Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokédex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great idea! I know little about Pokemon, but it certainly is an important cultural phenomenon and I am saddened every time I see another article nominated for deletion. --zandperl 04:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and it seems the huge, red list of links is... a bit tempting. Just check out the initial versions of Staryu and Starmie. Plus, it WOULD be a good thing to have all 386 of them consistent. You want to help? I'm sure that even if you don't know much about Pokémon, you could still fix the ones that need help (I've seen several). - Bulbaboy 04:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Egad, you're right, I bet even I could contribute to those pages.  :) I'll put them on my to-do list, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes will be higher on the list.  ;) --zandperl 04:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, why is this named Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon? --zandperl 04:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because I thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon was a bit too general. You think it should be moved? - Bulbaboy 07:16, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

British Spelling[edit]

The infobox contains a nasty typo - one of the headers says Shiney colour, which should be Shiny colour. Is there an easy way to fix this, or does this require modifying all the pages about the pokemons? Also the example uses both colour and color, which isn't consistent. Wikipedia style says using either word is fine, but urges to be consistent on a single page. Abigail 10:42, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change that. And, no, there isn't an easy way to fix it on all the pages with the current software... Eh, I'll just go with color, since I'm American (although I'm not sure how smart it is to mention that right now). Of course, that's assuming nobody cares real strongly. - Bulbaboy 05:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've changed all the 'Shiney's to 'Shiny' on the individual Pokemon pages, that is, assuming all Pokemons are listed on the List of Pokemons by name page. Abigail 13:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Great, thanks! And yes, all the Pokémon should be on that page.

WikiMoney Offer[edit]

Hi there! I'm offering bounties for enhancing Pokémon stubs. Details at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiMoney#Addition. --Nikai 14:10, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

I can help compile a list of all the English version trading cards featuring a specific Pokémon (and I might start soon), but I have one thing to wonder about: is the video game base stats and gender distribution for each Pokémon perhaps unencyclopedic, and better suited for a Pokémon game guide at Wikisource? kelvSYC 01:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, you could have a point about the base stats and gender distribution (although I thought it was Wikibooks that you put stuff like that in)... It should be kept for at least some of the articles, though - most notably, Deoxys (due to the fact that it has THREE different sets of base stats!).
On a related note, should we really be including each and every in-game Pokédex description, verbatim, even if it adds little or no info to the article? - Bulbaboy 00:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not necesary. If you look at the Pokédex descriptions I've written and compare them to the in-game ones, you'll notice that it contains bits and peices of each, but it doesn't specifically point out "Ruby Description:" and "Sapphire Description:"
--Fern 19:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

New Pokémon[edit]

According to a couple of Pokémon websites, there are new pokémon that will appear in the upcoming movie starring Deoxys and Rayquaza. So far, the only one released is Gonbe. Should we be adding this pokémon to Wikipedia? What were wikipedians doing when the Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire were coming out {which, if I remember correctly, were Wailmer & Volbeat (the first pokémon to get names in english) and Duskull (still callded Yomawaru then), Kecleon (still called Kakureon) and Shroomish (still called Koniko back then)}?
--Fern 19:09, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see that an article has gone ahead and been created. I'm trying to get an image of him. By the way, just to have some discussion, what do you think his number will be? I think it will be at least 396, because the first 9 numbers after the last pokémon from the previous pokédex (in this case Deoxys (#386) from the [[List_of_Pok%E9mon#List_of_Pokémon_from_Pokémon_Ruby_and_Sapphire_(Hoenn_Regional_Pokédex)|Hoenn Regional Pokédex]]) have always been used so far for the new starter pokémon and their two evolutions. The only starter pokémon with one evolution so far has been Pikachu in Pokémon Yellow, but then Pichu was "discovered" so Pikachu is now a 3-stage pokémon.
Your thoughts?
--Fern 05:31, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

information resource[edit]

Dear all,

I am a pokemon fan, mainly for the character design and game design. I must admit, so far I've only finished the yellow version, and no other version of the pokemon games, so I'm not really the biggest fan out there.

