, really. Still, I don't think that's enough, and even then I still think the discussion should happen regardless. Thus, I agree that a merge discussion may be for the best. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Performed a search for Psyduck. I definitely think it meets GNG just from a brief search. The sources in the article aren't too too bad on closer inspection, and I found a few that could potentially be used for improvement.
https://www.cbr.com/pokemon-theory-why-misty-caught-psyduck/ https://soranews24.com/2023/05/18/pokemon-psyduck-perfectly-guest-stars-in-animated-version-of-one-of-japans-most-famous-paintings/ https://news.yahoo.com/kfc-chinas-dancing-psyduck-toy-235025262.html https://www.vg247.com/kfc-psyduck-china-toy https://comicbook.com/anime/news/detective-pikachu-pokemon-writers-reveal-demand-psyduck-film-anime/ https://bdnews24.com/society/pokemon-psyduck-becomes-symbol-of-china-s-lockdown-headaches https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Secret_Mythology_of_Pok%C3%A9mon/E-26EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Psyduck%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT22&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Deliver_Us_From_Evil/legPCKwJmbgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Psyduck%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA48&printsec=frontcover
I think Psyduck, for now, is fine where he is. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine, especially when the upcoming netflix film about Psyduck arrives. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Struck references have been added to the article.

Mimikyu

List

Pokemon Types[edit]

I propose we remove the Pokemon Type columns from each "List of generation _ Pokémon" article. The reason is three fold:

  1. It is WP:GAMEGUIDE content. And some Pokemon have alternate forms with different types.
  2. It is a concept specific to the video games. In the trading card game, the "types" are completely different. In other Pokemon media, types usually not referenced.
  3. Since the change to Vector 2022, the table has become more narrow. Reading the "Notes" column has become challenging for users with the skin, most notably logged out uses. With a lot of our merge discussions, the merged content will be placed into the Notes column. Removing Types will allow greater space for Notes, making the table shorter and easier to navigate.

TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the typing is a bit garish in those articles, but still important: it helps conjure up an image of the respective pokemon in some capacity, especially on the more narrow lists. And in the individual articles, still helps paint a better immediate picture. That said if they're kept, I'd advocate for redoing the column completely and just having it be a single line of text stating each type. This helps fix the accessibility issue (if need be we can point to the previous arguments on the infobox for why color is best not used), sort better by typing at a glance, and makes the notes column less compressed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kung Fu Man. I also agree that the typing section on the list is a bit big, but it's definitely still useful in identification of a Pokemon. I feel the best bet would be as Tarkus proposed and include a reference in the Notes box stating something like "X is typically categorized as a Normal and Psychic type Pokemon..." or something along those lines. Allows for the Notes column to be less compressed, as Kung Fu Man said, while still retaining useful identifying information. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, point 2 is false, types are very often mentioned in the anime, both with the in-universe Pokémon descriptions and their efficiency in battle (Rhydon's horn notwithstanding). (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Notes Columns' Contents in the Teahouse[edit]

There is currently a discussion ongoing in the Teahouse regarding the content in the Notes columns of the various Pokemon lists. If anyone wishes to join in the discussion, here is the link. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry About Using Color In Tables[edit]

(moved from User talk:Beland)

