Talk:List of Pokémon/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Split from [[Pokémon]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Good question.  While not a numbering system per se, I think it should still be included, if only for the sake of Pokémon like Crobat and Magby.  Especially since there's a redundant "Pokémon from Gold/Silver" section already...  I think we should re-order that one, and change the header a bit. - Bulbaboy 22:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Johto system?

message: 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)
replies: text: This is handled by :Category:Pokémon species by type, which is linked from the list page. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Pokemon by Type 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please, don't, given that the Pokémon by species and Pokémon by color lists were just deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, alright. Just wanted to check in before I did anything. DanPMK 06:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think, unlike color, this might actually enhance understanding of the Pokémon creatures. Hmm. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say no, since those classifications seem to be entirely arbitrary in some cases, like Paras - who is classified as a "Forest Pokémon" but is only found in the wild (the man-made Safari Zone not included) in Mt. Moon, a cave - and the Pidgey family - also "Forest Pokémon", but found in a variety of places. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well all the info is arbitrary. Names, species, etc.. The important thing here is that in this case, it is arbitrary on the part of the people who invented the whole damn thing in the first place. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion about habitats in next-gen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I found a small problem, but I fixed it 

message: 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)
replies: text: I thought of that when I created it, but I didn’t like the way it looked. Also, the sorting mechanism only allows us to re-order the table, it can’t make list items appear or disappear( a.f.a.I.k.). --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]'s approach to the Evolution solution

message: 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)
replies: text: I wouldn't be too worried about that; for one, the names of Pokémon within a family are often similar enough to keep it clear, and when they're not, all the names are linked to their respective pages, so if anyone's confused they can just check a little further. ~e.o.t.d~ 00:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about that too. I am a bit concerned, but I decided that it was OK, as dragonfly said, people can click to see what’s what. --WikidSmaht (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another issue

message: 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.
*I prefer to leave the name of the last column “Evolution” instead of “Evolves from”. That’s why I included the top note clarifying what information is provided for each Pokémon. If the column is labelled “Evolves from”, you would expect it to sort by what each one evolves from( either alphabetically or numerically, grouping all Pokémon the evolve from “None” together), but that’s not what it does; rather, it sorts them by their evolutionary chains. --WikidSmaht (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like having the fossils in there - the column is intended to link together families of Pokémon - and it's entirely possible to understand that Kabuto and Kabutops are related without knowing that Kabuto can be cloned from a fossil. As for Eggs...I'm not sure how I feel about that part yet. Something about it seems not quite right, but I'm not sure what. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense then. I've added genders for Minomutchi and Mitsuhoney's evolutions too.—M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider the "50%" marks in Sil/Cascoon's evo columns necessary. Granted, the random values thing is an entirely unique method of determining the evolutionary path, but there are a lot of other methods of evolution that are equally unique, but aren't indicated in the list; gender, on the other hand, is fine, because it's a factor in more than one kind of evolution (level-up and stone), and because the gender marks take up very little space. If any inquiring minds happen to wonder what exactly determines a Wurmple's evolutionary path - well, that's what the links to all the individual articles are for. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,the gender-specific notes are there because those Pokémon can only be evolved from that half( in one case, eigth) of the members of the preceeding species. In other branching evolution, either branch can evolve from ANY pre-evolved specimen, depending on the choice and actions of the trainer, where in the case of Silcoon and Cascoon, each can only be evolved from half( statistically) the members of any given group of Wurmple. But, as you said, if they want to know why that is, they can read the article. I used the  tags so it doesn’t take up much more space than the gender symbols, though I wouldn’t object if it were even smaller. It doesn’t stretch the column in any case, though. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work, knew I was forgetting something. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally agree there - I was just too lazy when I put the footnote in to go and change all the asterisks. :) ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final issues