Anyway, I would like to participate in the project. Have any of you heard the pokemon-of-the-day-guy/girl from IGN.com? IGN used to run a daily column which covers quite comprehensive details about most pokemons. I haven't check for a long time, but I think the column should still be there somewhere. They were running this column during the pre-release publicity build up for the Ruby/Sapphire GBA games. I imagine with the new Colloseum and the upcoming Leaf/Fire games, they should have the column up-to-date. Another great website is Pokemon Forever by Meowth346 http://www.pokefor.tk or a mirror site http://pokefor.greenchu.de/meowth346/ They have a really good library on statistics, moves, breeding, types, and pokedex entries!

I don't know the custom for posting website or making link, so if anyone think this is violating any law, please edit and delete it as I have not asked for permission from Meowth346. (et_cetera 3 Jun 04)

Capitalization[edit]

Pokémon article editors, please have a look at the Manual of Style. Page names and headlines should not be Capitalized Like This except in proper nouns. Thanks. Fredrik (talk) 23:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikibooks Pokédex[edit]

Are you incorporating info from Wikibooks:Wikibooks_Pokédex? ··gracefool |☺ 04:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Or, better yet, could much of this project be migrated to that Wikibooks project, leaving higher-level articles here? There seems to be much sentiment that the level of granularity of articles under this project is too fine. +sj+ 08:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Might be a good defensive move until the new policy on articles about fiction is hammered out (feel free to help with it). ··gracefool |☺ 12:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Serebii.net[edit]

I am not too fond of using Serebii.net as a source for anything, unless not available elsewhere. Serebii is known to steal content from the "true" researchers, including Meowth346, who has contributed much knowledge on advanced aspects of POKéMON training, including EV's, IV calculation, base stats, encounter rates and much more.

I strongly recommend using Meowth346's POKéDEX instead. If nothing else, then for the added verbosity - Meowth346's DEX contains the most info of all. --Pidgeot 00:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I use mostly the Pokédex descriptions from the games, the ones from Pokémon.com, and what I can remember from the anime to write my articles. I only use the internet as a last resort.--Fern 00:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Pidgeot, and also feel that this whole dex, as with the pokemon.com and serebii.net dexes relies mostly on "useless" information. Currently, IMO anyway, Eevee's Dex is the best general pokedex and the Smogon Dex is the best battling-related pokedex. Is NetBattle even mentioned anywhere here?

Sotek 14:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Serebii.net, redux[edit]

I was talking with a friend of mine, showing him the Project. I think I've convinced him to get a Wikipedia account, too. When I told him Meowth346 got recommended, well...

(the following is paraphrased, quoted and rearranged from an AIM conversation.)

"See, Meowth is NOT a researcher. I take that personally. He's a hacker and remains as such. Yes, he gives accurate detailed information, but he got it through a method that, while more accurate, is not a research method. As one of the people who worked on reverse engineering the combat formulas for RBY, I feel insulted to see him get the same lofty status for his knowledge of a hex editor.

"Now, I have nothing against him personally, he does us all a great favor. And he hacked it first, he gets props for that. Stealing information from him the way Serebii did is dirty."

"He's just not a researcher. ;)"

Granted, Meowth's never called a researcher, or even mentioned, outside of this talk page. But he raised a good point, and I figured it should be repeated.

Oh, and he (the friend) approves of the use of Pidgey as the Infobox prototype.

I guess that depends on how you define "research". The way I see it, it's still research, just done differently - your friend analysed the end results, while Meowth analysed the program that created those results. Meowth's method would naturally be more correct, but unless you had a way of knowing EXACTLY where you'd find the formulae, I would think it's much harder than analysing results. --Pidgeot 16:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have to add, in various updates, Meowth346 talks about playing through the games to gather data to extract from the ROM. Isn't this research, too? Does collecting data to know /what/ to extract constitute as research? --Random Person, November 1, 2004

Infobox[edit]

I placed a copy of this infobox at Wikipedia:Infobox, so make certain that any changes are reflected there. Tuf-Kat 04:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a couple of changes for the infobox, specifically the box that currently reads Name (Japanese), Number.

