Talk:List of Pokémon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Split from Pokémon

Resolved

Okay, I've moved the list from the original article to this page. Hopefully soon I'll have time to format the two lists from Gold/Silver and Ruby/Sapphire. --Faradn 00:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • List of Pokémon Redundant; list already available in Pokémon article. --Faradn 09:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and redirect to Pokémon. Saul Taylor 11:14, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and link from Pokemon. Anthony DiPierro 16:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect -- Graham :) 13:06, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep list page, remove list from Pokémon. I like the format in the article better than that in the list. --zandperl 15:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - people will search for Pokémon not for "List of..." Even if they didn't, it would hit on Pokemon and that's what they want. - Texture 16:11, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, uh, people will search for aircraft carrier and not for List of aircraft carriers, but that doesn't mean we don't have the latter. It's important to structure useful information in different ways to meet people's needs. That said, List of Pokémon is useful but needs to be organized better (preferably by someone who understands the Pokedex better than I do). So, after all that, Keep. RadicalBender 16:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • You make my argument for me... in aircraft carrier is a wiki link to List of aircraft carriers but even if that didn't exist (as I suggest for Pokemon) then the aircraft carrier page (not the list of...) has a link to "Haze Gray & Underway, World Aircraft Carrier Lists: " - Texture 16:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • I can't figure out what point you're arguing for. You're saying we shouldn't reproduce information that's found elsewhere on the internet? Maybe we should all pack up and go home then! I grant you, it is a duplication of the information found on Pokémon, but it should be offloaded to the list page. RadicalBender 17:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Could be useful to someone, and a list that long is too cumbersome to be on the original Pokemon article. Everyking 19:26, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. If we're going to list every goddamn imaginary Middle-Earth king ever, we might as well have the Pokemon too. jengod 00:24, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • That's not the point. The point is that we have two lists. We should keep one and redirect the other. RickK 03:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; move list in main article to this page. -Sean 05:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep separate list, remove list from main article. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:09, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Johto system?

Resolved

The Johto region index (the one with Chikorita as #1) is not given. Perhaps this should be included...? kelvSYC 04:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good question. While not a numbering system per se, I think it should still be included, if only for the sake of Pokémon like Crobat and Magby. Especially since there's a redundant "Pokémon from Gold/Silver" section already... I think we should re-order that one, and change the header a bit. - Bulbaboy 22:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps also a small footnote that it is assumed that the Pokémon that are not in a regional Pokédex is numbered accoring to the National Pokédex. (eg. Treecko is #252 in the Johto Pokédex, Bulbasur #203 in the Hoenn Pokédex) kelvSYC 04:29, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Japanese names

Resolved

Consider merging this article with List of Pokémon by Japanese Name


List of Pokemon by Type

Resolved

I am requesting a page that explicitly lists pokemon by type. Please help to expand the page: List of Pokémon by Type (This page was created from a list of stub entries on specific types, which now redirect to Pokémon types) Allyunion 22:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is handled by Category:Pokémon species by type, which is linked from the list page. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be split.

Resolved

"WARNING: This page is 64 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB."

Hm. I think this page should be split into three separate articles; List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number, List of Pokémon by Johto Pokédex, and List of Pokémon by Hoenn Pokédex number. Then, this page could be used as a disambiguation page, linking to the three mentioned above along with the other Pokémon lists (List of Pokémon by name, List of Pokémon by stage, List of Pokémon by type, and List of Pokémon by species). --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:44, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... no one's responded or complained for over a week, so I think I'll get started on that. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 19:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
...or, maybe I'll just wait for someone to answer my question at the Village Pump. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 19:55, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm going to get started. I mean it, this time. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 23:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion about habitats in next-gen

LeafGreen and FireRed added the Habitat system of categorization in the Pokédex. I was pondering making an article for it for completeness. Questions? Comments? Complaints? Concerns? DanPMK 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't, given that the Pokémon by species and Pokémon by color lists were just deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Just wanted to check in before I did anything. DanPMK 06:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think, unlike color, this might actually enhance understanding of the Pokémon creatures. Hmm. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no, since those classifications seem to be entirely arbitrary in some cases, like Paras - who is classified as a "Forest Pokémon" but is only found in the wild (the man-made Safari Zone not included) in Mt. Moon, a cave - and the Pidgey family - also "Forest Pokémon", but found in a variety of places. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well all the info is arbitrary. Names, species, etc.. The important thing here is that in this case, it is arbitrary on the part of the people who invented the whole damn thing in the first place. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a small problem, but I fixed it

Resolved

When put into Japanese name order, Houndoom (へルガー, Herugā) appeared at the top, above all the ア's (A's), when it should go between Heracross (ヘラクロス Herakurosu) and Bayleef (ベイリーフ Beirīfu). This happened because the "he" kana in "Herugā" was written in hiragana (へ) instead of katakana (ヘ) - an easy mistake, as the two are essentially the same (there's about a pixel of difference). And since this system puts all hiragana before all katakana, it showed up at the top of the list. I fixed it already, though - just leaving a log in case anyone else noticed it and was wondering what was wrong. :) ~e.o.t.d~ 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Resolved

