From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pokémon (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the quality scale.


I've done some editing.. but not enough! -WindFish 06:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering... Isn't having a Characteristics/Biology section a requirement on all Pokemon creature articles? Because this one doesn't, and its introductory material is very wordy. It looks like the last two paragraphs there should be divided from the rest of the intro into a Biology section. Erik the Appreciator 04:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Since all the entries repeat themselves, we just merged it into the intro. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not quite sute what you mean by "all the entries repeat themselves." Erik the Appreciator 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The pokédex entries of all the games repeat themselves, so there isn't much variety in the text. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a wee bit longer, I will do it, within a week, but I'm catching up with other stuff, but I will get it done. Is that okay? Highway Daytrippers 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

nose, not a proboscis. Blueaster 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic Problems[edit]

Interestingly, Bug-types like Caterpie were originally susceptible to Poison attacks, until this weakness of the Bug type was removed in the second generation of games. This gave Weedle the upper hand against Caterpie, and, combined with Beedrill’s speed, gave Beedrill a slight advantage in a confrontation with Butterfree. However, since Butterfree can learn Psychic and Flying-type attacks, it now has a distinct edge when facing Poison- and/or Bug-types.

Originally, Weedle's poison sting attack was super-effective against Caterpie (being a bug-type), so, when the bug type's poison weakness is removed, how does that give Weedle the edge? ~LF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

GA removal[edit]

The first thing I noticed is that the video game section is filled with speculation, OR, and POV, and none of it is even sourced. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)