First, I've renamed the List of Pokémon by name and List of Pokémon by stage pages to fit with Wikipedia naming conventions (uncapitalizing name and stage). These links should be changed in the infobox to reflect the renamed pages.

Second, the word Japanese currently links to the page List of Pokémon by Japanese Name. This link is redundant, because it only redirects to List of Pokémon by name, which is already linked to in the word Name. Therefore, we might as well un-link the word Japanese.

Jason One 01:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fictional nature of Pokemon[edit]

There was just a discussion on the Wikipedia:Peer reviewpage section 2.15 which concluded that all Pokemon articles should start with a mention that they are fictional characters. Thought you ought to know or respond to it. Lumos3 13:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need to have articles on species in the "Pokémon taxoboxes"?[edit]

I mean, like Lugia is a Diving Pokémon, Pikachu and Sandshrew are Mouse Pokémon, and Charmeleon and Charizard are Flame Pokémon. I personally don't think we really need articles on those – they don't really group Pokémon together the way their types do. I mean, really – most Pokémon species are unique to the Pokémon or to the Pokémon's evolutionary chain. I say the species entries in the "taxoboxes" be deWikified, and the current articles about them be deleted. What do the rest of you think? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 23:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I must say you are right...In the German Wikipedia, these ones would have been deleted immediately. :-D --Luigi 06:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should keep the articles listing the pokémon by types, however, I don't think the list of pokémon by species should stay because, for example, Togetic is not considered of the same "species" as its pre-evolved form, Togepi, for which reason they are listed on different pages.

Exactly my sentiments. Like I said, I think their types categorize them much better than their "species." I do also think the species entry should stay in the "Pokémon taxoboxes" - I like knowing Mew is a New Specie Pokémon, but I just don't see much point in having an article listing all one of the New Specie Pokémon.
...however, now that I think of it, it is kinda interesting to have it pointed out that Pikachu and Sandrew are both Mouse Pokémon. Perhaps instead of separate article lists, any other Pokémon of that 'species' could be noted someplace in the Pokémons' articles?--Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

(The first two comments were copied from the talk of the main Pokémon article - I think, perhaps, you guys can debate it better. :) I'm more working on the non-character aspects of Pokémon, like moves and types and so on, at the moment, but I'd like to say I love what you guys are doing with this Wikiproject. Keep it up!) --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 10:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

No offense, but I find those articles useless. What is the real point of those articles? Because of this, I have listed them in VFD. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pokémon species pages Andros 1337 05:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello. The VfD vote had no consensus, but several people suggested a merge/redirect. Therefore, content for all of the seperate articles is now in List of Pokémon by species. If you still want to reference individual species, you'll have to anchor within that page. i.e. [[List of Pokémon by species#Mouse Pokémon]]. Good luck with your project! Cool Hand Luke 09:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with de-linking the species boxes. Most species only have one pokémon in them; the infoboxes on the new pokémon pages that I create have de-linked Species data. CNash 21:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does one sign up?[edit]

I've never signed up to a Wikiproject before, so I'm not too sure how it's done. Just edit the list of contibutors and add my name to it or something? At the moment I'm wandering around and helping with non-character related articles (things like the lists and moves and stuff), but eventually I plan to help out with the Pokémon themselves... so, where do I sign? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 22:58, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Volunteer by putting your name on the list of contributors, I guess... kelvSYC 04:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well i did :P--Zxcvbnm 20:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evolution.[edit]

I can see why some Pokémon who gained pre-evolutions in later games would still be listed as Basic, but I wonder if that's really the best way to go about things. By definition, a Pokémon that has evolved from another is a Stage 1 Pokémon, and a Pokémon that hasn't is Basic, right? Using Pikachu as an example, maybe, like with the Special stat, we should say something like...

Stage - Basic³, Stage 1²

Evolves from - (none)³, Pichu²

With the footnotes going to the Red/Blue/Yellow and Gold/Siver/Crystal (or Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald) respectively.