Is there any foreseen purpose for the Evolution column? --Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Scroll down the list a bit, once you've clicked it, it puts together the evolutionary trees of Pokémon who are separated by the current national Pokédex. It's not obvious at the top, but notice that Pichu is now above Pikachu, instead of in the 100s. I think it's a great solution to the "Stage" issue everyone's in a furor over. :) ~e.o.t.d~ 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a clever idea, but I really think the cells ought to appear to contain something. The list looks incomplete without any visible text inside. But I don't have any ideas about what to display... --Brandon Dilbeck 06:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, that was my original thought. The anon who added the next step to each had a good idea, but that would widen the column unnecessarily, since the hidden values I put in would still have to preceed the name, and be placed on the other side as well to balance out the centering effect.( I centered the table so that we can put something in there eventually, because if it was right-aligned it would look awful when we do.) I just don’t want to let the stageists get hold of it, that would be awful. If the blank is too ugly, we could use a placeholder dash for now. For instance, in the Bulbasaur column, we would enter “<font color="#f9f9f9">001a</font>&mdash;<font color="#f9f9f9">001a</font>”, and it would display:
National Pokédex № English name Japanese name Rōmaji Trademarked Romanization Johto Pokédex № Hoenn Pokédex № Ranger Browser № Sinnoh Pokédex № Evolution
#001 Bulbasaur フシギダネ Fushigidane Fushigidane #226 - R-001 - 001a001a
but we will see. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for width comparison and functionality demonstration:
National Pokédex № English name Japanese name Rōmaji Trademarked Romanization Johto Pokédex № Hoenn Pokédex № Ranger Browser № Sinnoh Pokédex № Evolves To
#001 Bulbasaur フシギダネ Fushigidane Fushigidane #226 - R-001 - 001aIvysuar001a
#002 Ivysaur フシギソウ Fushigisō Fushigisou #227 - R-002 - 001bVenusaur001b
#003 Venusaur フシギバナ Fushigibana Fushigibana #228 - R-003 - 001c-001c
#025 Pikachu ピカチュウ Pikachū Pikachu #022 #156 R-023 #104 025bRaichu025b
#026 Raichu ライチュウ Raichū Raichu #023 #157 R-024 #105 025c-025c
#172 Pichu ピチュー Pichū Pichu #021 #155 R-022 #103 025aPikachu025a
I actually like the way it looks, even though the invisible values do look ugly when you highlight them. It just barely fits, meaning that no new columns could be added, but I don't see what else meaningful could be put on there unless another numbering system pops up (which we probably don't have to worry about for years anyway). ~e.o.t.d~ 08:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That actually is pretty cool, but, um, grammar? “Evolves into”. This isn’t Digimon. :-P
And my big concern is that that will mean the column will be eight characters wider than the longest name of a Pokémon that evolves from something else. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem...we could use invisible numbers according to the new card system, but that would only reduce it to six. ~e.o.t.d~ 17:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Would this <span> thing of Brandon’s work? --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Answering myself: It would, and does. But now the column is TOTALLY empty, output-wise. So let’s hurry up and put something in it. I’m thinking “Evolves from” might be better than “Evolves into”, otherwise, as Cool Cat pointed out below, branch evolution will be a pain. But with “from”, there’s no issue, just one simple entry in each row, no need to inflate Eevee’s row hugely, or anyone else’s at all. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What if, instead of what a Pokémon evolves into, we list what a Pokémon evolves from? This would be good for Pokémon with branching evolution, especially Wurmple, whose evolutions evolve a second time. Also, I thought I would mention that including little notes such as "(as of Pokémon Gold and Silver)" within the cells would be cluttersome, but I'm not entirely opposed to adding little asterisks or daggers which address this point below the table. For example, Pikachu's row would contain "Pichu*" in the evolves from column. Steelix's row would have "Onix*" in the evolves from column. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, that definitely seems like the most prudent course of action. I’m not sure we need the asterisks and daggers, though. That information is already in their articles, and if we were going to include since when, I think we’d have to put the methods too, which is too much info. Let’s just add the “evolves from” info for now. Do you want to do it, or shall I? --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You go ahead. If you haven't noticed, the only edits I've made to the list are mainly universal replacements, such as turning all occurences of something into something else. I don't have the drive to type in all the names. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL, neither do I. I’ll be copying most of them using Ctrl+drag-and-drop. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added them to the list. Anyone wanna double-check for errors? --WikidSmaht (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
All's checked and everything's perfect. :) WikidSmaht, you're awesome. There's just one more small thing that's bugging me, and that I would fix if I had any idea how to use the span thingies: in the Rōmaji column, Arbok (Ābokku) is sorting above Ekans (Ābo) which shouldn't be happening. I don't think there's any more weird things in that column, though. I think we may finally have this page perfect (except for, you know, the coming influx of English D/P names...). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. I put an invisible space after the invisible "Abo". It was sorting as "AboĀbo" (now "Abo Ābo") and "AbokkuĀbokku", basically.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 04:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, I added small daggers to Manaphy's and Phione's evo slots, with a footnote briefly explaining their relationship - though they aren't technically connected by evolution, I think it's a good idea to indicate that they are related. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I never even thought about the branching evolutions when I did my example. :P Yes, "Evolves From" is definitely the way to go. Don't think we need the asterisks or daggers though (same reason as WikidSmaht).
Also, "cluttersome" is my new favorite made-up word. :) ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You should all be very happy to hear that the newest card game set utilizes a new (yes, ANOTHER) numbering system. It's the same as the national dex, but with them in the order used in this Evolution column. We can finally make something visible. For example, in this new system, Cleffa, Clefairy, and Clefable have been confirmed to be 36, 37, and 38, respectively. I wonder if the system will ever be used elsewhere. For the released numbers, see here. DanPMK 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Something like that probably will get done in the games eventually, but not that exact system: notice that it gives each Unown variant its own number. ~e.o.t.d~ 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL, no one tell AMIB, he would have a heart attack. Cool tho. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat's approach to the Evolution solution

I think sorting alphabetically based on "child"/"pre-evolved" from of the species species (ex: Pichu) is the best solution. Species that don't evolve such as Articuno should not be displayed at all. Branch evolution of course will be a pain. Eevee is evil :P --Cat out 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that when I created it, but I didn’t like the way it looked. Also, the sorting mechanism only allows us to re-order the table, it can’t make list items appear or disappear( a.f.a.I.k.). --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue

Resolved

Another issue I have is that as the way things are now, it's not apparent when one evolution chain ends and when another chain begins. That is, I'm afraid someone might think that Charizard evolves into Squirtle, or be unable to tell that Kangaskhan does not evolve at all. There is nothing to tell the chains apart, which I think is essential if we're going to allow people to sort by evolution. I have no ideas for what to do other than displaying the name of a Pokémon common to the chain. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about that; for one, the names of Pokémon within a family are often similar enough to keep it clear, and when they're not, all the names are linked to their respective pages, so if anyone's confused they can just check a little further. ~e.o.t.d~ 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about that too. I am a bit concerned, but I decided that it was OK, as dragonfly said, people can click to see what’s what. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Final issues

Resolved

A couple last things, based on changes I reverted or implemented just now. I had specific reasons for the way I put things both originally and currently. This discussion is to determine whether my reasoning is valid or not. I’m signing each item, so we can discuss each one’s merits and flaws individually, rather than having a mess with everybody replying to everything at once.

