Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51)/Archive 1

message: This really seems kind of pointless and all around irritating to me. Not all of us fans use Bulbapedia, as it's not very easily navigable to some extent, and it's also extremely slow compared to this site. 
I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks the pokemon need to just stick with their own page for each species. I can imagine many others were as stunned as I was when they went to look up information on a Pokemon and they suddenly got some half-arsed list that tells absolutely nothing. I mean, it doesn't even give height/weight information anymore!
I agree with you. -Skrb
Me too, its unhelpful to have such brief descriptions- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.191.173 (talk • contribs).
:And why is that exactly? -WarthogDemon 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you feel there should be some more coverage in general about these Pokemon, check  this article version; this is what I figure these list pages would ideally look like in the future. I was really surprised when a lot of the game and anime info was deleted as fluff shortly after. You could take it up with TNN on his talk page to express your thoughts over this specific issue if you like (not that I feel in anyway bitter toward him for his deletions ^_^). I am really hoping that this merge business doesn't come across as overly unreasonable by the end of the process. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no vote. We've already have had several months of discussion on this. See the talk page off WP:PCP. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's original research, we can't have the names without sources. TheBlazikenMaster 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reason: The previous 493 articles were of uneven quality, with various grammar/spelling errors, and provided 493 easy targets for vandalism.  Condensed as just 25 articles, the text is 20 times easier to cross-check, revert or update.  A similar grouping has been done for small year-in-topic articles, condensing 100 yearly articles as redirects of 10 decade articles (10 times faster), but the Pokémon grouping is even faster, as 20x times condensed.  Consider the effort needed to add common traits (such as birthdate) to all 493 characters: just trying to verify edit coverage of 493 articles is a nightmare. Note that each character has a subheader to still allow concurrent editing of the 20 characters in each article. It is a compromised view, but simplified, as just 25 articles of 20 each; however, an evolutionary-tree article could have links into the 25 articles, with up to 493 character links in just a few (or so) similar evolution articles.  WP walks a balanced line between useful information and years of grammar/spelling errors: quality can be improved by condensing articles and adding unique information under review in a limited number of articles.  Never the less, some Pokémon characters might need "main articles" (such as "Magikarp (detailed)") to handle excessive details outside the 20-character list, just not 493 main articles again, please.  -Wikid77 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 493 easy targets for vandalism, huh? I hope you realize that EVERY article in this website is an easy target for vandalism. Using that logic, we should merge every single article into one with a paragraph of useless information on every subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.12.152 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the entire thing? The vandalism bit was one of the minor reasons. -WarthogDemon 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read the entire thing. Guess what? Every other page on this website is of uneven quality and has various spelling and grammar errors. So again, I propose we merge every single article and give each subject a paragraph of useless information. It means only one target for vandalism, means that everything will be of even quality, and makes sure that spelling and grammar errors are easy to edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.196.232 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean all the gameplay information? That's for Bulbapedia. Feel free to help contribute the gameplay information over there. -WarthogDemon 17:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, TV shows actually get rewards, some critics, appearances in other media, parodies and stuff like that. But pokémon don't get much of it, especially not critics, so it's not at all like TV shows. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the image part, the policy needs to change. Without the images, people have to use Google Images or something, that's not what we want. It's not that we're lazy, it's that it's no piece of cake in changing that policy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to ruin hours upon hours of hard work guys. I bet the people who voted to merge this don't even play Pokemon and see as some stupid game/waste of time and space. The Captain Returns 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point?

message: Well, I assume all the Pokemon images are going to be put in here at some point, not just Bulbasaur :D, so if you're not spending the time doing the images you can just leave that to me to do them now if you'd like. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Idunit. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images could and should be right-aligned, I believe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not like any one way is much better than the other for many people. Let's have them at the right. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: too many of these descriptions don't follow the guidelines at WP:WAF. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then let's fix the issue together; I'm only going to create the next List of Pokemon page once this page has been optimized to the best of Wikipedia standards. This particular page should be completely made so it can serve as a model for all the other pages to follow (though this page features more noteworthy Pokemon than pages like the List of Pokemon 260-280 page would in the future, so this particular page would become quite big indeed). Perhaps the best way to take care of this issue is to completely create and optimize the section of, say, Wartortle or Metapod, so that the other Pokemon on the page can be modeled the same way. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps what we should do is strictly focus on Rattata for the time being, and completely bring it up to a standard that least violates Wiki-guidelines. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in-universe 

message: Could somebody create a directory template for the List of Pokemon series of pages that looks somewhat like what I have posted below? Thanks. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good. Perhaps just a minor edit to that...
			