What do you all think? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 12:17, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, no one's responded for the last few days, so I suppose I'll get cracking on this. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 05:37, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've recently thought the same thing. I think that Pokémon should be catagorized as Baby stage, and their immediate evolution as basic, if:
1) They can't be found anywhere; the only place to get them is from an egg.
2) They evolve when they are happy. (This exludes Tyrogue)
This would include all Pokémon from any version which evolves into a basic Pokémon from a previous version, except for Tyrogue. User142 09:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Integration with Wikibooks Pokédex[edit]

Several months back, I created the skeleton to b:Wikibooks Pokédex, with the intention of clearly separating Pokémon content that was encyclopedic from stuff found in a game strategy guide. However, I haven't worked on it for a long time. I thought I could "recruit" help from this side of the divide (ie. this project).

Again, the major goal is to put the encyclopedic content here in the 'pedia and the "game strategy guide" parts in the 'books. My proposal on what goes where:

The Wikipedia Pokédex:

The Wikibooks Pokédex:

  • move lists (eg. Charmander learns Ember)
  • TM/HM compatibility (eg. Pikachu can learn Surf)
  • how to obtain (eg. Magikarp can be obtained from fishing)
  • trading cards (eg. Machamp has the Pokémon Power Strikes Back)
  • strategies (eg. Voltorb can be used as a hit-and-run attacker)

Common to both:

I think it would be a good idea for other contributors to put this into motion and make this a cross-wiki Wikiproject.

kelvSYC 04:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like it. ^_^ I think all those bits of Pokémon data are in a sensible area of the WikiMedia. I just have a few more bits of info to add to the list.
Uncertain:
  • Stats (Special Attack/Defense, Attack, Defense, Speed) - would this go in the 'pedia, the Books, or both? On the one hand, it is rather game guide-y to know their averages... but on the other, it's something that adds to what a Pokémon is; Mewtwo wouldn't be Mewtwo without its insane Psychic stat, now would it? I personally lean to sticking it in both, or maybe just the Wikibooks project.
  • Ability (eg. Makuhita has Thick Fat, Misdreavus has Levitate) - Like with the stats, I think this could fit in both Pokédexes. On the one hand, it's something that mainly affects game strategy; on the other, it's an important part of what Pokémon are, like with stats. I lean toward sticking them in both.
Both:
  • Game appearance (eg. Pikachu is available in all versions, Charmander is only avaliable in the original generation and FireRed/LeafGreen, etc.)
  • Type (eg. Jolteon is an Electric-type)
  • Maybe how to obtain when the circumstances are very unique (eg. starters, very unusual evolutions like with Shedinja, a mention that the Legandaries are one-of-a-kind if not where they are, etc.)
Wikibooks:
  • Appearance within the game (eg. Taurous can be found in the Safari Zone in R/B/Y)
How are those? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 14:17, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Great. So why don't we get started? kelvSYC 06:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've only just started fixing up and creating pokémon articles on Wikipedia. For both of the articles that I've worked on (Kirlia and Gardevoir, I've put a basic (non-specific) description on how the pokémon is obtained (for example, stating that Kirlia must be evolved from a Ralts, and listing which games it is available in). I think this is fine to have in the 'Pedia, with a more detailed description in Wikibooks. Your thoughts? CNash 21:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infobox template page[edit]

Is there a template page for the individual Pokémon taxoboxes? kelvSYC 04:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The infobox needs updating.[edit]

There have been several article overhauls and moves made recently/fairly recently that make the current infobox template seem rather out of date. Not sure what the best way to change it is, exactly, but here's my proposed changes. Figure it's best to check; could have done so a little earlier, perhaps, but oh well. ^^' Anyhow, here we go.

