This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Currently there are two proposals i guess.

Merge Pokémon into lists of 20 or some other arbitrary number, worthwhile Pokémon have links to main articles

Each Pokémon gets fair treatment in this manner, but usability is potentially sacrificed and we should try to avoid arbitrary measures.

Merge Pokémon by evolution line or implied connections

Some Pokémon will be leftover, either being grouped with Pokémon they really have nothing in common with, or remaining in lone articles. Additionally, great care will need to be taken to avoid subjective grouping and layout.

My idea is that we kind of do both. Let's have these massive list articles but then only include the most basic information. Each section would then have a main article which is the evo-line article, the redirects would then be pointing to these main articles. For pokemon that don't have these evo-line articles their info can remain in the list with just a larger section, the redirects pointing to the list. we still need to really concentrate on firm style guidelines so we can have consistency. UCantCMe! had made some suggestions on my talk page. I actually propose that we create a complementary page to WP:PCP/S with agreed upon guidelines to refer people to when they ask why things are one way rather than the other (one example is to possibly order the pokemon by dex# rather than evolution; this can help give a visual history of that line's development and would allow things like Pikachu to be discussed first, rather than after Pichu). Also considering this topic's length of discussion it might be best to have a devoted talk page. Should i just plain move this discussion there or should it be archived and then linked to from the other page? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. My original concern with the evo-line merging was that single-evo non-notable Pokemon like Mawile and Spiritomb would be unaffected, but this blend of two camps making such Pokemon enlarged sections on the Lists would square that away effectively. Maybe the discussion of that should be put on the List of Pokemon (1-20) talk page, because by your compromise proposal that page would remain in use. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I started the relevant discussion about this proposal at the List of Pokemon (1-20)'s talk page. Hopefully something will come out of this this time. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... so how is this going to affect the PCP? I'm mainly concerned that the semi-pros in place are going to be revoked. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to get him to - pardon the insensitivity - get over it. Really, what he was blocked for was something he should have been blocked for. He left because he didn't like getting blocked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am SHOCKED, I tell you! But I think he had problems at home as well as on WP. Well, since he had supported my Lists of Pokemon concepts, I'll keep on trying to make them in his memory, then.

If he's effectively no longer a member of WP:PCP, then as registered member #2 that means I will end up the controversial president who does nothing but warring after all. (See here and here for the in-joke.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King, Queen, Elder and the Preacher. You fit in the latter category, Mr. Failing Appreciator. :< - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a big fan of him, and it didn't help that he seemed to give out somewhat of a weightier voice than the rest of us. Unless it's obviously garbage, I really don't like it when people prefer deleting things over keeping them. Regardless, I hate when people cruft-hunt. It disgusts me. I don't believe in "cruft" at all. Maybe some new things can finally get added on now? I'm trying to see this in a positive way.Toastypk 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, we're not here to comment on people's faults, are we? - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I had to at least get that off my chest. I'm still trying to be civil. Toastypk 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have to talk nice because he might come by and read stuff. I mean, it's not like he's dead. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he just reverted his talk page back to the lone "Go Away", I think he's lost all interest in Wikipedia. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though I'm not quite up to AMIB's level, I AM a cruft fighter and I HAVE eliminated a lot of cruft from the Pokémon selection of articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toasty, read this for thw Wikipedia definition of cruft. I myself fight off cruft, but as I already have an allegiance with a Project, I'm reluctant to join the PCP. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can join more than one project! All it means is that you'll have twice as much work... --Brandon Dilbeck 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are just sly, you know that Dilbeck? ;-) - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dil, as I make custom D&D material using the information here, I am afraid it would be a conflict-of-interest to join. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand. --Dil 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) AMIB's opinion wasn't given more weight, it was just that a lot of us usually agreed with it (A Link to the Past, Erik the Appreciator, Amarkov, me). Hbdragon88 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know... erik's even said things like, "even though i understand your position i think i'm going to side with AMIB on this one as he's usually right about these things." (paraphrase) So i can see where toasty is coming from, of course that is really the only blatant exmaple i can think of from anyone. Despite how it may look, i was a little disheartened when i read through the histories, we may not agree on everything (or even anything) but i hate seeing anyone get so angry. i agree he needed to blocked, his high incidence of revert warring could alienate new editors, but at the same time this is an example of an intrinsic flaw within wikipedia so i'm a little sympathetic to both sides. additonally, WP:CRUFT is an essay that get thrown around too much. if anything the essay should discourage use of the word because it is a blanket argument that superficially provides no actual reasoning behind it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always sure that I knew my own opinions as my own, and I was always sure that it was coincidence that my thoughts about Wikipedia content and its policies matched many of AMIB's. If I ever said anything that implied "I'll go with AMIB over anyone else's opinions because I assume he's always right and others aren't quite as right", then I'll retract that with full apologies because that wasn't my honest vantage point. I will in fact admit that from time to time I was legitimately irritated by Black's conduct, such as when he first piped up back in November about how none of the Pokemon species are notable enough by reliable secondary sources to each get their own pages; when I had to look at the Wiki-policies behind his reasoning, however, it started dawning on me that I had to agree with him that some sort of merging for the sake of improving the project per Wikipedia policy. My attempts at convincing a mega-merge were a result.