  • I prefer to leave the name of the last column “Evolution” instead of “Evolves from”. That’s why I included the top note clarifying what information is provided for each Pokémon. If the column is labelled “Evolves from”, you would expect it to sort by what each one evolves from( either alphabetically or numerically, grouping all Pokémon the evolve from “None” together), but that’s not what it does; rather, it sorts them by their evolutionary chains. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like having the fossils in there - the column is intended to link together families of Pokémon - and it's entirely possible to understand that Kabuto and Kabutops are related without knowing that Kabuto can be cloned from a fossil. As for Eggs...I'm not sure how I feel about that part yet. Something about it seems not quite right, but I'm not sure what. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I left gender symbols on the Pokémon that use the Awakening Stone. I feel this is an important distinction. While method and generation are very technical things about evolution, in other cases of branching evolution, any member of species A can evolve into species B. For instance, a Bellossom can be evolved from any Gloom, and any Eevee can evolve in any of seven ways( or more yet to be discovered). I thought it was important to note in these cases, though without going into the details, that only half the specimens even have the potential to evolve differently. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense then. I've added genders for Minomutchi and Mitsuhoney's evolutions too.[1]M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider the "50%" marks in Sil/Cascoon's evo columns necessary. Granted, the random values thing is an entirely unique method of determining the evolutionary path, but there are a lot of other methods of evolution that are equally unique, but aren't indicated in the list; gender, on the other hand, is fine, because it's a factor in more than one kind of evolution (level-up and stone), and because the gender marks take up very little space. If any inquiring minds happen to wonder what exactly determines a Wurmple's evolutionary path - well, that's what the links to all the individual articles are for. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well,the gender-specific notes are there because those Pokémon can only be evolved from that half( in one case, eigth) of the members of the preceeding species. In other branching evolution, either branch can evolve from ANY pre-evolved specimen, depending on the choice and actions of the trainer, where in the case of Silcoon and Cascoon, each can only be evolved from half( statistically) the members of any given group of Wurmple. But, as you said, if they want to know why that is, they can read the article. I used the <small> tags so it doesn’t take up much more space than the gender symbols, though I wouldn’t object if it were even smaller. It doesn’t stretch the column in any case, though. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work, knew I was forgetting something. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • [3rd item wasn’t Evolution-related so I moved it down to #2007 Toy Fair.]
  • I switched the daggers and asterisks. It’s a bit messier, but the Manaphione note is permanent, while the tentative name note is, well, not. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree there - I was just too lazy when I put the footnote in to go and change all the asterisks. :) ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorting

Originally a branch of the evolution discussion.

Resolved

On a marginally related note, in the English name and Rōmaji sections, unknown names currently appear above all the known ones, because "?" apparently comes before letters. :P Should we do anything about this, like either using a dash as in the number columns, or using invisible front-and-end dashes (-?????-, to keep it centered)? Yeah, the US release is less than 3 months from now, but it should still probably be done. 蜻蛉の目e.o.t.d 10:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find a decent way of moving all the new Pokémon to the bottom of the list--dashes and asterisks didn't work, and even leaving the field blank still put the name to the top. I think the only way to pull this off would be to put an "invisible" "Zz" for each unknown Pokémon so that they're sorted after Zubat. Not a beautiful solution, but at least they wouldn't appear at the top. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...that's annoying that so many non-alpha character gets sorted before the letters. I didn't try them all, but of the ones I did try, the vertical bar was the only one that worked, and that one actually makes the code even longer than with the others (because it needs < nowiki > tags to show up and influence sorting). 蜻蛉の目e.o.t.d 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... the bullet(•) I used for blank Ranger numbers sorts after alphanumeric characters... --WikidSmaht (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. I went ahead and replaced all "???" strings in the table with a single bullet point. I think it looks simple and makes the point. Can I suggest we replace all the other "-"s in the table (those in the Dex Number columns) with single bullet points? Then, with the rest of the numbers, we could do away with the "#" signs. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Know what? I'm just gonna go ahead and do it. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool! It worked! Good idea, WikidSmaht! Instead of bullets, I used middle dots (·), which are smaller and less conspicuous! And know that? They look a lot like the hyphens we were already using! It feels a little weird at first because I was used to seeing all those # signs, but I was able to remove them because the middle dots sort after the alphanumeric characters. One thing is that the Ranger numbers look a little weird ( R-· ). My suggestion might be to remove the R- prefix, but I wouldn't know if that's a bad idea. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the numbers without the # sign look strange, but I guess it works. Having the tiny middle dot is really distracting, though, for some reason.
On a side note, I also noticed that Ekans, Arbok, Armaldo, Espeon, Eevee, Feraligatr, Swellow, and Furret were all sorting to the bottom of the list in Rōmaji mode, because their Rōmaji names all start with macron-topped vowels. I added some invisible values to make sure they end up where they should. There might be some issues with internal macroned vowels screwing up the order as well, but those don't mess it up near as much as the initial ones did, and they're probably harder to take care of with invis values, too, so we probably shouldn't worry too much about those. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, strike that last one. I'm going to at least try it - we can always revert it if it looks too screwed up. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 :( The issue I have with having "invisible text" is that it's problematic if for example someone were to copy and paste the table. Then they might have those invisible letters show up and maybe not notice it. Do the other Wikipedia skins display tables in the same color? Because if they don't, then the invisible trick doesn't work. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That sums up my reservations exactly, which is why I was inclined to ignore it in the first place. If I do get it all organized, it won't be for a while anyway (I'm doing it in Word so I don't have to do it all in one go). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 04:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I found a solution on this page! We needed to implement a sortkey through the use of some kind of <span> thingy. Turns out that doing a little research can pay off! --Brandon Dilbeck 07:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Does that work? Could it be applied to my sort values in the evolution column too? If so, go ahead and implement it, it’s perfect. Then we can go about deciding what visible text to include without worrying about balance or stretching issues. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I preferred it with the # sign. It is definitely acceptable without, from a technical and informational perspective, just, meh. And I really don’t like the use of middle dots instead of hyphen/dashes or bullets. Bordering on hate, actually. · just doesn’t have enough visual weight. At first glance, you could mistake those boxes for being empty, which we already agreed would be bad. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason why there are middle dots is because they sort after alphanumeric characters—so do bullets, but they looked distracting and unattractive. I thought middle dots were just small enough to be inconspicuous without leaving the cells empty, but now that we know the secret of the <span>, someone could replace the middle dots with dashes, but the coding would be very large and bulky because of it. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I take back what I said about the bullets being unattractive. They aren't that bad. [2] --Brandon Dilbeck 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, guess what! En dashes (–) sort after alphanumeric characters too! And they look like regular dashes (we'd been using hyphen-minuses), except they're a bit longer. They work whether the character itself (–) or whether it's typed as &ndash;. May I suggest this if we're going to replace the middle dots? I strongly advise against filling the entire table with <span>s. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There. I just replaced it myself, and if you guys hate it, then revert it. In the coding, I used &ndash; to express the en dashes. In case you don't know, typing that in HTML code will replace it with an en dash. The reason I used &ndash; in the code was because it's not easy to tell hyphen-minuses apart from en dashes in fixed-width fonts like those used in the Wikipedia edit boxes. I'm sorry if I'm getting too technical here. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ack, dude, please remember to indent your comments when you reply to someone. Even(/especially) when replying to the first comment of a section or another comment made way back earlier in the discussion. It makes the discussion much easier to follow.
Anyway, yeah, very nice work, that looks better, and I agree about using code instead of just the unicode character, but R-– is a no-no. Blanks in the Ranger column need to be either R-•( my orginal solution and still my preference) or the en dash with no R-. And, in the names column, I think we should still put a question mark, because it isn’t that they don’t have English names, it’s just that said names are unknown. Maybe ·?·, so it sorts right?
Also, on the subject of an entire column with <span>s, did you see my earlier comment about my evolution sort values( above, in response to your original discovery of <span>)? A column of <span>s may be clunky, but in that case perhaps it’s worth it. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm throwing my vote in for the en dash with no R-, because R-• looks really clunky to me (mostly because the dash and dot are centered on different horizontal lines). And I'm totally liking the idea of using <span>s to sort the evolution column while still having text in it (even though I really don't have a clue how the whole <span> thingy works...). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WikidSmaht, I like using en dashes instead of R-• much more because it just looked clunky before. The en dashes are very sensible. And as for the name column, I suppose it's better to have ·?· because novice editors to this article may be confused with the span tags and maybe not edit it correctly. For simplicity's sake, what you added will probably work better. And it's not too important, because it shouldn't be too long anyway until we have all the English names. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you look you’ll see that I already, sadly, came to the same conclusion as both of you before you even commented. :‘-p I rather like the look of ·?·, so I’m glad you’re OK with it. I also added {{fact}} tags because those names don’t seem to come directly from Jakks Pacific, but rather from what Serebii.net says Jakks is saying.
I’m going to go ahead and <span> to the Evolution column, so let’s all scroll up to the previous section and decide what visible text to use. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

