Talk:List of Pokémon (181–200)

WTF?

Who's idea was it to make these pointless pages?--Ridley76 04:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys bunching up all the pokemon into these pathetic grouping articles? They all used to have thier own seperate article with considerably more information than these glorified stumps. Isn't the point of this encyclopedia to include more information and not less? (67.81.84.210 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

The information in the individual articles failed notability criteria (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon‎#About notability criteria) and keeping 500 articles up at the same time, about a single franchise, would be way too much work for something that should be listed.--Zxcvbnm 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The point of this encyclopedia is to have encyclopedic info, not as much info as possible. TheBlazikenMaster 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

People tend to prefer quantity. And I do, too. Also, the point of an encyclopedia isn't to have encyclopedic info, nor is it about having as much info as possible. It's about having as much encyclopedic info as possible. Mack-the-random 04:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're damn right about that. That's why this has to be in lists, since cameo appearances of anime pokémon or info about video games aren't very encyclopedic. TheBlazikenMaster 11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I worded that incorrectly. What I was trying to say was that I agree with Ridley76 and 67.81.84.210. And it makes no sense that Legendaries & starters are bunched into these stupid pages and yet Sneasel EX has its own page. Mack-the-random 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that, I will put that article up for AfD soon. TheBlazikenMaster 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree, these articles were far, FAR better when they were individual pages, and they were a great deal more informative and entertaining.66.41.44.102 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

At least...

Can't you at least give articles to only the starters and the legendaries? The REST of the Pokemon being grouped , im ok with or you can transfer all the information to your lack luster sister, Bulbapedia. I mean, come on!!! It uses the same Media Wiki engine as Wikipedia, so why cant you at least transfer all the info to Bulbapedia??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MudkipNDS (talk • contribs).

I don't like the new layout

I despise this new Pokémon list layout. No longer does it show detailed information about Pokémon; just comparisons with their appearances to real creatures. Can we please revert to the old layout? Link 486 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. However you are free to take the articles from their respective histories and copy/paste them to Bulbapedia. In fact that's what some of us in the project are going to do. I plan to eventually, plus I already have an unused account over there... -WarthogDemon 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This layout is absurd. What do they have in common, other than number? It makes no more sense than if biologists suddenly got rid of the species classification system and replaced it with alphabetical order. Persist if you must, but whats the point? Zaphraud 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's types and descriptions; we didn't get rid of any classification system. -WarthogDemon 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you don't make sense. They're listed by number in the Pokedex, ergo they're listed by number here.--Zxcvbnm 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Zaphraud, you need to understand that a large majority of the 493 Pokémon aren't notable enough for their own article. Additionally, as I've said on your talk page, a lot of the information that was in each article was the same on all articles. The information was slightly different, as each Pokémon is different, but that stuff was just stuff like where each Pokémon appears in the games, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. By grouping all 493 Pokémon into groups of 20, based on numerical order by the National Pokédex, that is an un-biased way of grouping Pokémon together. And I agree. Pokémon like Voltorb, Caterpie, or even Lairon don't have the same notability in the Pokémon games that Pikachu has. Pokémon like Voltorb and Caterpie hardly have any notability at all, so we should they have their own article? Grouping this way is a fair way of categorizing Pokémon into smaller articles.

And as far as the numbering system goes, we already had 4 systems for numbering Pokémon: the National Pokédex, the Johto Pokédex, the Hoenn Pokédex, and the Sinnoh Pokédex. So to say that categorizing by number is unfair when the game was re-categorized the Pokémon 4 times: once for every generation of games. Ksy92003(talk) 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell happened to this place? Wiki used to be a haven for cool and useless information. Then the dreaded "policy" elitists came in and started trying to morph Wiki into something as dull as Britanica. Eventually anything good will be off site, at places like Bulbapedia, and Wiki will become completely irrelevant. I hope you tools are happy how you've ruined one of the better sites on the web.

Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series

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 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary

This seems more a dictionary rather than a encyclopedia uU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.174.67 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Random Criticisms=source?

I know not many people have much to say about Pokemon, but the only reception we have is a group of underqualified college students who run columns on Gamesradar, et al. It's kind of distracting when most of the info isn't Pokedex refs, but rather somebody's opinion on how ugly they think a character is. I'd like to know why we have more of those than Pokedex citations. that "2D so-and-so" guy ^{talk, sign} 13:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)