Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51)

message: I know Blastoise and Bowser look the same, but there's a Japanese movie monster from where Blastoise is based on, right.
Hitmonchan (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably constitutes original research. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro RQQ et al favorite haunts 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 2J, he means the article says that "Blastoise has been compared to Bowser", but there is no proof. But there is a movie monster that Blastoise was confirmed to be based on. Hitmonchan, if you can find the source that says that, we would be very glad to have it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blastoise's origin? 

message: They're mindblowingly useless and everyone knows it. They offer borderline no information, and lack even the most basic things. Like pictures. Anyone who actually takes the time to look this stuff up most likely wants to know what the damn things look like, but due to Wikipedia's laughable "jpegs make the site less free!" policy these lists serve no purpose. Why don't we just make all of these things off-site redirects to Bulbapedia or a site that's actually useful to the people who take the time to search for this information? Because after they Wiki "Charizard" and get this garbage, that's exactly where they're gonna go to anyway. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You just voted to keep Bulbasaur with a really random rant, and now you are wanting to delete these lists? You need to stop drinking man. just kidding, but you aren't really being serious. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of the Bulbasaur is pretty much completely irrelevant at this point. It's not really that useful but doesn't quite warrant deletion. These lists though, man. Why are they even here? The most prominent thing they represent is TTN's ego from years back. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are here to give information on the species. Just without much of the plot info, movesets, and other un-encyclopedic things. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Plot info is verifiable and important (if not overused), but I agree with movesets and other similar things being unencyclopedic. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just delete these lists? 

message: What are the requirements for a Pokemon to have its own article? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like any subject, Pokemon must comply with the Notability guidelines, which state that it must have significant coverage in third party reliable sources. If you look at the existing articles, the last section usually displays the notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species notability 

message: 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 (1–51)'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 "ign":
From List of Pokémon (102–151): http://faqs.ign.com/articles/384/384093p1.html
From Pikachu: 
From Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire: 
From Pokémon Yellow: Special Pikachu Edition: 
From Blaziken: 
From Bidoof: http://ds.ign.com/articles/115/1152217p1.html
From Rattata: 
From Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat: 
From Ditto (Pokémon): http://ds.ign.com/articles/980/980866p1.html
From Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott: 
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⚡ 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:List of Pokémon (1–51)]] 

message: The following has been removed: In a poll conducted by IGN, it was voted as the 42nd best Pokémon, where the staff commented on how Nidoking does not have a crown. They further stated that "Maybe in Generation VI he’ll finally get the adornments befitting a king". — while I agree that the speculation about generation VI is unnecessary, and the speculation about his lack of crown is...bizarre, I think there's room to say that he was voted 42nd best Pokémon of all time. I'm not going to Be Bold just yet (I'm a little shy), but if no one objects after a week, I'm gonna put in his 42nd best Pokémon of all time status back on this page. 2birds1stone (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I put both back because it is perfectly fine. It is established editors from a reliable source giving criticism on Nidoking's character, which helps to make him notable. Sure, when there is one one bit of reception thrown together with real information about their character, the entries look odd. But once they get their own article, which is what the reception helps to do, the reception will be in its own section all by itself, where they won't get it mistaken for trivia. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's silly, IGN as a whole isn't considered a notable source (with a few in-depth exceptional articles), although it's reliable enough to establish particular facts. Even if it was, none of that line is notable. I see no others with their positions in that poll listed, and an offhand comment from someone completely unconnected to development is absolutely not notable. If Mayamoto or a developer said he'd get a crown in the upcoming game, then it might be notable. I think it fits every definition of trivia. I also think you're mistaken about ever getting any separate article, the old one was redirected here 4 years ago and nothing has changed since. On the other hand, it would fit perfectly within Bulbapedia. Foxyshadis(talk) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea what you are talking about. Coverage by third party reliable sources makes subjects notable. Commentary like this is considered reception by reliable sources, which is good to include. The results of the poll have not been added to all of the species because it is a hundred spots. That is a lot to add, and we might have added it to about 25/100.(also, the poll results by themselves aren't that notable, but the commentary on the winners is) Take a look at Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam. While it is a fully developed, and nicely written article(I brought it to GA status), without the whole "Cultural impact" section, they would not have their own article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nidoking 

message: Is it worth noting that they are 2 out of only 3 (out of all official 646[3 is approx. 0.46%]) Pokémon that aren't legendary nor in baby stage, yet can't breed? (3rd is Unown) MarcowyGnom (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nidorina and Nidoqueen 

message: there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  please go to talk: 202-251 

message: ?!??!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.40.45 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures?!?!?