  • Put the Hoenn Pokédex number in the first box after the picture, along with the name and so on. It could go after the National Pokédex number, perhaps in the format "Name (Japanese), National Pokédex, Hoenn Pokédex", possibly "National Pokédex number, Hoenn Pokédex number".
  • The Pokémon's stage (in Pidgey's case, Basic) should link to "List of (stage) Pokémon (in Pidgey's case, List of Basic Pokémon.
  • The species should link to List of Pokémon by species with an anchor to the species listing; the links would look like [[List of Pokémon by species#species Pokémon|species Pokémon]]. (Pidgey's would like like this: [[List of Pokémon by species#Tiny Bird Pokémon|Tiny Bird Pokémon]])
  • The types should link to the Pokémon types article, again with an anchor in the proper type. Also, I think they should be color-coded according to the colors in the Pokémon types article. To make the colors work right, they must be bolded with the bold markup outside of the font color tags. (Pidgey's would look like: '''<font color=tan>[[Pokémon types#Normal-type Pokémon|Normal]]</font>''', '''<font color=navy>[[Pokémon types#Flying-type Pokémon|Flying]]</font>''', which looks like this: Normal, Flying)
    • Also about types – I think it would look better to have dual-typed Pokémon's types separated by an "and" rather than a comma, but this may be a stylistic thing and I'm not too bothered by the comma. The same applies to Pokémon with different possible abilities. ...and please, let's make sure we observe whether or not a Pokémon has one or two types or abilities and adjust the template accordingly. ^^' ^_^

That's about it, I think. What say the rest of you – think these would make good updates to the infobox? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 02:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

First, you need to put most of this in a template. Second, you need to stop using <font>. But anyways, here are my thoughts:
  • b:Wikibooks Pokédex uses slashes to separate types (it took me a week to generate the data and another week to write 386 pages of it...)
  • Eliminate the video game base statistics, now that they are in the books.
  • I still think List of Pokémon by species is bordering on fancruft.
kelvSYC 14:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • While I realize and like that HTML is depreciated around the Wikipedia and other WikiMedia (in fact, I've been converting several Pokémon infoboxes into Wiki markup), I don't know of any Wiki markup that does colors. I think color-coding the types like is done in the games is a good addition to the infoboxes. On the other hand, if it's too complex for a basic infobox, I'd be more than willing to add the colors myself.
  • I suppose the stats are rather game-guidy... okay.
  • ...I think I still like an 'and' the best, myself. ^^' But, like I said, could be just me, and it doesn't matter overmuch. At any rate, I think a slash works better than a comma.
  • Yeah, the list by species probably is a little fancrufty, but I still think the data is interesting. Perhaps I just like random useless trivia more than most people. ^_^ It's here, at any rate, and the VfD didn't have a consensus to delete the individual pages, so I think we're stuck with it. Since we are, we may as well use it. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 18:49, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
A few points I'm curious about:
  • In the top cell of the info box is the Pokemon's image and its name, and links to the previous and next Pokemon in the Natinoal Pokedex. How important is it to have these previous and next Pokemon, as they're not related to the Pokemon being viewed?
  • In the evolution section, Blastoise, for example, has "Evolves from Wartortle" with no "Evolves to" -- this is just below "Stage: Stage 2"; what if instead of Stage and Evolves From/To, each Pokemon has:
  • Evolution
  • Basic Squirtle
  • Stage 1 Wartortle
  • Stage 2 Blastoise
  • Replacing "Stage" and "Evolution" with an evolution list allows a user to reach all evolutionary stages of a Pokemon from the Pokemon's page.
  • Base stats have always seemed clunky to me to have in the info box. Maybe replacing them with something telling its highest stats or removing that all together, and save stats for the WikiBook pages? This also removes need for the bottom cell which tells about stat differences between Red/Blue and Gold/Silver and the cards. So, I agree with removing them frmo the info box.
  • I prefer Type1/Type2 myself. Comma-separation's always felt odd to me.
  • Should a link to the Pokemon's WikiBook page be in the infobox somewhere?
Lesoria 23:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and should the Hoenn Pokedex really have a pominant place in the infobox? If so, what about the Johto Pokedex? Pokemon Diamond/Pearl version should have a new regional Pokedex, and a Pokemon like Munchlax surely will not a Hoenn number just as Skitty doesn't have a Johto number.
Lesoria 23:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the links to the previous/next Pokémon in the national Pokédex are useful, myself. It's a navigational thing... good for browsing. I'd miss them if they were gone.
  • I like the listing of all a Pokémon's stages within the Pokétaxobox. ^_^ Of course, would they be commented out if not applicable, like is done now, or deleted outright? I kind of prefer commenting out, but deleting wouldn't bother me, either.
  • Let's just remove stats entirely. Wikibooks is better for them anyhow.
  • Well, guess I'm outnumbered on how to separate types. :) Ah well, slashes are better than commas. ^_^
  • Wikibook link is a most definite, I think.
  • Well, technically, the Johto Pokédex didn't re-number any Pokémon, just reordered them. ^_~ On the other hand, some Pokémon, Vulpix for instance, were given entirely new numbers in the Hoenn 'dex that can't be figured out by putting the first 251 in order starting at 203. Also, I haven't picked up FR/LG, and I still haven't finished Colosseum so I can trade with that... what numers are given to non-Hoenn Pokémon when traded into R/S?
Anyhow. Perhaps that box should be split into Name and Number, if the Hoenn number is added. As for Munchlax and its fellow D/P new Pokémon, well, they can just have the word Hoenn replaced by whatever the D/P Reigonal Pokédex is going to be called. ...of course, this does mean the other 300 someodd will have to have their new numbers added eventually... ...or, maybe we'll get lucky and D/P will only reorder them like the Johto 'dex.
...I guess my view on this, summed up, is "Let's cross the D/P bridge when we come to it. For now, Hoenn numbers for all!" : )p ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 01:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Sparky:

  • For the Hoenn index numbers for non-Hoenn Pokémon, check out b:Wikibooks Pokédex:Hoenn Index. This is consistent with various National Dex sources. And yes, it's the rest of the first 251 starting at 203 (so Cleffa is after Clefairy, etc).
  • There is no wiki markup for colors (that's sad), and I feel that the folks in charge really don't know what they are thinking when they allow font but not span (nor display:inline on div).
  • The entry numbers in b:Wikibooks Pokédex:Johto Index are extrapolated from their relative ordering in the Johto Dex, so it acts as an informal numbering.
  • You don't have to comment anything out if you use template parameters - just remember to give the value to all Pokémon.
  • I use HTML a lot in b:Wikibooks Pokédex when pages hardly ever needs to change.

Lesoria:

  • Previous and Next by index numbers preserves Wikipedia conventions on article series. Not well, but reasonably well.
  • The reason why showing the whole evolutionary chain would not be a good idea is summarized in one word: Eevee. Fitting five names under "Stage 1" is a pain to make the layout wrap around it.

kelvSYC 06:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • All right, I'll continue with the Stage/Evolution as-is, but won't Eevee have the issue of showing five Pokemon for "Evolution" either way? Speaking of, Eevee's page is lacking. I think I'll go remedy this.

Lesoria 12:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

      • It's so that you wouldn't have to list the sibling evolutions (eg. Umbreon from Flareon) five times in five pages... kelvSYC 16:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Okay, so what about the Japanese name issue? Split List of Pokémon by name, or have an anchor? I'm leaning more towards splitting, as the page is getting rather huge... on the other hand, we have a whole lot of Pokélists as it is. Still... it's only going to get bigger, and size is why I split up the original huge list of Pokémon by Pokédex number, "List of Pokémon".
  • Getting back to the numbers... well, I still think the Hoenn number should be included, myself. For instance, in the National 'dex, Clefaa and Clefairy are sepearated by a very wide margin... and, even though Johto didn't technically renumber anyone, perhaps its informal numbers should be included, too. ...maybe there can be an "Other Pokédex categorization" box? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 22:59, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Japanese name sorting have been inconsistent at best. Some pages use straight-up Hepburn (or Kunrei-shiki) romanization, some use romanizations as provided by Game Freak, and the kana may or may not be included (most likely not). Furthermore, the sorting system used in the anchor page (last time I checked) is done not by kana (which would make more sense as we are sorting Japanese text), but by an English language romanization. (For reference b:Wikibooks Pokédex:Japanese Index uses only the kana - no romaji of any kind) kelvSYC 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...well, obviously you seem to know a lot more about transliterating the Japanese language than me... ^^' So, what do you think should be done? Some kind of standarization, perhaps? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 23:33, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be standardized. We should have, at the bare minimum, the following:

  • English name (our article title uses English names)
  • Kana (the Japanese form is most correct with Kana)
  • official Game Freak romanization (cause it is official)
  • Hepburn romanization (to conform with Wikipedia's policy on Japanese stuff)

Whether this belongs in the infobox or the article's main sentence is still a matter of debate.

kelvSYC 03:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps one box could have English name, Game Freak romanization, and official 'dex number, and a "Kana/Hepburn" box could be added? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 05:27, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if Kana and GF romanization were switched, as that would group the romanizations together (official and "standard"). While the GF romanization is more official, I almost never see it used - either Hepburn or Kana is used.
Alternatively, one could switch Hepburn and GF romanizations. --Pidgeot 16:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm in two minds as to the Base Stats question. I like having them there, but I agree that they're probably not necessary for a Wikipedia article. I won't start deleting them from random infoboxes as I find them, but I won't continue to add them either. As for the Hoenn Dex - surely we'd have to list the Johto Dx numbers too? I list the Hoenn Dex number in the introduction to the article, but not in the infobox. CNash 21:25, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

Let's edit these lists here as we go along, as we continue to clarify and agree upon things.

  • Agreed upon:
    • Axe the video game base statisics.
    • Types should be separated by a slash (/).
    • Keep the evolution data as it is now.
    • Type colors are good. (Judging by the recent addition to the box on the main project page)
  • Not clear:
    • Japanese name – split List of Pokémon by name, or have an anchor?
    • Japanese name forms
    • Pokédex numbers other than the National Pokédex number – include or not?
      • Number list anchor(s)
    • Species list anchor

New proposal[edit]

I am considering to add Color to the Pokemon taxoboxes, and a list of Pokemon by color. Color is a valid Pokedex sort method in the newer Pokemon games. Psypoke has this search method on their online Pokedex. Andros 1337 18:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POKéMON Stub suggestion[edit]

About a week ago, I made a suggestion regarding Pokémon Stubs. Seeing as how no one has replied, I thought I'd make you aware of it here.

Please go to the talk page for Pokémon Stubs to see my suggestion, as comments would be greatly appreciated.

Voice actors[edit]

What would be good here is perhaps to include voice actors for the Pokémon. This might be difficult (as different Pokémon belonging to different trainers may have different voices). I can probably locate the names of the Japanese VAs, but I have a hard time matching up English VAs with their Pokémon.

Now here's a dumping ground of info:

And an incomplete list of Pokémon with the same name in both but use different voices:

kelvSYC 09:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Celibi[edit]

Could somone working on pokemon take a look at Celibi and clean it up. Thanks--nixie 02:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The correct article is Celebi, not Celibi. Additionally, I don't really see anything in Celibi that isn't already in Celebi.
I've changed it to a redirect for the time being, but if people want to review it themselves, they can go here. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 14:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to merge[edit]

Please give your opinion on Wikipedia:Poképrosal, a proposal to merge a number of pokemon stubs into comprehensive lists. Radiant_* 12:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

A poll for or against this proposal is currently being held at Wikipedia:Poképrosal. The proposal is to merge most of the articles on individual POKéMON into a smaller group of articles divided according to a certain criteria. Please cast your vote on the matter. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to request that you members cast your vote there. The vote is currently 14 in favor of merging, 7 opposed. --Dalkaen 03:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox evolution descriptions[edit]

As stated in the guidelines:

"Evolves from" cells and "evolves to" cells for Stage 2 Pokémon (and Stage 1 Pokémon with a pre-evolved form) that contain no data except "(none)" should be commented out like this:

I've noticed a particular unregistered user has been making Pokémon articles to "fill in the blanks" - and in doing so, has deliberately ignored this piece of advice. This user has even gone through existing articles, adding the line back in when it has been legitimately omitted!