New list

Resolved

Having a list that tells us which species is found on which version (or better route) could be quite useful.

I think we need a new page for the list. It should be a combined version like this one. I just do not want all lists to be merged into one page because I fear the page code will be too complicated and hard to load.

--Cat out 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That starts getting into game guide territory, which is frowned upon. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not think so. Its just telling where they dwell, it is not a FAQ or walkthrough. --Cat out 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but explain that a bit more: what part of that isn't game guide info? Where else can you normally find that information besides FAQs and game guides?
Besides, look at how wide the list is now. Where would we put that info even if it did deserve a place on the list?~e.o.t.d~ 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
A game walkthrough gives detailed information on how to beat a game such as who to talk to to receive that critical item. A FAQ is similar just in Q and A form. Finding Pokemon is not critical in winning the game so it should not be on any Walkthrough/FAQ. Just like information on minor characters, this is just verifiable information. You can consider this more of an info on individual routes (they are not notable to have individual articles on them but a list should be ok).
Yes, I suggested a new page for that very reason.
--Cat out 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You know what "game guides" are, right? Those thick books you find in gaming stores that are published by the game's company and a few third-party publishers. The ones that have lists of what Pokémon appear where, and usually have information about things along all the different routes.
That's what we mean when we say "game guide". And the stuff you're talking falls neatly into that category. You can try getting it in, but I'm telling you that it won't stay for long if you do. Nothing against you at all, by the way. It's just that, well, that stuff just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ~e.o.t.d~ 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Do whatever you please with my suggestion. --Cat out 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn’t a bad idea, Cat, it’s just not what Wikipedia is for. Bulbapedia, on the other hand... --WikidSmaht (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not lecture me what wikipedia is and what it isnt. Bulbapedia is none of my concern. --Cat out 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn’t a lecture, it was a friendly attempt to explain why we disagree with you about creating such a list on Wikipedia. Chill. I suggested Bulbapedia because it’s a project I thought you might like, I and a lot of others interested in Pokémon go there to find and catalogue information that is too specific or technical for the Wikipedia. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, take a look at Cat’s original suggestion. He/she was suggesting we create a new page for his/her game guide-y list, not try to shoehorn it into this article. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, wouldn't that be a rather large list? WP:NOT aside, you'd have to list the location for each Pokémon, on every route or location, for every single game (and that includes variation between a pair of versions). And in order for that list to be complete, you'd also have to list the rarity of each Pokémon in each location, as well as what time of day it appears (if applicable). This would be a lot of information for just one Pokémon, but there are almost 500 of them. --Brandon Dilbeck 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A single line would cover each species. You can see it as a detailed comparasion of versions. I think rarity isnt all that important. --Cat out 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think rarity is rather important. Does Feebas spring to mind? They're so rare that they can only be found on just some random half a dozen out of hundreds of water tiles—something I'm sure many people have found frustrating when attempting to catch Feebas. (I'm lucky I caught one before I read about how rare they are!) I'm just not convinced that a list like this would make it past Wikipedians who are set on removing game guide material from Wikipedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Their individual rarity can be explained in individual species entry pages. I do not see how such a thing is a game guide and not human knowledge. --Cat out 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The same way version exclusivity is. See, location information is useful for people looking to catch a certain Pokémon, it doesn’t provide much information about the Pokémon. The same could be said for everything in this list except the names, National #s, and evolution, I suppose, to a degree, though in this case it’s not as strong an argument as the extra numbers give a basic idea of what regions the Pokémon live in. I guess my issue is that “Route #” or “____ City” are less helpful for understanding a Pokémon than the Region or the general environment it lives in. In tems of real world creatures, we don’t describe their habitats by the highways they live along or the towns they are present in, we give more general locations like “the jungles of Africa”, “Antarctica”, “Parts of the Eastern United States”, etc.... When we do give more specific locations like “the Sahara” or “the Mariana Trench”, it’s because those are well-known environments. Most people will be familiar with them, or able to learn about them by reading their Wikipedia articles. Unless we create articles for each Route in the Pokémon universe( I would point to Bulbapedia again, but I don’t want to offend you by suggesting that such a lowly wiki might deserve a bit of your attention), telling non-players where the Pokémon appear does not enhance their understanding of the species. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We have maps explaining the habitat of individual species (Ostrich). See: Extinct birds for example of such info presented on lists. Where they used to live and date they became extinct is encyclopedic. --Cat out 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it isn’t presented in terms of human roads and individual settlements, it’s in terms of habitats and larger geographical regions like countries, continents, jungles, deserts... --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Countries, continents, jungles, deserts are human terms. :P
In the game we do not have any kind of geographic region aside from routes except Kanto/Johto/Hoenn/Shinnoh regions which are more like continents. --Cat out 13:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, of course they’re human terms. All currently-known words are assumed to be human in origin. However, while countries are human-defined, continents, jungles, and deserts exist naturally. Anyway, what you just said was exactly my point. In the games, the geographic regions are Kanto/Johto/Hoenn/Orre/Sevii Islands/Sinnoh. That’s enough location information on the habitat of these Pokémon. The only other thing worth mentioning would be if the Pokémon is found exclusively( or nearly so) in caves, or deserts, or on the sea floor, etc.. Route numbers don’t enhance a reader’s understanding of the species unless we assume familiarity with the Route, which is verboten, particularly when none of the Routes have their own articles. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't we put the locations where each pokemon is found in its own article? This would solve the problem, and I've always felt that the informatiion would be useful in species articles.Ygoloxelfer 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
We could mention their typical habitats - forests, caves, rivers, oceans. But Routes and town names would still be game guide-y. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hostility

Resolved

The discussion in here is so dominated by one individual (he dictates even where I can put a section or not), I am bailing out. --Cat out 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorry you are so stubbornly stuck to creating a section which is not needed, when the purpose of a talk page is to facilitate discussion, not make it more complicated. And I am genuinely sorry that I offended you so deeply with something that was never meant as a personal attack, so since you insist that you were not replying to anything, I have now left your section intact as a(n admittedly small) gesture of the close of this conflict(, though I don’t understand why you would offer a “solution” when not replying to a problem.) And I truly am sorry to see the number of users active on this discussion drop even lower. Take care, happy wikiing. --WikidSmaht (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool Cat, this page (not to mention the rest of the main Pokémon pages) is far from "dominated by one individual". Personally, I dropped out of the discussion because WikidSmaht was saying the same things I would say (only doing a better job of it, and with more patience), and I'm sure that's part of the reason why others didn't join in as well. WikidSmaht isn't rejecting your suggestions simply because he doesn't like them, he's rejecting them because they do not meet the standards of the PCP, or even the standards of Wikipedia in general. There only needs to be one voice saying these things because they are widely agreed upon. There are no personal feelings against you (well, there might be now that you've lost your cool), and you are free to continue to make additions or revisions to any Pokémon or other article you wish. If they work, they'll stay, and if they don't, oh well. We've all had revisions reverted, or wanted to put something in that, in the end, just wasn't appropriate. Just don't let it get to you (and if you do let it get to you, don't antagonize other editors by accusing them of "owning" the article).
Remember, on Wikipedia there is no force working against you personally unless you create it yourself. Hope you cool down and come back to help, because with the impending release of D&P, we'll likely need it. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 Toy Fair

Resolved

Can I just ask - can we believe Seribii.com when they claim the names of Turtwig, etc? If so, do we need citation boxes next to the names of the new creatures? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NP Chilla (talkcontribs) 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The names are there because Serebii is supposedly getting photos sent to it of the new toys at TF'07. We've left up these names because, as seen with Chatot's English name, what Serebii reports is usually correct. However, since it is a fansite, it's not considered an entirely reliable or verifiable source (hence the "cit. needed" tags). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: No we can’t believe them. Yes we do need to cite 4th-gen names anyway, just as the games are provided for the info of the first 386 Pokémon. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

4th-gen name sourcing

Resolved

I re-added the name Spinx. If we are going to use the unverified names from Toy Fair, we may as well use all we have, particularly from sites such as PE2K and Pokébeach, which( unlike Serebii) have photos from the event. Obviously, all 4th-gen names need a reliable citation eventually, so the {{fact}} tags are necessary until we get a source. This has also made something else obvious to me: We have to cite sources( such as movies, episodes, Nintendo Power, and Pokémon.com) for the other, confirmed names, too. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; I had just removed Spinx because that was one of the two names (Snelios/Shelios was the other one) that Serebii itself wasn't sure of. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Can the [citation required] remarks be taken out and a note be added that all 4th Gen (No.387 and higher) Pokémon names are yet to be confirmed by an official source? The citation remarks just make the table look untidy. Antisora 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they look all that great either, but this way it's easier for someone to see that the names aren't confirmed (rather than having to scroll all the way down to the bottom. Plus, they're not at all permanent - hopefully the confirmed names will be out shortly. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That’s intentional, in hopes that it will inspire someone to provide citations. Plus, some names HAVE been confirmed, by the anime, movies, or official website. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Still think it would be helpful to at least note the unconfirmed names, enough to outweigh the risk of somebody ignoring the note recognizing them as unconfirmed and (gasp) believing them to be real, if they indeed are not. At the very least they're a tad easier to type & pronounce than the Japanese adaptations ;) Cheezmeister 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

why merge?

Resolved

see #I think this page should be split. it had aready been resolved, means that people agree that it should split... why merge back again? even if we merge it, we should at least seperate by generation, like i did (but get reverted), so that at least it is easier to read... Ragnaroknike 10:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion( well, just a note, really, not a discussion as it was all decided and done by one person) is from a long time ago( 2¼ years!), back before the introduction of sortable tables, when some browsers still had problems editing big articles, and the list looked like this - 3 distinct lists one after the other.
When sortable tables became possible, it was agreed at WT:PCP that we should re-merge them, plus the other lists.( You do understand what I mean by “sortable tables”, right? If you don’t, go to the article and click one of the little triangle icons at the top of the list. See how it rearranges itself when you do that?) Since this list can be instantly reordered to form any of the old lists, none of those lists are necessary now. There is only one issue, which is that it must be a single, continuous list. If it is broken up, the sorting breaks too.( Go to your revision here and click the triangles. See how only one section gets rearranged instead of the whole list)?
Now do you understand why we re-merged, and why I reverted you? --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing every Pokémon?!

Is it really necessary to provide a citation for each and every Pokémon? It's one thing for otherwise unverified Diamond and Pearl Pokémon, but Bulbasaur?? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I had always been under the assumption that they didn't need in-text sources because the games were all cited at the bottom of the page. It looks just plain ugly, and it's not at all necessary. I'm going to undo it - if anyone disagrees, please discuss it here before changing it back. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed it into a reference at the bottom, so that should look better, I guess. :P —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, sorry for the confusion. When I said “these [...] should all have citations”, I meant all the 4th gen Pokémon. The rest are sufficiently confirmed by having the games as references, like e.o.t.d said. The official romanizations, on the other hand, could stand to all be cited. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So here's something weird...

This might just be my computer, so I'd like someone else to confirm it, but the Johto Pokédex column, unlike the others, seems to be sorting the en dashes before the numbers. I looked at the code for the page, and I can't figure out any reason why it should be doing this (I'm no expert on Wiki markup, but this stuff's pretty basic, so I figure I should have been able to spot it if it was there). This happening to anyone else? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 08:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After trying different sorting patterns, I've now actually found that it only happens when sorting directly from National number (increasing) to Johto number (increasing). WTF? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That IS odd. we could pobably patch it for now with a &ltspan>ed value of 999, though figuring out why it happens would be better in the long run. Why don’t you ask at the village pump? --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Highly viewed

Did anyone have any idea of how highly viewed this article is? According to this Wikichart, this article, for this month so far, is 11th in rank in the list of most viewed pages. In February, it ranked 14th. All the various Pokémon lists weren't merged into one big list until January 25, but List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number was ranked 25h in January, though, and in December it was 51st. Keep in mind that these statistics could be fueled by the release of many new Sinnoh Pokémon. But we should also keep in mind that such a highly viewed article really needs to be in tip-top shape. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Though the total contents of that list is a little disturbing, I'm actually very impressed that this list is above Sex, Pornography, etc.
It's just too bad we'll never be number one. :| Stupid main page... ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to try to AfD the main page. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be all for that, but it's been tried already. :) ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 03:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Meh. So? There’s nothing wrong with multiple AfDs if the case has merit, especiall when the first wasn’t serious and was dismissed for that reason.
These basterds are making neo-pets not pokemon damnit!nameless

March,12,07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.208.146 (talkcontribs) 22:02, March 13, 2007 (UTC)

High viewing is because people want to see the new names. *cough* --12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're sure it has nothing to do with the fact that complaints like "Not another Pokemon article!" are incredibly common on Wikipedia? Nitwit005 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhyperior AND Dosidon

Resolved

How come Dosidon and Rhyperior exist as two seperate articles? - NP Chilla 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because someone forgot the redirect? *fixes* In addition, somebody needs to fix the National Dex links in the individual articles, as the ones I've seen are still using the Japanese names (mind you, maybe someone's working through and just isn't that far yet).81.132.183.220 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The new Pokemon Cards reveal more than one thought...

