Talk:Pidgey evolutionary line

message: ok... well what about TCG scans and anime images? oddly enough, there are no anime images (i may add the one of Pikachu riding on Pidgeotto when they were going to fight the giant Tentcruel), but each article has a TCG scan.  Are we going to ultimately trash all the TCG images?  I think it is important to depict the characters in formats outside of the typical anime/video game medium.  But then again it seems kind of silly to only be including list type info.  But is list information really all that bad (like here)?  We should definitely be mentioning all medium that a character has appeared in, and we do that in the lead.  but merely saying Pidgey is in the TCG seems to be falling short of obligations to at least give them a taste of how Pidgey is protrayed in the TCG.  any other thoughts? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should only visually depict a species' card if that species is particularly outstanding among cards, examples being Ampharos being the first Stage-2 Electric card in existence, Jumpluff's attacks never require more than 1 Grass-type energy, and of course Charizard. Perhaps each merged evo page should have one of its species have a picture of a card on it. For anime shots, they may be needed in pretty much all the specie sections anyway. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe... If that's going to be an issue, then we would need more opinions about that in order to decide. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what else to include??? 

message: Why don't we just do this evolutionary line merging (and make sure you keep where their names come from in them, because some aren't so obvious, and you'd be surprised who actually cares about it) and leave the single guys on their own pages in case of added future evolutions/pre-evolutions. That way, we wouldn't have a huge amount of unnecessary lists of 20 Pokemon when the main articles are already in the evolutionary lines. We could also make a list of Pokemon with no Pre-evolutions/evolutions to make it easier to find those. And Legendaries probably should be grouped by generation. Oraclelink 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the concept first proposed by , and at this point it is starting to sound like a viable alternative, if a lot of users oppose the idea of the 25 descriptive list pages to back these evo-line pages up. We'll just have to wait and see... Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, because I don't like the sound of those back up lists. Oraclelink 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: glad you think grouping legendaries by generation is a good idea :D  However i'd still like to try and sell you on the lists housing the no-evolution/no-connection pokemon like Ditto and Pinsir.  The thing is that if we decided to group all those pokemon together with fair-sized sections the page would be too large for dial-up users and browsers that can only support 32-75 kb when editing (dial-up users are the main concern). Even if we split them up by generation we have a bunch of group articles whose subjects really have nothing in common. Ditto has nothing to do with Pinsir, and neither of them have anything to do with Aerodactyl.  It would make more sense to put Aeroy in with Kabuto's and Omanyte's line. Plus we end up getting screwed if nintendo ever left one unevolved pokemon in a generation. we should take the steps now to future proof the articles in every conceivable way. Take a look at a guideline work in progress and an example of Pinsir in a section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal