Talk:List of generation I Pokémon

MissingNo

The description of MissingNo says this: "An error handler species, "Missing Number" was created to handle attempts at accessing nonexistent Pokémon species". I don't think MissingNo was created to prevent the game from crashing, but is simply rather just the game reading garbage data and producing something based on that (garbage in garbage out). Do the sources actually say that MissingNo was specifically created to handle attempts at accessing Pokemon #152+ or do they just say that it's a glitch? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is MissingNo included? It isn't an intended pokémon, doesn't appear in the National Dex, and the only reason for inclusion in the game is because many pokémon IDs happen to line up with Dex ID #0, with the Dex ID determining the type, name, and sprite of the pokémon. If its inclusion as a glitch pokémon is important, then what about all the other glitch pokémon in the game? If it's simply because of fame, then why would a non-real, unintended pokémon be on the normal, intended pokémon list, and not simply a note at the bottom?
Billnyethefrenchfry (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree that it shouldn't be part of the main table, but rather a short section at the bottom. Perhaps a direct copy of what I wrote at List of Pokémon#Glitch species would be appropriate. I do think it's an appropriate inclusion in this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

it also has a featured article

so it kinda has the notability required to get shoved here cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be in the list, at the least seperate it from the 151 in a list below maybe, as it was never officially recognized and wasn't meant to exist in the first place ( because it's a glitch after all). MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Side note, in the games, missingno. as far as I can remember, can evolve into Kangaskhan, which is not mentioned as it is stated to just not evolve MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

that's 'm, not missingno

'm can also evolve into clefairy cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I would approve of splitting MissingNo. onto a separate section. Personally I would also like to note the existence of 104 other glitch species, which would be even more appropriate in this list than in List of Pokémon#Glitch species (I would use that section as a model). However, I do like the current setup as well and have no strong opinions whatsoever. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I don't think mentioning the other 104 glitch species is plausible as I highly doubt there are many reliable sources for them, especially since MissingNo is the most well known out of all of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

time for the piping hot political take of the century

missingno being in this list is completely fine, because it's more notable than most of the generation's actual pokémon, and even has the aforementioned featured article

the other glitch pokémon, pretty much inherently living in missingno's shadow, don't really have much of a chance unless the rby glitch hunting scene somehow gets a sudden boost in news coverage

even if that were to happen, i think only 'm and 8f could maybe probably have a chance at start class articles, and even then 8f is an item cogsan _{(give me attention) (see my deeds)} 13:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: I'm definitely not suggesting listing them one after the other, haha. Just to mimick what we got on List of Pokémon: a line that says there are 105 of them in total. A description of 'M would be cool, but yeah, sadly I have not been able to track down a source on it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Is there a reliable source that states this? Yes it's not a good idea to list all of them one after the other, however are there any sources besides Bulbapedia that state that there are 105 glitch pokemon in total? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 14:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If you've looked at the section I'm referencing, you might've seen the 2017 Kotaku article cited there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Outside of maybe mentioning that the games had multiple glitches, I don't feel any other than MissingNo. are worth noting.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Missingno isn't a 'Pokémon' in the general sense, and I don't think it's relevant in this list. Perhaps a list of glitch pokemon could be created? If we consider missingno a Pokémon, why not the 'bad egg', or the pokestar studio opponents? At the very least it should be moved in the page to a different section. PineappleWizard123 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What is or isn't important/canon isn't decided by Nintendo, or by us, or by any particular authority. This is the kind of language and standards that evolves over time. I do still agree doing a separate short little section here would be fine. But the reason we're not including stuff like "bad egg" as "separate Pokémon" is because those had no cultural impact and did not influence people's experience with the games very strongly. They aren't broadly understood as "separate Pokémon" like MissingNo is. Probably a big part of that is because of MissingNo's unique look. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Snorlax Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. There was a general sentiment that this is a borderline case, but ultimately no consensus on whether it should remain as a standalone article. The procedural argument for a speedy close was clearly invalid and unhelpful. Charcoal feather (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Snorlax recently survived an AfD, per sourcing that showed notability, but I'm not seeing much showing Snorlax really being capable of having a standalone article. The bulk of sources I can find are promotion, and though some of it is interesting, most barely holds weight. The sources that do discuss it also don't particularly say much of substance, either. Snorlax is a clearly well-known subject, but there's nothing being said about this character that can't easily be summarized in the list right now. The article doesn't really have a clear focus, and trust me, as someone who just added what I could to the article, it's impossible to gain one with the stuff that exists out there. All that needs to be merged is a tidbit on Nishino's influence on the design, some promotion bits, and a couple of Reception sources, and it can be easily covered here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge I love Snorlax as a design...but yeah what's here is next to nothing on discussion sadly. It doesn't work in the "death by 1000 cuts" approach because there's not enough discussion to support that end. Snorlax is iconic...but not talked about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. Nothing about the AfD result mentioned that it was keep conditional to a merge, just keep period, end of story. As far as I'm concerned, further discussion is a nonstarter until a significantly later date. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• For context, the AfD was in August of last year, 8 months ago by me, not the person opening the merge discussion. AfD's are also not a safeguard against a discussion after sources have been more closely scrutinized. Given Pokelego999 has gone through some extensive effort to improve the quality of the Pokemon articles as of late, I feel their opinion and discussion both have merit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• @Zxcvbnm: This is an extremely bad faith and baseless accusation against the nominator. Are you claiming that a user who !voted keep in the Snorlax AfD is trying to do an end run around consensus? It seems to me like a user who had a change of heart, as you did with Lapras from one AfD to the next. This is also clearly not a "speedy close" rationale. What guideline or policy suggests eight months is an insufficient amount of time to open a new discussion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how it's "extremely bad faith" to cite the literal result of an AfD and that this discussion runs in the face of the consensus reached in the AfD. And to be clear bringing up Lapras is both baseless and a mischaracterization of what I did, I clearly had a weak keep the first time around, changed from outright redirect, and was not shouting from the rooftops that it should be kept.