List of Pokémon (001-020)  • (021-040)  • (041-060)  • (061-080)  • (081-100)  
(101-120)  • (121-140)  • (141-160)  • (161-180)  • (181-200)  
(201-220)  • (221-240)  • (241-260)  • (261-280)  • (281-300)  
(301-320)  • (321-340)  • (341-360)  • (361-380)  • (381-400)  
(401-420)  • (421-440)  • (441-460)  • (461-480)  • (481-493)			
You Can't See Me! 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's assuming a discussion has garnered the consensus necessary to use the Lists of Pokemon over your merge-by-evo-line concept; I'd rather wait until such a discussion takes place before asking anyone to make a new template. There might end up being more support for the evo-line merging concept anyway. But thanks for the input. :) Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I like the idea of grouping Pokemon instead of giving each an individual page, but... To me, it seems as though this page is cramped as it is, and it's not even finished yet. Perhaps 20 monsters per page is a bit too much. I'd actually say that 10 pokemon per page is a bit too much.
How would grouping by evolutionary line and by similarity sound, with all of the leftover one-stage pokemon being grouped by generation? Approximately 2-4 pocket monsters per article will still seriously cut down on the number of Pokémon articles, and grouping by lines/similarities seems more meaningful (in my opinion) than grouping by number.
I have a more detailed explanation on the PCP Talk page, in case anyone's interested. You Can't See Me! 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's about we let the community decide on that over there. Wikipedia's only appealing to users if were going to do something that a lot of people agree with. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 04:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Sorry if I sounded pushy. I wasn't sure if that was supposed to go there or here, so I put it in both. Again, sorry. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Waitaminute, that wasn't meant to be criticizing, that was meant to imply that I approve of having a discussion about whether to do things this way or your proposed way. There's nothing wrong with putting a notice on here at all, nor did I think for an instant that you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist
My watchlistwere being pushy, really. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps my above comment is awkwardly worded, so I'll rephrase it while retaining it's original meaning: Your alternative approach to merging Pokemon species could be indeed a viable alternative, so I approve of having a discussion over at WP:PCP on whether to do it that way over this List of Pokemon way. If there's more of a willing consensus to do it that way, creating the new merged pages would be easier because more Project members would be compelled to work on them. After all, Wikipedia's only appealing to users if they get to do stuff that a lot of people agree with. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! Sorry, I just associated "How's about we let..." with a tone of annoyance and assumed that I seemed too persistent. In any case, I didn't mean that I wanted an automatic change to my approach. As you suggested, it would be better first to come to a consensus. Sorry again for the confusion. You Can't See Me! 05:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 10 would be way too small; I think 20 is decent. Plus, just having 10 on each page doesn't seem like enough to constitute an article. 10 would look stubby, 30 would look too big, 20 is just right. -WarthogDemon 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Cramped? 

message: Whoo! I just fixed some of the links on this page and 21-40. -I PWN U ALL 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Fixed! 

message: After doing some number crunching with species, I've found that when this plan is fully implemented, we will end up with a total of 204 articles that cover the Pokemon species: 
*69 of those pages cover 3 or more Pokemon each (e.g. Bulbasaur evolutionary line, Wurmple evolutionary line, Tyrogue evolutionary line, Slowpoke evolutionary line, Sinnoh Legendary Pokemon, Eeveelutionary line... Hah hah, that last one was a naming joke); 
*108 of those pages cover two Pokemon each, such as Rattata evolutionary line, Barboach evolutionary line, Riolu evolutionary line, Chimecho evolutionary line, Zangoose and Seviper, HighwayCello and Minun - er, I meant Plusle and Minun... another joke);
*25 pages are the List of Pokemon series of pages covering 20 Pokemon each, and throughout them there will be 35 non-evolving Pokemon that will be detailed in full within the lists (Farfetch'd, Dunsparce, Mawile, Spiritomb);
*2 pages I assume will actually become stand-alone articles on the Pokemon themselves: Pikachu and Mewtwo.
I'm supposing 204 articles is an improvement over 493 articles, right? Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduction by just over half... not bad, I guess.  Still, I can see some people might still object to the sheer quantity of Pokemon articles.  Maybe the 25 list pages will be the next to go... Bhamv 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, the irony there is that if it were decided that the 25 list pages were to be vaped, the 35 separate pages for the 35 non-evolving species would take their place, so we'd be deleting -10 articles. I think. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just remember, this isn't about making people who complain about pokemon happier.  It's about improving the quality of the articles and the encyclopedia in general.  I personally wouldn't care if all 493 species were separate at some point, so long as they were all decent articles.  You know... Feebas and Milotic probably could never become a GA on their own, but combined there actually might just end up being enough info there one day. Same with the Eevees. Btw, i've posted a comment on the pidgey evolution page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Challenge? I'll make Feebas and Milotic GAs by mid May 07 and they should not be merged if I win.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Articles that would result

