![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
Consider merging this article with List of Pokémon by Japanese Name
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Is there any foreseen purpose for the Evolution column? -- Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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 | - | 001a—001a |
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 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)
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)
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.
Originally a branch of the evolution discussion.
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)
–
. 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)–
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 –
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
That IS odd. we could pobably patch it for now with a <span>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)
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)
March,12,07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.208.146 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, March 13, 2007 (UTC)
How come Dosidon and Rhyperior exist as two seperate articles? - NP Chilla 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 March 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
O.o it's a bit weird :P Azshadarae Talk 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs)
Do you think we really need a full page for every single pokemon character? -- Echeese 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
should we, because we know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide
Sir de wario 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
okay, i started deleting the game guide related stuff. Sir de wario 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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 6,850,163 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think if we could add inline citations, it would be up to standard. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
Consider merging this article with List of Pokémon by Japanese Name
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Is there any foreseen purpose for the Evolution column? -- Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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 | - | 001a—001a |
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 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)
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)
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.
Originally a branch of the evolution discussion.
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)
–
. 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)–
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 –
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
That IS odd. we could pobably patch it for now with a <span>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)
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)
March,12,07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.208.146 ( talk • contribs) 22:02, March 13, 2007 (UTC)
How come Dosidon and Rhyperior exist as two seperate articles? - NP Chilla 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 March 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
O.o it's a bit weird :P Azshadarae Talk 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs)
Do you think we really need a full page for every single pokemon character? -- Echeese 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
should we, because we know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide
Sir de wario 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
okay, i started deleting the game guide related stuff. Sir de wario 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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 6,850,163 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think if we could add inline citations, it would be up to standard. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
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)