  A user who wanted to keep the article can certainly change their mind and try to go against consensus. That isn't unprecedented at all, but it is still ignoring consensus. They are not the only person who participated in the discussion, it's not up to their whim to try to overrule it. Otherwise it becomes shopping for the right people to get the desired outcome. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out, you're assuming some really bad faith here, and you're doing it again. Please, stop. If this was directly after I could see an argument, but this is over half a year later. Surely if you feel the consensus is so absolute, it should survive a discussion after closer scrutiny, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because accusing a user of trying to do an end run around consensus with literally zero basis for doing so is a bad-faith action. You shouldn't need to have this explained to you. "It runs in the face of the consensus" what is the relevance of this to claiming that the user is trying to shop around for a better consensus or do an "end run"? I also brought up Pokelego's !vote in the Snorlax AfD because !voting Keep is evidence against your baseless claim.

  As far as this goes, opening a second discussion is not trying to overrule consensus. I know you must have read WP:CCC, so why are you ignoring it? The consensus policy says nothing about waiting a certain amount of time. Sure, if there was reasonable evidence that Pokelego was shopping for an ideal consensus, you could raise that point, but without basis, it's just a bad-faith accusation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  If "over half a year" is an incredibly long time to you to attempt to delete an article a second time, then I guess we both have different definitions of long. But since you are dead set on making me repent from this so-called accusation, then I will simply say Keep - the notability of the article has not changed at all since the AfD - and leave it at that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Look, if you can't participate in discussions without making nonsensical bad-faith accusations against other users, that's your problem, not mine. It's also wild to see you reframe what you said as a "so-called accusation." This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. This is unambiguously accusing another user of unacceptable editing practices, and it's honestly incredible that you think people don't recognize this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I change my mind on things by just sleeping on it till the next day. If we're talking about me from over half a year, I am just a completely different person in my own perception of things. People and opinions can change on a short term basis. That's just human nature. CaptainGalaxy 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate not making accusations like that. In any case, per above comments from other editors, it has been quite a bit since the last AfD (Eight months? Time really flies) and there's nothing about time limits for mergers after AfDs. AfDs also do not need to close as "keep with no prejudice to merge" or something similar for a merger to happen. Many articles in the past have been merged following AfDs, often times because it's the best way to properly cover the information presented.