Resolved

Viewing each individual card (here [3]), we not only learn Pokedex classification (Manaphy is Seafaring, Lucario is Aura and so forth); but also we learn the names of each crature's pre-evolution. By extension it confirms the names of Grotle, Monferno, Prinplup and Riolu. Isn't this confirmation enough? - NP Chilla 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No one wants to, because, when it comes down to it (especially since Pokebeach itself provides blank templates) they can't be confirmed as officially and could easily be fake. Although the "©2007 Pokémon/Nintendo"…—ウルタプ 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did they get rid of the List of Pokemon by stage article?

Why did they get rid of the List of Pokemon by stage article? I used it a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ROMaster2 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Because the "Stages" (Baby, Basic, etc.) are entirely non-canon: they're only used in the TCG, and aren't even mentioned in the canon source, the video games. Granted, stages are an important part of the TCG, but when the mass-merge of lists into this one sortable list happened, it was decided that stages should be left out, mostly because it couldn't really be determined what actually constitutes a "Baby" Pokémon. Togepi in particular, one of the most Baby-looking Pokémon, is counted as a Basic Pokémon throughout the history of the TCG, and Riolu, considered a Baby by a lot of fans, but also a Basic according to the TCG, further clouded the issue. It was eventually decided to just stop mentioning stages outside of the context of the TCG. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 10:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That’s not really true... If they are only a part of the TCG, why did the pokemon-games.com Pokédex include them, and some different from the TCG? I left stage out due to the controversy, but, I intentionally left the list intact since it wasn’t merged. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I was always under the impression that a basic pokemon was the lowest evolved form obtainable in the wild. Then again, pre-evolutions (not necessarily egg-obtained, i.e. Wynaut in R/S/E) are always being added, so that does cloud the issue a bit.

Where are the rest of the names?

When the new names were being revealed gradually by Serebii.net, it was stated (by WikidSmaht i think) that we could put the names here, albeit with citation notices, because Serebii was a generally reliable source in these matters. Now that the rest of the names have been posted on the site, why do they still appear blank on here? Surely the same principle still applies, because they supposedly come from the same source as when they were being revealed a few at a time, so why has this not been noted and the names listed? Ygoloxelfer 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing came out of that discussion. Yaysayers were not convincing. Hbdragon88 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The names with citations are confirmed by official sources. The names with {{fact}} tags are reported by Serebii or another unofficial site and have a stated source - most of these are names obtained at Toy Fair '07, and are visible in the photos of the "Match n' Catch" game. Names that are not there have been reported by Serebii or other sites, but without a stated source. If Serebii were to reveal where he gets his information, then the names might go up early. Otherwise, we're waiting for official confirmation. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目話す貢献) 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Against the majority, a few obstinate users have refused to compromise or help establish a consensus. As long as we are deadlocked, we can’t add the new names, even with a caveat, no matter how ridiculous that is. Sorry. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Hey, stop copying and pasting shit, lazy people. Why are magazine citations using the {{cite web}} template? It was one thing when it was Turtwig/Chimchar/Piplup, because that issue was previewed on the web( though that one could be updated since the issue is available). But on other citations, and, for instance, the one Drapion’s Wikipedia article, there is no good reason not to use the proper {{citation}} template. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Stages

Who took away the pokemon stages? I think that we should put it on again. When I log on, I'm usually wondering what stage the pokemon is in, basic, stage 1, baby, stage 2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red1997 (talkcontribs) 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

All I can say is that the article wasn't up to Wikipedia standards in terms of subject matter, and so it turned into a redirect. If you really want to use it, view its history. But really, such a "dilemma" is better solved by going to GameFAQs or Serebii. You Can't See Me! 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stages is indiscriminate and is really not important to the Pokémon except in the card game. There was a PCP discussion about stages. Hbdragon88 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cranidos

IGN has confirmed Zugaidos as being Cranidos. Even if you people refuse to believe Serebii's official name list as true (until Diamond and Pearl come out, at least), you'll believe IGN, right? Teamrocketspy621 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

English Names

I'm sorry, but everyone needs to stop being so anal as far as these English names go. IGN IS a reliable source. The cards ARE a reliable source. Yet are the acceptable for you guys? No. Why not? Do you personally understand the background on the sites you're judging? Especially when 'Urutapu' said that PokeBeach could be faking them. Ugh, this is so frustrating. 80% of the people that are monitoring this article are just wrecking it, because they don't understand anything. Yes, Serebii is a reliable source to get information from, and everyone knows this. If the editors had personal stake in the fandom, they'd know that too. All the English names should be up there, and it's just an insult to this article that they're not. There are SO many other mistakes to clean up before you start saying that reliable sites aren't, things are faked, etc so that an article is NOT up to scratch. It's ruining this. Really. BlackxxJapan 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't get why we're bothering with all this about "reliable sources", when everyone knows that Serebii's names will all turn out to be true. Ygoloxelfer 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the IGN and card names were already accepted (the cards took a day, but the IGN ones weren't a problem at all). Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- Serebii isn't "reliable" because we don't know where they're getting their information from, and it's a site run by a single person with little editorial oversight. – mcy1008 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
IGN and the TCG did not confirm every name. Thus, the ones that they did confirm are on the article, but not those that they did not. You Can't See Me! 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The Reliable Source page is a nice set of guidelines, but they're obviously not the best rules to follow in every single situation. SPP was proved reliable with all the 3rd generation names when Ruby and Sapphire debuted. Not to mention that another site, completely independently got the entire list of names and they matched Serebii. Two independent sources and sites confirming the same name is reliable, not to mention Serebii IS reliable, if you knew anything about anything. BlackxxJapan 11:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

However, as there is no official proof yet from Nintendo that they are the official English names for Diamond and Pearl which is why that a majority of editors on this are waiting for the official conformation just to play it safe which I respect and support. Besides there are currently only 18 days left until those games are released and I am willing to wait till then. -Adv193 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Reliable Source page is a nice set of guidelines, but they're obviously not the best rules to follow in every single situation. SPP was proved reliable with all the 3rd generation names when Ruby and Sapphire debuted. Not to mention that another site, completely independently got the entire list of names and they matched Serebii. Two independent sources and sites confirming the same name is reliable, not to mention Serebii IS reliable, if you knew anything about anything.