The main reason why I believed and practically insisted on doing a mega-merge of Pokemon species into various list pages, however, was based on what I see about what Wikipedia and the various Wikis are apparently meant to be: Wikipedia is not meant to be the ultimate reference for everything, but rather the best general reference for everything, because it is meant to appeal to a wide range of readers of a wide range of casual interests, and the many subject-specific wikis such as Bulbapedia are what are meant to be ultimate references for fans of those subjects. I believe creating Lists of Pokemon would present the many hundreds of species in a non-bloated and practical way that would appeal to more of Wikipedia's general demographic. I was just lucky that both AMIB and Hbdragon thought it was a good way to improve the situation with the Pokemon species articles.

The aspect about AMIB's legacy that I want to personally question rhetorically is as follows: Is it truly, absolutely imperative that all Wikipedia content policy be followed down to the last period for every article on the site? He thought so and tried putting that into effect for articles on games, so that they would be in ideal shape as per the vision of articles by Jimbo Wales - an admirable goal, sure, but one that generates a lot of controversy, and perhaps there was too much controversy generated for both his own good and for the good of the project. I think it'd be a far more meaningful goal to structure articles' contents so that they practically conform to all those policies perfectly, because it may be far too difficult a goal to go all the way through for every Wikipedia article. Perhaps we can ease up a tiny bit on policy constraints to encourage a more efficient process of creating very good articles in general (rather than perfect articles), though that's just my (newish) opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be a taxing environment after all.

Since I seriously do not want to antagonize anybody online with my on-wiki hijinks, I'll try to be more open for collaboration among other users and pay more attention to the actions of the other admins around here. When I say that Wikipedia won't seem quite the same without AMIB, I mean that in both negative and some positive senses. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

erik i apologize, i think you misunderstood me, or at least misunderstood what i was referring to. i was talking about an old discussion that showed an explicit example. anything else that has been construed as "following the leader" is purely up to other readers. but comments like the one in that discussion and ones like it are ones that have occasionally perpetuated an air of ownership. I hope i didn't offend your character though as i value your input and contibutions to the project. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, there's really no need to worry about offending me on anything; I'm not quite sure what would offend me online at this point. The situations in the past were a bit confusing, however. I would suggest we just now focus on discussing and deciding whether to merge Pokemon by national Pokedex order or to check You Can't See Me's merge-by-evo-line concept above. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's some issues at the Glitches found in the Pokémon video games article. A lot of well meaning people are adding gobs of unsourced information to the article and I don't know how to best handle activity of this nature. The nature of the article makes it feel like a dumping ground for game-guide-like original research. An article like this, pointing out some of Nintendo's flaws, ought to have adequate sources (which probably don't exist) to back up these claims (similarly to policies in WP:BLP). --Brandon Dilbeck 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good article, IMO. I think sourcing is pretty good - official press releases and all that for the berry glitch and the saving glitch. But I'm leaning towards removing Glitch City, which doesn't have a lick of sourcing. Missingno. is bearable because Nintendo released an official statememnt, but the only thing on Mew we have is GameFAQs...not reliable enough. Hbdragon88 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the whole paradox I find here. These things absolutely exist. I'm sure I could find at least 20 sites talking about Glitch City, as well as possibly a video on youtube. It's just really aggrivating for me that wikipedia can't even talk about it just because we can't find it on Nintendo.com or Pokemon.com or anything because official sites would obviously try to hide it. Would something like 20 non-official sources warrant enough credibility? If it can be found on many sites, it's obviously carrying some weight. I'm-a go look real quick and see what I can find. Toastypk 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20 sites and Youtube can be wrong. I bet I could find 20 sites saying that you can get Mew in RBY by moving the truck, but it's still wrong. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I've found some really good stuff. Including a whole Pokemon glitch website.