In any case, I nominate this as someone who has been trying to improve the state of the Pokémon character articles as of late. I personally see it best as being covered by a merger, per the reasons in my nomination, and I opened a discussion to determine consensus as a result. There's nothing there about me attempting to "overturn consensus" or something similar. If I BLAR'd it or something I could see an argument, but this is an open discussion for anyone to talk in. You're free to disagree with the above proposition, but I'd appreciate not making hasty, bad-faith assumptions about my rationales for opening it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This is silly. "Consensus can change" is one of the basics. As is holding a merge discussion on an article talk page. I'm indifferent on merging, but the assertion that it's wrong to even discuss it is absurd. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge There is next to nothing to talk about Snorlax outside of Pokémon topic aside from being "sleepy-head but cute" comments. Even in Pokémon topic, it's only notable for being a path-blocker and as the mascot for recently Pokémon Sleep. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't merge This article has so much sourced information, it's unquestionably notable as proved at the AfD. How can you say there's nothing to say about Snorlax, the article is full of information, there's no way it could all be summarized in a list. There have even been scientific papers written about it! PseudoGhost97 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because it's notable means it warrants a standalone page. The information in this article is more than coverable at the target article, as when random bits of fluff are removed, it basically boils down to "Snorlax was highly promoted and Snorlax is pretty popular." The two sciency bits can likely get some extra room, but it shouldn't be an issue to merge it. If you would like, I can create a version of Snorlax's section of the list with the merged information in order to better convey what I'm saying. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to make a comment about process, and I'm neutral on the merge outcome. Consensus can change, and I see this discussion started in good faith by a different editor. (I might feel differently if the same editor kept pushing the same discussion over and over.) This article might be borderline as far as WP:NOPAGE, but I have no opinion on the actual merger discussion for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I feel like I am going to be wrong here, but I feel like this could be seen as similar to Koopa Troopa from a few weeks ago, where there is enough discussion of the subject in question across the whole article, than just specifically in the reception area. I feel this article covers just enough in order for this to be an independent subject. But hey, that's just me. CaptainGalaxy 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This nomination Is still ongoing? Anyway, with the current reception including the sources at AfD felt like it should be enough. Also, it may be worth adding these [1] [2], and more per WP:BEFORE (merchandises). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first source doesn't really add much, and the second is worth a mention at most. I've added the extent of merchandising already, and they don't really add to notability anyway. In any case, I'm less so arguing notability and more arguing that this doesn't really justify a split. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images

What do we think about adding individual images for each Pokémon entry? I added one for Bulbasaur to see how it looks. The way it's currently set up, a user would have to look up how the Pokémon looks on google (For the ones without their own page) PineappleWizard123 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am absolutely against it since that is an egregious usage of fair use images. I'd support potentially reusing the image from List of Pokémon for this article in particular, but for the lists overall I'd only advise a group image, if any of them even exist (All that do are from unreliable sources or inaccurate in their information) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid this idea would never fly due to Wikimedia's strict copyright adherence. The complete set of Pokémon is legally an intellectual property of Nintendo, and honestly we're all lucky they don't sue Wikimedia for listing all of their names and typings in this order. This sounds silly, but that's why we don't list the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, for example. Over 150 images is way beyond what Wikimedia is willing to present on a single page under fair use. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ignoring how this would risk making the lists a pain to load and possibly a bigger pain to edit, it would also be a waste of space that could be used for a single image with all the pokémon

even then, that'd still be going too far. and i'm not sure using the most recent models would be a good idea either. maybe the gamecube or wii games' models could work, but i wouldn't be surprised if lawsuits flew if the sv models or official artwork were used cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If such a choice had to be made, I would definitely go with Sugimori's beautiful classic art. Those are probably the best contender too once the designs go public domain in the 2080s. Can't plan too soon! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

wait until nintendo learns they can pull a disney and extend the copyright to their property to "until we get tired of it <:3c" cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Clefairy deserves-no, needs-his own page!

If you do Charizard, Jigglypuff, Pikachu and Eevee, why not Clefairy? He’s famous for the same reasons as said Pokemon. --PyukumukuAce (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability standards are a thing for fictional characters. We have to follow certain guidelines for things to have an article on here, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that offer some reception on the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

as with greninja, clefairy had an article of its own, but the coverage it got was considered lackluster, so its contents were merged into its list and clefairy is currently a redirect

also 75% of clefairy are female, come on cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

BULBAPEDIA OUR LORD AND SAVIOR 😀 [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyukumukuAce (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Meowth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 8 § Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)