While I realise that this is only a guideline, and that users are not obliged to obey it, removing the "Evolves from" and "Evolves to" fields for pokémon without evolutions is simply common sense. Adding a new line with (none) on it is unnecessary.

I'm now going to go through and remove those lines again. Perhaps I'll expand a few articles along the way. Remember, Mr. Unknown User: while it seems nice to have proper articles for all separate pokémon, articles containing nothing but an infobox and a stub template is, IMO, worse than not having any article at all. CNash 22:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Lately, a pronunciation row has been added to the infoboxes of Pokémon #001-005 (Bulbasaur to Charmeleon). Is this going to be the standard? Should it be added to every Pokémon's article? Plateau99 5:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's unscientific (ie. doesn't use proper IPA) and nonstandard, so I say we should remove it. Besides, few Pokémon have pronunciations that are different from what the orthography suggests (ie. how it is spelt), Raikou (/ku/ rather than /koU/) and Larvitar (/veI/ rather than /v@/) are examples. kelvSYC 21:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Normalization?[edit]

I've noticed that a lot of Pokémon articles follow different standards in some respects. For instance, in the Zigzagoon article, the Name Origin heading is listed last, when it is usually listed first, but there's no globally acceptable norm. Should there be? Should each article follow a more formulaic setup? I do understand that it would be disadvantageous for those not a member of this Project to add things conforming with the acceptable standard, but members could edit newly added information so that it falls into the correct area.

I think it might be good if the articles were set up in this way:

  • General information first
  • First heading: Name Origin, if any is known. A lot of the time this is speculation, but many Pokémon names have fairly obvious etymologies.
  • Second heading: Pokédex definitions. Some people prefer to handwrite this part, using excerpts from the various Pokédexes, and some just prefer to list each definition. I prefer the latter, but I tend to conform to what's already there. Perhaps this is something we could also normalize?
  • Third heading: Anime appearances.

And yes, I do understand that making sure all the individual articles conform to this standard could be an ordeal, but I'm willing to help. -Dalkaen 02:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that I've been editing a few Pokemon articles and would be more than willing to join the project, even though it does seem rather dead at the moment. Since I've been checking around, I've seen that Availability is an often included category as well, so that should probably be included in my proposed form. From what I've seen, the Availability section in the Spearow article seems the most well done; it would be good if we could conform to that level of quality in other articles. -Dalkaen 10:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Would images from the video games, screen-captured via a Game Boy player and edited to only show the pokemon, count as 'fair-use' screenshots for Wikipedia's purposes? Almafeta 02:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Fantasy character classes page as well as pages like Gaspar (Chrono Trigger) use the sprite for the character -- I don't see where fair use on a screen shot would differ from fair use on a sprite from a screen shot. --Lesoria 12:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since it would appear those pages set precedent, I've prepared images for us to use. I've implemented a uniform naming scheme (<POKéMON>NormalSprite.png, <POKéMON>ShinySprite.png and <POKéMON>SmallSprite.png) to make it easier for us to use them (making a template that takes the name as a parameter might be an idea).
The files are available in two formats, as a ZIP file and as a self-extractor created with NSIS (smaller, but won't work for *nix or Mac users). They should be tagged with {{screenshot}} when uploaded. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Colors[edit]

Some articles on Pokemon use cutesy colors for every word. Most people do not consider that particularly legible, so would you please consider not doing that? See also Wikipedia:Pokeprosal. Radiant_* 09:48, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Pokémon[edit]

There is no date when the series launched in Japan or North America... can someone give me the information on that or update the page accordingly? Thanks! -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gotta delete 'em all?[edit]

Participants in this project might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills Kappa 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems. One, this is a wholly moribund project and has been superceded (and the project that superceded it has in turn been superceded), and two, it doesn't have a thing to do with Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokédex&oldid=1088102166"