http://www.trsrockin.com/glitchcity.html

http://glitchcity.info

Specifically this - http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdGWYEuTyBs Toastypk 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for things that have been confirmed within the community, if we have a youTube video of it, would it be enough to say that our source is the game itself and then just reference youTube as a means for quick online verification? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you all know Serebi went and revealed every English possible --DSDark 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not going to be added, due to the content being exclusive to a fansite (and one that many people at this WikiProject do not trust). For all we know, it could even be an April Fools' joke. Ultraflame 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why Serebii isn't considered a reliable site, but I can see how it could be an April Fool's Joke. --DSDark 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered unreliable because it is run by one person, who thus is not accountable very much to their mistakes. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lividore and I have reached a sort of compromise–I won't revert Serebii's names provided they're the ones that can be considered correct translations (i.e., Mitsuhoney's ability "Honey Collect" to "Honey Gather"). That alright with everyone?—ウルタプ 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is no criteria for what is "more correct" than another. For example, who's to say that "Azelf" is incorrect while "Porygon-Z" is? For all we know, their names might be been "Agnom" and "1337Pory" respectively. You Can't See Me! 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...I got to Dialga and it won't even let me reveal Pokémon anymore. o-o Although I suppose it doesn't matter too much, since Nintendo Power revealed everything on that site anyway.—ウルタプ 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiister2007 (talk · contribs) is ading Serebii info. I need some help, since I'm nearing the limit. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like TBM got it already. hbdragon88 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem at all. It should be few days now til the Diamond and Pearl will be in the United States. So then we will be able to unlock the rest of the unconfirmed pokémon, including Booburn. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created List of Pokémon RPGs. I have now gotten it up to Featured List standards in my opinion. Because of this, I have nominated the list at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pokémon RPGs. Funpika 22:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm going to copyedit it a little bit. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you all know most, if not all Pokémon articles contain the following text: "are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise—a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards, and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. The purpose of Arbok in the games, anime, and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon—untamed creatures that characters encounter while embarking on various adventures— and tamed Pokémon creatures owned by Pokémon trainers." with references shown at the bottom of the page. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to create a template that displays this text. I know that it wouldn't have very much use now, but if future RPGs were created with additional Pokémon, it could help very much.--Tempest115 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. They contain that text because there was a template, actually. It was deleted because templates are not supposed to be used to write article content, and introductions should not all be identical anyway. -Amarkov moo! 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this text is unnecessary. If people want to know information about the series, they'll look at the article. Character articles shouldn't describe what their series is about. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 28#Template:Pokestart. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imakuni? is currently being considered for deletion. I'm no expert, but (according to Japanese sources) he seems to be a somewhat notable Pokemon musician and promoter, and apparently he appears as a character in a Pokemon game as well. The main reason for deletion is the sad state the article is in at the moment, and the lack of English sources. I have cast a vote at the VfD to have the article deleted unless someone more knowledgable shows up and volonteers to clean up the messy article and make it sound more credulous. TomorrowTime 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Erlade (emphasis added):

Just pointing out, Chatot and Electivire, you said they were officially confirmed by the anime, just saying before that, Serebii did EXCLUSIVELY reveal the names, just like they did with the others, and if all the names prove to be right, I will be petitioning Jimmy to make serebii a verified source because it has never been wrong, and just causes arguments that it isn't a useable source. Myzou 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, is it possible to petition Jimbo (as he's saying he will) to make a source automatically reliable? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's best to wait til Diamond and Pearl will be released in the United States. Besides, it will come this month. After twelve days, or seven weeks and five days. We can wait, can't we? TheBlazikenMaster 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem, Blaze. The problem is that IF everything from Serebii is confirmed to be on D/P, he's going to petition Jimbo Wales to have Serebii automatically become a reliable source, WP:RS's guidelines be damned. That's why I brought it up here. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about that. If Jimbo suddenly allowed this to happen, don't you think there'd be more of a precedent for a lot of OTHER articles and websites to try and get in too for this? Serebii.net isn't the only site on the internet to get their info uncited, anonymously and sometimes right, but when does anyone have the right to rally that site to be claimed a reliable source? The experienced of Wikipedia's editors would know what makes a cite reliable or not - you can't just change an entire view of many people. If Jimbo Wales is pushed for this, the guy might as well kill off the Reliable sources guideline. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind at all for serebii to become a source. God knows, it would help a LOT. What other freaking sites would you use that cover that stuff in depth? They try to correct everything too. Anything new that comes out they try say if it's credible or not. Toastypk 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's not just of what you, or we care about. It's what the experienced editors care about. A site that doesn't meet the requirements to be claimed reliable (even with all the fixes made, note that it's ALSO MAINTAINED BY ONE PERSON and NOT an editorial) shouldn't be cited. We'd have to run a lot of things through other editors before we'd even come close to declaring SPP reliable. I mark it as unreliable, and so would other editors around Wikipedia. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been wrong...can you get any more blindsided? I think there were some Pokedex complaints, something that I haven't yet attested to. They also misleaded me on the Macho Brace once. But enough of that. Jimbo almost never intervenes in any situation unless it's a really big case, such as the wheel warring on the pedophilia userbox and the Daniel Brandt article. For instnace, on WP:ATT, he just removed the {{supersede}} template and told everybody to start discussing. He didn't automatically nullify ATT. I doubt he would intervene here. hbdragon88 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is silly. The point of sourcing guidelines and policies is not to make Wikipedia more of a challenge, it's to make sure that material is correct. Jimbo might theoretically have the power to say "This source meets WP:RS", but he does not have the power to say "To hell with WP:RS, use whatever sources you need to make an article big!" -Amarkov moore cowbell! 00:15, 11 April 2007