message: Why don't we just leave the Pokemon articles as they are and improve on them? If you cram them together by Pokedex number (1-20, etc.), then you can't fit in all the information that you should be able to anyway. If you cram them together by evolutionary line, then there will be plenty of articles hanging on their own becuase the Pokemon don't evolve. If you just leave them they way they are and focus more on improving the content within rather than the way they are organized, then we would have a better chance of getting them up to Wikipedia standards.
And besides, these articles are about video game characters, they don't all need to be featurred at some point or another. The Pidgey evolutionary line is no more likely to be a featured article than one about just Pidgey because most people just don't care. Oraclelink 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my own reasoning is a little different than many other people's. i think that if we remove a lot of the non-sourced/verifiable information we usually only end up with enough information that would fit nicely into a section.  By starting out with a smaller constraint, contributors will hopefully be more selective in what they decide to add to an article, i think this measure will actually help to ultimately improve all articles.  The goal isn't really featured status, but ideally someone will develop the Pidgeotto section enough that it can get it's own article and then once it has been "promoted" it will already be a GA or very very close.  Flaafy has been around for a while.  It will never have enough info to legitimately get it's own article (unless it gets a bigger role in the manga, video game, or anime).  The most recent solution to your problem of having not enough info in lists, and leftover pokemon in evo-line articles has been to combine the two approaches.  Leftover pokemon will remain in the lists, but with expanded sections.  I don't really see why Magikarp evolutionary line can't belong to :Category:Fictional dragons and we can solve the type problem by reintroducing lists of pokemon by type/stage/hairstyle. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: i was only made aware of this today - this is a horrid, horrid idea. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest? There is simply not enough information for most of the species to sustain an article. -Amarkov moo! 03:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  There's no problem at all with the status quo as is.  If Huntail is the worst of the batch as has been implied to me, then we're in excellent shape. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is by no means a "heaven-forsaken idea," nor do the articles look silly in everybody's eyes. However, this is indeed taking too long... You Can't See Me! 06:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are you doing this? 

message: Bulbasaur has ample verifiable content to maintain its own article, so I have demerged it. See the discussion for this here). Thank you. —Celestianpower háblame 12:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulbasaur 

message: I am currently with WikiProject Pokémon on the French Wikipedia (:fr:Projet:Pokémon) and I used to translate the articles directly from the individual articles. Were the histories merged or do I have to ask an administrator for the previous versions of the articles? Thanks in advance.  ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You add "?redirect=no" to the URL and then click history: the penultimate version is the last one before the merge. For example, for Weedle,  go to  then click [history]. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Just cooperate with your sister Bulbapedia (they use the MediaWiki engine too you know...) and add the Pokemon stuff over there.  What's so hard about that?!?!?   MudkipNDS 77:77, 77 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us plan to, but you know, nothing's stopping YOU from pitching in to help over there. O_o -WarthogDemon 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just transfer already!!! 

message: I can understand why Pokemon like Ivysaur and Wartortle would be merged.  However, why would you merge pokemon like Charizard, Squirtle, and Charmander who have more info with the anime and other things than most characters from other series?  I don't see how it benefits anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazydom2 (talk • contribs).
:Some are being debated right now. As for the majority; pretty much as you said: had more encyclopedic content than others. This is better organized. -WarthogDemon 00:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get this 

message: If Raven's combined template becomes a reality, one can assume that all of its sections will be set to "hide" by default. If that is the case, the navbar will also be hidden. So, perhaps a smaller, more readily available template, such as the one represented by the table below, could be added to the top-right corner of the article where an image would typically go.
List of Pokémon
1-20	List of Pokémon
1-20
<<<Prev.	Next>>>
I personally have no idea how to make this kind of template such that the numbers and the prev/next links change based on the current page, so I can't create this template myself. But if anybody's interested... Thoughts? You Can't See Me! 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the top of the page... 

message: Ivysaur and Squirtle is in Super Smash Bros. Brawl and appear when Pokemon Trainer summons them. So can someone add it?
:Right, it's been added. I'm pretty sure this is how one does it with these lists: use one sentence in each of the 3 Pokemon's sections to state that that Pokemon appears as a playable character in Brawl when the player plays as the Pokemon Trainer character; that's very practical information, but any additional info would probably qualify as either Original Research or Game Guide. Erik Jensen (Appreciate|Laugh At) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reference for this? --Chris Griswold  (☎
☓) 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Smash Bros. Brawl 