message: 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)
replies: text: The names are there because Serebii is supposedly getting photos sent to it of the new toys at TF'07. We've left up these names because, as seen with Chatot's English name, what Serebii reports is usually correct. However, since it is a fansite, it's not considered an entirely reliable or verifiable source (hence the "cit. needed" tags). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Short answer: No we can’t believe them. Yes we do need to cite 4th-gen names anyway, just as the games are provided for the info of the first 386 Pokémon. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine; I had just removed Spinx because that was one of the two names (Snelios/Shelios was the other one) that Serebii itself wasn't sure of. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the [citation required] remarks be taken out and a note be added that all 4th Gen (No.387 and higher) Pokémon names are yet to be confirmed by an official source?  The citation remarks just make the table look untidy. Antisora 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they look all that great either, but this way it's easier for someone to see that the names aren't confirmed (rather than having to scroll all the way down to the bottom. Plus, they're not at all permanent - hopefully the confirmed names will be out shortly. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s intentional, in hopes that it will inspire someone to provide citations. Plus, some names HAVE been confirmed, by the anime, movies, or official website. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it would be helpful to at least note the unconfirmed names, enough to outweigh the risk of somebody ignoring the note recognizing them as unconfirmed and (gasp) believing them to be real, if they indeed are not. At the very least they're a tad easier to type & pronounce than the Japanese adaptations ;) Cheezmeister 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Toy Fair 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: That's fine; I had just removed Spinx because that was one of the two names (Snelios/Shelios was the other one) that Serebii itself wasn't sure of. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the [citation required] remarks be taken out and a note be added that all 4th Gen (No.387 and higher) Pokémon names are yet to be confirmed by an official source?  The citation remarks just make the table look untidy. Antisora 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they look all that great either, but this way it's easier for someone to see that the names aren't confirmed (rather than having to scroll all the way down to the bottom. Plus, they're not at all permanent - hopefully the confirmed names will be out shortly. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s intentional, in hopes that it will inspire someone to provide citations. Plus, some names HAVE been confirmed, by the anime, movies, or official website. --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it would be helpful to at least note the unconfirmed names, enough to outweigh the risk of somebody ignoring the note recognizing them as unconfirmed and (gasp) believing them to be real, if they indeed are not. At the very least they're a tad easier to type & pronounce than the Japanese adaptations ;) Cheezmeister 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4th-gen name sourcing

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree - I had always been under the assumption that they didn't need in-text sources because the games were all cited at the bottom of the page. It looks just plain ugly, and it's not at all necessary. I'm going to undo it - if anyone disagrees, please discuss it here before changing it back. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 04:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it into a reference at the bottom, so that should look better, I guess. :P —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 05:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, yeah, sorry for the confusion. When I said “these [...] should all have citations”, I meant all the 4th gen Pokémon. The rest are sufficiently confirmed by having the games as references, like e.o.t.d said. The official romanizations, on the other hand, could stand to all be cited. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing ''every'' Pokémon?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: After trying different sorting patterns, I've now actually found that it only happens when sorting directly from National number (increasing) to Johto number (increasing). WTF? ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So here's something weird... 

message: How come Dosidon and Rhyperior exist as two seperate articles? - NP Chilla 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone forgot the redirect? *fixes* In addition, somebody needs to fix the National Dex links in the individual articles, as the ones I've seen are still using the Japanese names (mind you, maybe someone's working through and just isn't that far yet).81.132.183.220 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhyperior AND Dosidon 

message: Viewing each individual card (here ), 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)
replies: text: No one wants to, because, when it comes down to it (especially since Pokebeach itself provides blank templates) they can't be confirmed as officially and could easily be fake. Although the "©2007 Pokémon/Nintendo"…—ウルタプ 00:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new Pokemon Cards reveal more than one thought... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nothing came out of that discussion.  Yaysayers were not convincing. Hbdragon88 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The names with citations are confirmed by official sources. The names with  tags are reported by Serebii or another unofficial site and have a stated source - most of these are names obtained at Toy Fair '07, and are visible in the photos of the "Match n' Catch" game. Names that are not there have been reported by Serebii or other sites, but without a stated source. If Serebii were to reveal where he gets his information, then the names might go up early. Otherwise, we're waiting for official confirmation. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Against the majority, a few obstinate users have refused to compromise or help establish a consensus. As long as we are deadlocked, we can’t add the new names, even with a caveat, no matter how ridiculous that is. Sorry. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are the rest of the names?