Let's also not forget that Serebii has been fatally wrong before. Not to say a lot of it isn't reliable. The opposite, in fact: Serebii is the most reliable Pokemon fansite out there. However, fatal mistakes such as Feint/Anticipate, Mighty Guard, and Legendary Blaziken (or, more recently, legendary Lucario) do occur enough for it to be a problem. You Can't See Me! 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of since deleted page Wikipedia:WikiProject:pokemon has been merged in to this talk page, here in case anyone needs it. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get what you did. You care explaining? TheBlazikenMaster 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys help me do something about this?—ウルタプ 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. D:—ウルタプ 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone talk to Pokemonlover56? He just copy-and-pasted Mukuhawk over to Staraptor - and then reverted back to the c&p-moved version. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it doesn't look that awful, but we still need a lot of references, so I was thinking that I could get help from Wikipedians who are also pokémon fans? References are important. After Mewtwo is finished, we should focus on this one. Any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 16:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold off on species article writing until the current issue is settled - merge or not merge? If merge, then there's no need to add more to the article. hbdragon88 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the merging is already going on. You Can't See Me! 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disagree with the merging. Each spieces even in evolution line are different in some way. If merging would be finished, I personally find it ridicilous. For example, Torchic doesn't have much info about the fighting skills because it doesn't have it, Blaziken does. I personally think Biological characteristics is the most encylopedic section in the pokémon articles. I'm actually surpriced things like Family Guy episode doesn't have any merging plan. Pokémon might not be as notable as Family Guy or things like that, but it's still notable enough for each pokémon to have their own articles. In my opinion it would be awful if the pokémon would be merged. I'm aware of the fact this is NOT a game guide, but that still doesn't mean each pokémon can't have its own article. I still diagree. In fact, I wish I could stop it. TheBlazikenMaster 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ironicaly, one could argue that family guy POKEMON is MORE notable than family guy. I'd bet that worldwide more people know of even Pichu than Chris Griffin. And while i still value your opinion, i'd like to know where you were during the last discussion? that wasn't even the first time it had been brought up. By merging pokemon by evo line, we're not saying they're not different (they are still given their own sections) but instead showing one more way they are related while at the same time forcing contributors to be more judicial in the kind of information that is included. Most less notable pokemon have little information beyond their entymology, pokedex info, and anime/manga/tcg appearances. I'd actually like your help at Pidgey evolutionary line so that we can make sure vital information from the original articles is still preserved. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, Family Guy is far more notable than Family Guy. Seriously, I highly doubt Chris Griffin/Pichu comparsion, though, it's purely anecdotal in nature. hbdragon88 23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so this is the reason why not even ten users have worked on Mewtwo in a month of focussing! We're merging Pokemon species articles? anyone in favour of such a ridiculous decision should try and lift Everest. Here I have something to wish them luck! Vikrant Phadkay 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, why not create a list of who is for and against any kind of merging?