Serebii called Blaziken a legendary pokemon up until the Japanese release of the game. They had Feint and Anticipate mixed up for a good portion of DP's lifespan, and I don't know how they could possibly have gotten "Mighty Guard" and its effect from "Crescent Dance" and its real effect. Feel free to take blindly, but don't berate us for thinking things through. You Can't See Me! 01:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? They got all the English names right, and that's what matters. So far, more than half of the names on the list were stated as the English names by Serebii before they were confirmed. and guess what, they got confirmed right. If Diamond and Pearl come out and every Pokemon has the name Serebii said it would have, then I hope the next time new Pokemon games come out, that you guys trust them even though they don't fit Wikipedia's guidelines of a reliable source. But seriously, with all of the names that have been confirmed after they stated them, that's reliable if you ask me. (Look up the definition in the dictionary.)Oraclelink 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well did you also know that without using a reliable source for conformation that it could have a chance of a margin of error occur that would mean that an English name might be different when the game comes out and it would be an embarrassment to this site if that were to happen. Besides I once handled a simlar project like this a few months ago on an anime and I personally waited to the DVD came out and confirmed the voice cast before I updated the pages and it paid off because I found out that one character was voiced by a different actor. Anyway my point is that it would be a great idea to wait for the games to come out to check the official conformation. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong just as long as the reliable details are checked to avoid of margin of error by a more official source such as Nintendo and not Serebii which is not a reliable source. -Adv193 07:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if Serebii is correct or not. Unless, by some magic, Serebii ends up as a member of GameFreak, or at least proves somebody on his team to be one of those privilaged people who gets inside interviews with gaming companies, Serebii cannot be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. The site is third-party. You Can't See Me!
Well, that's THREE MORE that are proven right. Geez, you people are stubborn. There is a Wikipedia policy that says that you can ignore rules if they are being counterproductive, which in this case I would say they certainly are. And besides, even if they are reliable by Wikipedia's standars, they are most cretianly TRUSTWORTHY. And really, there were only two names that were in dispute between Pokexperto and Serebii (Vespiquen and Porygon-Z), who by the way, obviously got there information from different sources because of thsoe two differences, and Serebii was just proven right on one of them...
Wait a second, isn't there a rule that says sites that aren't normally considered reliable can be counted if they correspond to other sites, and it can be proven that they didn't get their information from each other? If that's the case, this most certainly applies. Oraclelink 03:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We're stubborn? We have to be. All of the outside scandels here have have occured because of sloppy sourcing. We have to demand good sourcing in order to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. See Seigenthaler controversy for the biggest one. The need isn't as urgent for fictional characters (the big emphasis is on WP:BLP), but regardless every subject should follow the axiom of "when it doubt, thow it out." hbdragon88 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. We're the stubborn ones for adhering to rules. I've already explained: It does not matter if Serebii is right or not. Chances are, they are indeed correct. However, we are not allowed to do so, because Serebii is not on a little list entitled "First-party sources" and thus cannot be considered reliable. You Can't See Me! 07:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You totally ignored my other points about the "throw out the rules if they are countrproductive thing" and "two corresponding sources can be reliable if their information corresponds and they didn't get it from each other." If everyone would just agree to do it this once, then it wouldn't be against the rules anyone, because we'd be in consensus. That's the only reason we can't do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oraclelink (talkcontribs) 00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

At the same time you seem to be ignoring other peoples advice and why a lot of people including myself are trying to follow the rules and look for reliable sources. Anyhow just remember there are only 12 days left till the release and by then all of this will be over. -Adv193 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And then you will all feel stupid because all the names were proven right anyway...

Aw Jeez, I seriously doubt that since when those games as well as the strategy guide then the all the remaining official English Names will be confirmed through Nintendo and we would be using the details from a more official source and it wouldn't matter that we had to wait for official conformation and that all the Users involved with the conformations were only trying to follow the official rules to avoid any problems that would damage Wikipedia's integrity. -Adv193 03:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OH BURN! They were all EXACTLY WHAT SEREBII SAID! Maybe next time you'll listen to them... 65.121.135.40 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
They listened. They also listened to people like you. However, unlike them, you seem completely incapable of listening to what they're saying. But, please, continue with your delusion that you're in the right. Hubris is so comforting. ' 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Psypokes.com

I was wondering how reliable this site is because it list all the new pokemons name but i aint sure where they got them from wondering if someone can take a look at the site.

http://www.psypokes.com/dp/index.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salavat (talkcontribs) 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

All those fansites are being held as unreliable for now, since they refuse to reveal any kind of reputable sources backing their statements.—ウルタプ 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note...

I watched the Diamond and Pearl anime special on Cartoon Network, and the names Staraptor and -- some viewers may have missed this, it was very quiet, but I heard it -- Mespirit have both been confirmed. I hope that you won't mind my editing the article. Then again, I'm not all that sure how to edit this article right now, so I'll leave it to someone else. Teamrocketspy621 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to cite the episode with {{cite episode}}. – mcy1008 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not actually an episode. o.O' There's really nothing to cite. It didn't even have a title besides "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl." So now what? Teamrocketspy621 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
As I hear it, it's three episodes in a row. Ah. Sucks I didn't get to watch it, 'cause all I know about yesterday's special is hearsay... See if you can find it in List of Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl episodes. – mcy1008 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(Don't worry, they're showing them one at time on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.)—Loveはドコ? 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Found it. It's episode 469, "Following a Maiden Voyage." near the end of the episode, Dawn sees Mespirit in Lake Verity, and it, very quietly, says its name, then disappears. Some people may doubt me, but I will confirm it on Monday one way or another. Teamrocketspy621 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Do you think its OK to remove the references to the names of the Pokemon in Diamond and Pearl now like the previous 386 now that the games are out? (And just put a note about the guides, games on the bottom like the others.) Oraclelink 19:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The note about the games is at the bottom. I see no reason to keep the individual references anymore. 69.183.52.143/DanPMK 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

4th most viewed page of wikipedia

wikicharts

O.o it's a bit weird :P Azshadarae Talk 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? There were only 533,000 pre-orders for D/P, which was released five days ago. I personally hate this page, I find it too be very long - I'd rather just search out indivdiual pages - but I could see how others would like it. hbdragon88 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The list is far from useless; it's much better since we were able to merge together the four or more lists we had a few months ago. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Pokémon header templates

The templates used as headers in Pokémon articles have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptre (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the heads up; I've posted this on WikiProject Pokémon's noticeboard. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit excessive

Do you think we really need a full page for every single pokemon character? --Echeese 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not everybody does. There is discussion at WikiProject Pokémon about merging articles together. There is some current discussion here. The most complicated issue seems to have been what the best way to merge articles would be (grouping by Pokédex number or grouping by evolutionary lines). --Brandon Dilbeck 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Height