message: This is just a suggestion.  Many people seem to be overly upset over the loss of individual articles for each Pokemon.  If all the extra information is being put in Bulbapedia anyway, why not put an External Link section at the bottom of every article that is a List of Pokemon and list Bulbapedia as an external source?
And, if you really don't like Bulbapedia that much, then help make Bulbapedia a better place.  Every Pokemon discussion article has at least one complainer over this matter.  I wasn't on board with this decision either, but it really defeats the purpose of having Bulbapedia if you are going to repeat that stuff here.SuperChencho 05:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I want someone to delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.1.161.132 (talk • contribs).
*Deleting this article will just make no info on pokémon at all. Try Bulbapedia if you want more pokémon info. But by removing this article, the pokémon will NOT have their own pages, it will just make things worse. Please go to the site I suggested. TheBlazikenMaster 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want it deleted, put it up for deletion. SpigotMap 22:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Caterpie shows a prominent osmeterium! I think that's a neat thing to add!
The entire reason we had these articles is so people who knew something (like Pochiena being named after a prehistoric hyena-relative) interesting could add it in.
At the very least, the page should say it's protected at the top, cuz right now it's just confusing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
:Well, the name origin is oringal research. But you're right, the article does in fact need the protection. I have no opinion on that Caterpie thingy, but I added a tag. TheBlazikenMaster 00:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect! 

message: A discussion on the recent removal of fair-use images from this series of articles has been posted at the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. Morgan695 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what everyone can agree on. I personally find it ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This policy is absurd in the context of fictional creatures; fictional people I can perhaps understand, but not with creatures that are so hard to describe. Regardless, policy is policy. The best we can do is find a way around it. You Can't See Me! 23:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series 

message: I moved the individual pokemon pages which redirects to this page to the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki.  Since they are filled with information that is mostly game related I thought it would be still relevant to be saved and updated. --Cs california 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old wikipedia pages

message: I believe it would make everyone happy. Wikipedia has damn near endless space for articles, I don't see why we can't have both your worthless list of vague paragraphs and a main article for the Pokemon themselves. Pikachu and Paras get to have seperate articles. These two get to have their own articles, and Good-Article/Featured-Article status pages were taken down for this seemingly unusuable list, so why can't there be a page for each individual Pokemon and the list? The Captain Returns 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read all the sections prior to this one. This has been gone over a thousand times now and it's getting old. You have left no reasons for having articles, we have left reasons for not having full articles. We can't go on explaining forever, maybe a template is in order. SpigotMap 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't we have both? 

message: I have looked at other articles... and other shows have MORE articles than Pokemon EVER had. Either you need to condense all those articles, or bring back ALL Pokemon pages. 72.161.133.85 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What happens with other articles outside of the Pokemon WikiProject is none of our concern. That's like saying that we should do the same thing for Mount Everest as we do for Michael Shumacher. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about use the  tag on whatever you want split back to a separate article? Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I'm an infrequent user (age catches up) who popped their head in and was appalled by this change. The amount of content that has been removed along with individual pokemon pages is immense. All plot information, series appearances etc. At least revert to 2005 content with a different naming convention ie Charmander -> Charmander(Pokemon). 58.105.178.30 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  you're being unfair 

message: I propose the following merge-to-list process on the following Pokémon entries to be undone: Ivysaur, Charizard, and Squirtle. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections to be deconsolidated into individual articles 

message: First quadruped in Smash Bros.?  How many legs did Pikachu and Pichu have again? 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's a pointless bit of trivia anyway. Let's not worry about it, let's just remove it when these things creep in TheBilly (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and already did it. :P -Sukecchi (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivysaur

message: The reasons for merging the articles were idiotic and show that the editors are lazy. If the former articles were trolled and had spelling and grammar errors, then why not clean them up? There was no good reason for the merge. These articles contain virtually no useful information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.115.0 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons for merging weren't laziness and idiocy, they were notability and verifiability. Each individual Pokemon is of little importance in the real world. They've had little cultural impact whatsoever. This isn't a game guide (WP:NOT#GUIDE), it's an encyclopedia. The will of the fans doesn't dictate content, the whole community does, with the goal of making a real Encyclopedia. This sort of fancruft is being trimmed down all over the place..... except maybe with Harry Potter, because those fans are the most rabid TheBilly (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pokemon has had little cultural impact...? You've got to be kidding me. You have seriously got to be kidding me. Pokemon was one of the BIGGEST things ever. Where were you when the Pokemon fad started? As soon as the games hit the states, Pokemon's popularity EXPLODED. It's as big as Star Wars and Harry Potter. You cannot deny that THEY had a great impact on culture, so why do you deny that Pokemon did?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.186.87 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not true. There were p[perfectly valid reasons for the merge. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing real world articles with fiction. The U.S. presidents have a lot or REAL-WORLD info, it doesn't matter if all of the world knows about them, as long as it has real world info it can have its own article. Pokémon only have info available through the games, TCG and anime, unless you can find info about most of them by an interview, newspaper article, they can't have their own articles. Simple as that. But you could check out Bulbapedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we even need these lists if the pokemon are of no importance? Does wikipedia even need a list of Pokemon? Ninja337 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose we give each Pokemon its own article once more.