For: The Raven's Apprentice, A Man In Black, Erik the Appreciator, Amarkov, A Link to the Past, You Can't See Me, Zappernapper (evo line), me

Against: Toastypk, Vikrant Phakay, TheBlazikenMaster

Nine versus three. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia with your spurious nomination of the List of Pokémon article. hbdragon88 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of counting is immaterial, because unencyclopedic articles that threaten the loved ones must be deleted. Merging and "Hbdragonhood" will ruin our project and Wikipedia on the long run. Vikrant Phadkay 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not illustrating a point. Such lists are unencyclopedic(They will never be complete), non-uniform and ambiguous and they must go. Vikrant Phadkay 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I wanna read about Plusle, I don't wanna read about Minun. Becaue I'm not really a big fan of that. I still think the merging is ridicilous. TheBlazikenMaster 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is Plusle and Minun count as a duo, like Abbott and Costello, and subjects more famous as part of a duo are generally covered as a duo in a single article. Beavis and Butthead are another example. In a sense, putting the two of them together in an article is more informative.

I remember Toastypk's objection to the merge plan was specifically to my proposed version of merging all 493 species into 25 list pages, and it was partly because of his argument that I shifted gears to support the current merge plan being implemented right now: Merge by evo-line in pages like Pidgey evolutionary line with slim list pages like List of Pokémon (1-20) to back them up. This plan, which is the creation of Zappernapper more than anyone else, had the consensus support of many in the For camp above as well as others that I'm sure count as part of the For camp too (for example, Bhamv (talk · contribs)), and I consider myself strictly a supporter of consensus wherever it can be found, so that's why I was working on these list and evo-line pages and will continue to work on these as long as there is a consensus to make these.

To me, the merge-by-evo plan will hardly delete much info at all about the species; in fact, having species in an evo line together in an article provides additional context for those species, and they will require less game-guide and trivia to fill them up, and both of these factors will make reading about Pokemon species immensely more appealing to Wikipedia's more general demographic, which really is part of Wikipedia's mission as a general encyclopedia, I believe. In a sense, it's like this sort of merge may count as a creation of information, not a deletion. Since I'm a giant fan of the franchise, I want to share it with more of the world's Wikipedia readers, and merging by evo-line will be a great step in that direction. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, I still find the idea dumb. There is nothing you can do to change my mind about it. TheBlazikenMaster 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore you gave a bad example, it seems that Butthead and whatever have their own article. TheBlazikenMaster 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is sheer nonsense! So many important articles practically lost among evolution chains - The National Pokedex list will look funny! I consider all this as an excuse to avoid improving our 886 Pokemon articles. Vikrant Phadkay 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. *Slaps self on the (butt)head* Well, how about this: I won't physically create any more separate pages for that mergist project, but instead keep on improving the ones that exist, and if any of the many other users supporting the idea of a fair mega-merge creates more pages in the Lists of Pokemon series, I'll improve those because their creation will have demonstrated more of a consensus to do a fair mega-merge, and I'm strictly a supporter of a consensus. If you don't mind me editorializing a bit, I'm pretty sure there's thousands of users out there who believe that having so many articles on species of Pokemon is what makes WP:PCP seem like a joke and is in fact part of the reason why Wikipedia itself gets some of its bad press. If not, then why is it that throughout the past half-year various and multiple other editors have piped up on this talk page as to how weakly-sourced, reliant on policy-breaking information, and practically unfixable the majority of the species articles supposedly are? (And let me tell you: I figured I was being extremely fair by supporting Zappernapper's merge plan of merging-by-evoline because little actual information would be lost through that, compared to what I believe Amarkov wanted for the species : outright deletion of most of the Pokemon articles because most of the species aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. I think that was his reasoning, correct me if I'm wrong Amarkov.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AfD isn't the best thing to do, thought I supported, since it was just my opinion. But I still think that merging is a bad idea. Pokémon doesn't suck, is that the reason why the merging is because it sucks? If it is, then excuse me, if the merging is because few people like pokémon, is that correct? Well, if it isn't, then forgive my ignorance. But I suspect that the merging is because of that reason. Please correct me if I'm wrong. TheBlazikenMaster 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, liking Pokemon would have been characterised by completing many articles and not shortening them. I am quite sure that the only reason for merging could be the load of 900 articles, nothing else. This should stop right now. Vikrant Phadkay 14:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, we'll lose all our GAs in this baseless merging. Are you folks ready too remake them? Then why not make more GAs right now? Vikrant Phadkay 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merging in part because it only serves to isolate Pikachu even more (since Pikachu is the most popular of the Pokemon and can easily gain its own article), the lack of discussion on how to deal with the one-on-the-field Pokes (i.e. Celebi, Arseus, Lugia), and the same on lone-star Pokes (Farfetch'd, Kangaskhan, Dunsparce). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Pikachu be on same page as Raichu? TheBlazikenMaster 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same question could be asked of Dungeons & Dragons and its controversies. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Zapper and others agreed that Pikachu would be in its own page even though there would be a Pikachu evolutionary line page; Pikachu's section in that page would be a very short section with a Main Article link to the page. It might be considered one of the concept's prickly little issues nontheless. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Almost everyone knows that Pikachu is weak compared to many other pokémon. Besides, Raichu doesn't have too much details, if you're gonna merge rest of the evolution lines, don't leave Raichu alone with its baby form. TheBlazikenMaster 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence you see my beef with the idea. As I said above, we also don't have any iota what to do with the standalone Pokes who don't have evolutionary lines/lack any group classification. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait until Nintendo realizes an evolution of them? But yeah, a good point. We'd have to wait a long time as Nintendo only makes new pokémon like every three years. Anyway, I believe Erik has some good plans how to merge them without ruining anything. TheBlazikenMaster 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this and this are pretty much where how we handle the species through this merge concept have been discussed thus far, and we had said that stand-alone non-evolving and non-groupable Pokemon like Farfetch'd and Spiritomb would be completely detailed in their respective sections among the 25 list pages, sections about as long as each of the three sections in Pidgey evolutionary line. That's why the 25 list pages were needed in the first place, to give those species their due coverage without keeping them in their own pages where they couldn't either be expanded or be merged anywhere else. That way, typing Farfetch'd would section-redirect to List of Pokemon (80-100), where Farfetch'd's fully detailed section would reside and the redirect would connect to. (Thank god Wikipedia was upgraded to allow for section redirects, this mergism effort would break down and fail without it.)