Ollj (talk · contribs) added a height column to the article; I don't have much time to type here, but should we remove it? --Brandon Dilbeck 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I say remove it. If we include height people are going to start wanting body types and color.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And weight—that's the next logical step. I'd like to see what more people have to say first, though. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Weight actually affects a few moves in the game, Low Kick and Grass Rope. In the Game Cube games their is no numbering system, the only way to sort the lists of Pokémon seen is alphabetical, height, weight, and type. But, in my opinion, the chart's wide enough without height and weight. Type tells more information than those, and we won't be adding that to the chart.Spriteless 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I reverted the article to the version before that column was added. I don't think anything else had been done to the article between then and now except for some vandalism. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

should we delete anything that shows combo's like "scarbliss" and "bellyzard" or anything related to it

should we, because we know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide

Sir de wario 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus in WikiProject Pokémon seems to be that Wikipedia shouldn't resemble a game guide and that mentioning movesets upsets that. Worse than that is describing fan-named movesets like those you've mentioned, so please remove anything you find like that. Unless a Pokémon is notable for using a specific move (like Ditto's Transform), there really shouldn't be any reason to describe it. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

okay, i started deleting the game guide related stuff. Sir de wario 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenal popularity

Since the merge, this list has been phenomenally popular in 2007 with the viewing audience. In the rank tables, "List of Pokémon" came: 4th in June, 4th in May, 4th in April, 8th in March and 14th in February. Consistently being the fourth most popular in an encyclopedia of 5,531,743 articles is an impressive feat. May I suggest that in the interest of public opinion, attentions be focused intensely on this page, in particular improving it to Featured List status? - 82.16.7.63 03:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. What needs to be done to the article to bring it to that status? I think it already meets many of the criteria. Perhaps the lead could be a bit more formal. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A good place to start would be to ask for a peer review. Feel free to take the time to read through the other featured lists. What this list needs is properly formatted references, sections, and pictures, amongst other things. But the peer review should tell you exactly what you need. - 82.16.7.63 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

a notice to all people who keep putting game guide related stuff in each pokemon

please do not put game related stuff in each pokemon creature for this is an encyclopedia not a game guide, i.e. "this pokemon is a great counter to the stong suicune thanks to its high sp.def". if anyone see's this kind of stuff, please delete it, thanks

Sir de wario 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Loss of info

Squeezing pokemon into smaller articles is clearly not a good idea, for it causes massive information loss, especially about legendary pokemon. 69.114.80.137 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% (heptillion percent)if we squeeze them into smaller articles we lose so many information such as apearance in episodes/moviesYouknowme(youdon'tknowme) 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean losing all the fancruft (don't get me wrong; I LOVE pokemon}, unsourced information, unencyclopedic information, and rumors? This way is better, though yes at first I thought this was bad but this is turning out to be rather efficient. -WarthogDemon 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

well, its a good thing due to the fact that alot of rumours and game guide related stuff in each pokemon article, so, it's pretty good that they are doing that. Sir de wario 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE IT'S SPEECH TIME: Well My Fellow Wikipedians Altough Rumors Are Indeed A Horrible Especially If They Are Completely Wrong,But Thing Like Game Related Stuff Are Greatly Apreciated, And Useful For Those Who Don't Or No Longer Have A Game Guide Especially If A Certain Pokemon Is Obtainable By A Special Event Like Happiny Was Obtainable By A Hiker In Hearthome City Now In Ether Pokemon Diamon And Pearl If A Person Found Out About this And Gone Through The Trouble Of Breeding One They Just Wasted There Time On Hatching An Egg, Or Wasted A Spot To Train Another Powerful Pokemon And Leading To Disappiontment so In Conclusion This "Game Stuff" Is Important In Many Ways Than This, Like People Knowing When A Certain Pokemon Evoles Now It's Time For You To Vote Weether Or Not We Should Keep The Old Way

All In Favor Type: (~)

All Not In Favor Type: (`)

All Who Have Not Made Up There Mind Type: (+)

All Who Need More Reasons TO Deside Type: (-) (I Will Happy To Give You A Few More Reasons)

Thank You For Your Time

Youknowme(youdon'tknowme) 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I Myself Say: (~) Youknowme(youdon'tknowme) 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a game guide isn't Wikipedia's job. People can go to GameFAQs or serebii.net. You know, like you'd expect them to do.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Most People never heard of the site where will they go but the famous Wikipedia. Pokemon.com does not have this kind of info and compared to other Wikipedia articles it lacks info on the main subject sure Wikipedia is not a game guide, but it's just harmless info and I like reading about other parts of the big articles like the Pokemon mythology (which is now gone) by the way we could also put all the Pokemon Pokedex entries from all the Pokemon games ever it's just a few little tidbits plus bigger articles inspire little kids like my sister and I saw Wikipedia for the first time we were amazed on how big many of the articles were. I too was impressed I knew I could never make an article that big so it persevere and work hard to match the immensity of many of the articles, but I could not, unfortunately back then. You guys complained and edited the articles to be so small my 7 year old sister can probably read one of these article in 1/2 an hour. How is that suppose to inspire little kids when they get older to join wikipedia when they get older?Youknowme(youdon'tknowme) 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the reason is, I am finding this elimination of game data within each individual Pokemon species unprepared for. They must have consulted the original authors themselves first so they would have been able to relocate their info (which probably have been hardly worked and researched on) to Bulbapedia or other Pokemon references available. The immediate removal of the articles resulted in the loss of interesting information. It is also quite strange that only Pikachu was not subjected to this ompression. If any administrator or contributor was able to recover or have the original content of the former individual Pokemon articles, I ask him to reintegrate it into Bulbapedia so as to make that Wiki much more substantial than it is now. Or if he cannot do so himself, contact me by posting at my user page and give the info to me so I may do it myself. Hoping that people around here would be able to respond to this. Thank you. Supaagekireddo 13:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The info is all their in the history. None of it ws deleted, it just had a redirect made over it. The Placebo Effect 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable Pokémon

I don't get it; how do we know if a Pokémon notable enough to have its own article? --(trogga) 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:N: Has to be the subject of significant secondary coverage independent of the source, so in this case being featured in tons of games and the anime doesn't really count. For most Pokémon, third party sources have not commented on the designs or anything of the Pokémon. hbdragon88 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a featured list?

I think if we could add inline citations, it would be up to standard. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image Removal

I'm preemptively adding this header to bear witness to the enormous storm of hatred that will befall us all when Durin or another imagebot removes all the images of the Pokemon from every article. This way the talk page won't be spammed with multiple topics on the same subject. - The Norse 00:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Prescient on your part Norse, and thank you. Yes, the images are being removed. Please see for User:Durin/Fair_use_overuse_explanation for more information, and for what I expect will be the defense see [4]. --Durin 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't been quite that bad actually. I'm surprised. Though I do wish there was some way around it. -WarthogDemon 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)