Talk:List of Pokémon (102–151)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pokémon (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is one the current focuses of the PCP.
WikiProject Video games (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This is a list and is not rated on the assessment scale.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series[edit]

A discussion on the recent removal of fair-use images from this series of articles has been posted at the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. Morgan695 23:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Old wikipedia pages[edit]

I moved the individual pokemon pages which redirects to this page to the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki. Since they are filled with information that is mostly game related I thought it would be still relevant to be saved and updated. --Cs california 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuck yeah Seaking?[edit]

Does anyone know where that type of vandalism comes from? It would be easier to track it down if we know where it comes from. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a chan meme. Look it up or som shit. Garyfuckingoakman. 4chan.org (74.43.221.195 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
Which is why it will be reverted on sight, 74. Wikipedia is not a billboard, nor is it a personal playground. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been on *chan a couple of times, but the meme is found a lot more often on Ebaumsworld. Wikipedia is not a personal playground, it is serious business and vandalism will be reverted ASAP. Primal Eighties (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


It seems yesterday there was some vandalism from 69.115.49.48, that ip made changes like shitmonchan and likcadick. I already corrected them but just wanted to leave a message here informing you guys.200.94.114.216 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Smogon?[edit]

Why the heck does Smogon redirect to Koffing? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that Smogon is a website that uses Koffing as its logo. Artichoker[talk] 01:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course, but people who search for "smogon" already know about koffing. They want to learn about the website. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Tough. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't really see how Smogon isn't notable, but whatever... 24.226.77.23 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean up...[edit]

these pages need a major cleanup, i'd suggest some form of template. they need to all start with the same form of sentence, in my opinion, its untidy that they dont.

Alienpmk (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your absolutely correct; all of these pages are in desperate need of clean-up. I would be willing to help. Artichoker[talk] 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhyhorn[edit]

I'm just wondering why Rhyhorn's original name is being referred to as Sihorn when it's clear the "sai" portion is a pun on the Japanese word for rhinocerous? AjaaniSherisu (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Linked Websites where the fake information is written will be able to be removed.[edit]

Hitmonlee http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Hitmonlee_(Pok%C3%A9mon)

Trivia

Ironically, Taekwondo, the martial art that Hitmonlee seems to reference is mostly defensive, but Tyrogue evolves into Hitmonlee as a result of its Attack stat being higher than its Defense stat.

Origin

He may be a personification of Taekwondo, a martial art that focuses on kicking and strengthening legs. Hitmonlee bears resemblance to Blemmyes due to his lack of an actual head. The overall shape of his body also resembles a human foot.


In Hitmonlee, taekwondo is not an origin. Linked Websites where the fake information is written are deleted. 219.160.54.22 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we are linking to Bulbapedia because they have more information about the subjects. If you think something is "fake information", then remove it from their wiki. It does say however that "He may be a personification of Taekwondo". This is just an educated guess, as Original Research is somewhat allowed there. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As Bws2cool said, we're linking to Bulbapedia because they specialise in Pokémon. Also, you refuted their unverifiable material with your own unverifiable material. Note that we're not using Bulbapedia as a source; merely as a 'if you're interested, look at this'. 2birds1stone (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Orphaned references in List of Pokémon (102–151)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Pokémon (102–151)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Time":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 21:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Pokémon (102–151)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Pokémon (102–151)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gamesradar":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 20:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased reviews[edit]

I dislike how subjective reviews of how some Eeveelutions (and indeed Pokémon) are "better" than others are listed here. It's an encyclopedia, for Pete's sake, and we shouldn't put in whatever we please just because some famous Pokéfan somewhere said it. I want to hear possible objections before I endeavor to remove them all. Baconfry (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The reviews are considered "Reception", which helps with notability of these lists, which states that notable subjects must have "significant coverage in third party reliable sources". I do think they feel out of place in these lists, especially in cases when there is little in-universe prose. However, we can't simply remove it, because it actually is the best place for it, and it is good information to include in the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Gyarados's type?[edit]

I played Pokémon AlphaSapphire and caught Magikarp via an Old Rod. It evolved into a Gyarados when it leveled up enough. When it was trying to learn a move, I saw the type as a dual WATER/DRAGON. Pikachu6968 (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

please go to talk: 202-251[edit]

there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Eevee[edit]

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 was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Content's already merged, but redirect was reverted. Not the subject of in depth secondary source coverage. Solo article is mostly unreliable and primary source refs. Everything that needs to be said fits in this List article. – czar 05:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Some of the content in the Eevee article (such as the "appearences" section) would be hard to merge as the section would be untidy. Apart from that, the article doesn't really contain anything that isn't mentioned here. Anarchyte 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eevee is inarguably one of the most well-known Pokemon, which by itself isn't a reason to keep the article but there's also plenty of coverage by video game RS. I'd say some of it is quite in depth, especially the articles focusing on Eevee exclusively, and the current "Promotion and reception" section is too long to be merged. (And lets be honest here... if the subject of this article were a person, video game, place, book, or even comic book character, it wouldn't even be considered for merging. It's no secret that video game character articles are judged to much higher standards than the rest of the encyclopedia and that's not something I like.) Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 10:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Stick to the case, please. What secondary source coverage is left out of the Eevee merge that you feel is vital? I didn't see anything important to secondary sources left uncovered (i.e., that Promotion section was filled with primary and unreliable source coverage). Eevee is one of the best known Pokémon? Please show your sources. – czar 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The current level of coverage found in the article is more than sufficient. Since it has received significant RS coverage (GNG), it deserves a stand-alone article and should not be merged. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 23:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
But a series of passing mentions does not constitute sig cov. If I trimmed the Reception section to the RS that say more than something in passing, nearly the whole thing would be thrown out. Anything of consequence has already been merged here. – czar 23:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"Significant coverage [...] need not be the main topic of the source material." A "passing mention" is something like a name drop or an appearance in a list without any context. Sources that actually discuss Eevee are not passing mentions. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 00:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose The article is good enough and the Pokemon is notable enough for its own article. 99.195.110.218 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is good enough and the Pokémon is notable enough for its own article. --Stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Can anyone explain what secondary sources are not in the merged version of the article as it stands? I don't see what a separate article does that isn't already covered by the merged version. (Which is a function of there being no sources dedicated to Eevee as a subject.) – czar 15:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.