I notice that Koraidon and Miraidon are both Legendary Pokémon and Paradox Pokémon on the page wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pokémon. How should the color be used here? Master106 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Master106: You could either apply both colors by striping, or make up a new color that indicates membership of both categories (and add the new color to the legend). I'd probably put both § and ♭ as accessibility symbols, for consistency. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just pick legendary color coding. While they are Paradox Pokemon, it's also true that this is not a detail that is immediately evident. Just having the symbol attached should be fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think striping would be best since it would easily show they are in both categories at first glance. I'll go make the edit. Master106 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not think we need to be striping. The colors in and of themselves are pushing it a bit, but what I proposed should be perfectly adequate, especially since there is a symbol indicating it's a Paradox Pokemon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols are there, but you wouldn't get that information on first glance. Master106 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would, and I would argue that having a color scheme that only functions for two Pokemon would be harder to glean from a glance. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already have it in the edit on preview and it doesn't look that bad at all honestly. I also thought of the same problem, but looking at it. It doesn't look bad at all. Master106 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should just not overcomplicate it. I'm of the opinion that coloring in general is not necessary since the symbols are already used, so doubling up on colors is a bridge too far for me. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the edit, if you still have a problem with it, we can go with no colors at all I guess. Master106 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the info-box says the cells would be specific colors. Master106 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just go with legendary coloring myself, and include both symbols. Follow the Keep it Simple principle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. Striping seems largely unnecessary given that the symbols suffice just fine. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this added to the paradox beasts and paradox swords however? They've never been indicated as legendaries in any form of official media, as far as we know they're just paradox pokemon. NachoWindham2012 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when it was added, but it seems to be inaccurate, as they've only ever been referred to as Paradox Pokemon, not Legendary Pokemon. I don't know how to use table colors, but I'd switch them back to normal Paradox colors as soon as possible. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it seems they've been changed a few minutes ago. hold on a second, i'll be reverting that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to bring up that if this treatment is being given to Koraidon and Miraidon, similar treatment should be given to Cosmog, Cosmoem, Sogaleo, Lunala, and Necrozma as they are both legendaries and ultra beasts according to the anime and trading card game. NachoWindham2012 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a little iffy on that at the current time
the lore is terrible at deciding what they actually are, but gameplay-wise, the cosmog line are standard pokémon and necrozma is a meanie with a really high catch rate (in usum only). the most concrete thing pointing to either side is the fact that none of them get boosted catch rates with beast balls cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internally and in most promo, those four are only Legendaries, and most sources corroborate that, so I'd leave it as is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see the other two comments. Sorry. What do you all think of the edit? If you all still have a problem with it. Would you be okay if there are no colors? I personally like it, but if others have a problem. I'd be fine with that change. Master106 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be a fuddy duddy about the colors, I just think that striped colors is a bit much. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the stripes ironically make the text harder to read. I feel it'd be better to just remove the stripes and leave it with the primary Legendary colors. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if we do that then we'd have the same problem s before. Koraidon and Miraidon are not just Legendary Pokemon they are both Legendary and Paradox Pokemon. Like what if this happens again? How do we know which category takes priority. If we don't do stripes, I think we should do away with colors altogether. Master106 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have both symbols next to them. I think it's fine enough to indicate their dual status. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split the main table?[edit]

Suggestion: split the main table into two table, one above the other, so that they both fit on the computer screen without needing to scroll horizontally. I recommend splitting it right after Gen V because five tends to be viewed as a natural grouping. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been inevitable for a long time. I think the table still works now, depending on screensize (is there a guideline of table width limits we could refer to?), but it should almost certainly be split in some way once gen 10 happens. I just hope it will look alright... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how bad of an idea would having one really really long table be?
I don't like the idea of making the page ridiculously long, especially because we shouldn't add any more details to the individual species here. That's what the generation articles are for. I think we should use the width of a computer screen. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would split once gen 10 hits, but doing it after FA revoke would be ok. Toketaatalk 13:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think splitting the table in twain will affect the FL-status? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda, maybe not for the gen 1-5 but certainly the 6-9 will not be FL Toketaatalk 14:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been interpreting the word "split" completely differently! I was thinking simply having two separate tables on the same page. This is SilverTiger12's suggestion, after all. I don't think splitting the lists into two separate articles is a good idea at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could do it now then. Toketaatalk 14:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because considering how painfully long the lists of gen 1 and 5 pokémon are, i don't think it would be very 252+ spa choice specs beads of ruin tera fire helping hand overheat in sun cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that this should be done, probably sometime either before or during the next Generation, as otherwise the list will become borderline unreadable as the Generations progress. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pikachu and Eevee Be Indicated As Starters In The Table[edit]

I saw that Pikachu and Eevee were removed as starters by some IP awhile ago. So I added them again as starters, but an IP reverted my change. I believe they are starters due to Pikachu being a starter Pokemon in Let's Go Pikachu and in Pokemon Yellow while Eevee is a starter Pokemon in Let's Go Eevee all 3 games are mainline Pokemon video games. I want to see if there is an agreement. Master106 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this old source published around the Sun and Moon days which has Pikachu listed as a first partner Pokemon, so Pikachu is a definite. Which one to choose? Revisit first-partner Pokémon from past adventures with our feature news | News | Nintendo
The Let's Go site also seems to list them as such. Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Pokémon: Let's Go, Eevee! | Experience the World of Pokémon (pokemon.com)
I'd support adding them to the list as first partner mons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pokémon&oldid=1218441744"