message: Hey, stop copying and pasting shit, lazy people. Why are magazine citations using the  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  template. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: 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)
replies: text: All I can say is that the article wasn't up to Wikipedia standards in terms of subject matter, and so it turned into a redirect. If you really want to use it, view its history. But really, such a "dilemma" is better solved by going to GameFAQs or Serebii. You Can't See Me! 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pokemon Stages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cranidos 

message: 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)
replies: text: All those fansites are being held as unreliable for now, since they refuse to reveal any kind of reputable sources backing their statements.—ウルタプ 15:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psypokes.com 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to cite the episode with . – mcy1008 (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not actually an episode. o.O' There's really nothing to cite. It didn't even have a title besides "Pokemon Diamond and Pearl." So now what? Teamrocketspy621 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I hear it, it's three episodes in a row. Ah. Sucks I didn't get to watch it, 'cause all I know about yesterday's special is hearsay... See if you can find it in List of Pokémon: Diamond & Pearl episodes. – mcy1008 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Don't worry, they're showing them one at time on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. It's episode 469, "Following a Maiden Voyage." near the end of the episode, Dawn sees Mespirit in Lake Verity, and it, very quietly, says its name, then disappears. Some people may doubt me, but I will confirm it on Monday one way or another. Teamrocketspy621 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note... 

message: 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)
replies: text: The note about the games is at the bottom. I see no reason to keep the individual references anymore. 69.183.52.143/DanPMK 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: wikicharts
O.o it's a bit weird :P Azshadarae Talk 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  There were only 533,000 pre-orders for D/P, which was released five days ago.  I personally hate this page, I find it too be very long - I'd rather just search out indivdiual pages - but I could see how others would like it. hbdragon88 05:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is far from useless; it's much better since we were able to merge together the four or more lists we had a few months ago.  --Brandon Dilbeck 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th most viewed page of wikipedia 

message: 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) 
:Thanks for the heads up; I've posted this on WikiProject Pokémon's noticeboard.  --Brandon Dilbeck 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Pokémon header templates 

message: Do you think we really need a full page for every single pokemon character? --Echeese 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everybody does.  There is discussion at WikiProject Pokémon about merging articles together.  There is some current discussion here.  The most complicated issue seems to have been what the best way to merge articles would be (grouping by Pokédex number or grouping by evolutionary lines).  --Brandon Dilbeck 16:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit excessive 

message: 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)
replies: text: I say remove it. If we include height people are going to start wanting body types and color.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And weight—that's the next logical step.  I'd like to see what more people have to say first, though.  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weight actually affects a few moves in the game, Low Kick and Grass Rope. In the Game Cube games their is no numbering system, the only way to sort the lists of Pokémon seen is alphabetical, height, weight, and type. But, in my opinion, the chart's wide enough without height and weight. Type tells more information than those, and we won't be adding that to the chart.Spriteless 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I reverted the article to the version before that column was added.  I don't think anything else had been done to the article between then and now except for some vandalism.  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: should we, because we know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a game guide
Sir de wario 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general consensus in WikiProject Pokémon seems to be that Wikipedia shouldn't resemble a game guide and that mentioning movesets upsets that.  Worse than that is describing fan-named movesets like those you've mentioned, so please remove anything you find like that.  Unless a Pokémon is notable for using a specific move (like Ditto's Transform), there really shouldn't be any reason to describe it.  --Brandon Dilbeck 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  should we delete anything that shows combo's like "scarbliss" and "bellyzard" or anything related to it 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Okay.  What needs to be done to the article to bring it to that status?  I think it already meets many of the criteria.  Perhaps the lead could be a bit more formal.  --Brandon Dilbeck 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to start would be to ask for a peer review. Feel free to take the time to read through the other featured lists. What this list needs is properly formatted references, sections, and pictures, amongst other things. But the peer review should tell you exactly what you need. - 82.16.7.63 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phenomenal popularity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  a notice to all people who keep putting game guide related stuff in each pokemon 

message: 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)
replies: text: I Agree 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% (heptillion percent)if we squeeze them into smaller articles we lose so many information such as apearance in episodes/moviesYouknowme(youdon'tknowme) 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean losing all the fancruft (don't get me wrong; I LOVE pokemon}, unsourced information, unencyclopedic information, and rumors? This way is better, though yes at first I thought this was bad but this is turning out to be rather efficient. -WarthogDemon 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Being a game guide isn't Wikipedia's job. People can go to GameFAQs or serebii.net. You know, like you'd expect them to do.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The info is all their in the history. None of it ws deleted, it just had a redirect made over it. The Placebo Effect 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of info 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:N: Has to be the subject of significant secondary coverage independent of the source, so in this case being featured in tons of games and the anime doesn't really count. For most Pokémon, third party sources have not commented on the designs or anything of the Pokémon. hbdragon88 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Pokémon  

message: I think if we could add inline citations, it would be up to standard. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Could this be a featured list?

message: 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)
replies: text: It hasn't been quite that bad actually. I'm surprised. Though I do wish there was some way around it. -WarthogDemon 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Removal