As for Pikachu, it was pretty much decided to keep its own article while having a small summarized section about it in the Pikachu evolutionary line article, and this section would be duplicated in the Pikachu section of List of Pokemon (21-40). It's a potentially awkward little issue, sure, but this was one potential plan that came up between me and the others (Zapper and You Can't See Me in particular), and since I believe Zapper should receive the most credit for his coming up with this merge plan, questions and arguments about elements of this merge plan should probably be taken up directly with him for the most part. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks erik! I actually wrote out a whole detailed explanation but explorer crashed on me. However, i did manage to save an example of what a section Pinsir might look like, you can find it at User:Zappernapper/Pinsir example.

People might better understand this merger if they look at how the pages are organized as a promotion process. All pokemon default at the lists. Then if they have an evolution or other noteworthy connection to another pokemon they are broken out into a group article. A noteworthy connection is one that's explicitly stated in the medium (no Tauros and Miltank) and you could write at least one could lead paragraph about (good == no OR). Some group articles will actually have smaller groups within them (a variety of articles like Legandary Hoenn Pokemon) which may be promoted according to the terms at WP:SS. Examples may in the future include an article entitled Phione and Manaphy or Regis. Individual Pokemon species are then promoted out of their group or list article by the same token (WP:SS). This will ensure all individual species articles are at least a "good" B-Class. My Pinsir example above shows how many articles that seem to be at a B-class are really only Start-class when you remove inappropriate info, boilerplate text, and long reflists which are mostly duplicated across all species. The benefit is that FA/A/GA/B+ articles remain as they are unless they go through a respective review process (non-PCP related) and information is removed. I'm also planning on putting all this, in excrutiating detail in a layout guide at WP:PCP/Layout. right now it's not much, but maybe by the time someone reads this it will be more. I'd actually like to ask that all discussion on this topic be continued at that talk page so we can finally have a centralized discussion on this. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Mewtwo is as important as Pikachu doesn't make sense in my opinion. I mean, he only appeared in one movie, and few other appearance (less than 15 anime appearance.) it might be the first movie, but how does that make it as important as Pikachu? TheBlazikenMaster 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't think it was meant that Mewtwo is as important as Pikachu... More like Mewtwo is still a head above 98% of the other species in notability, and is possibly close to Pikachu in notability, so it is probably the only non-Pikachu Pokemon remotely Pikachu-calibur in notability out there to give him his own article. Any other Pokemon that happens to be between Pikachu and Mewtwo in notability should most probably get its own article as well. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, Mewtwo is one of four pokemon to star in a non-pokemon game, and was in two movies, not one. You know, Pichu may even end up with its own article someday. But about this notability thing... i think i accidentally went off in a different direction... i really would like some people to start discussion at WP:PCP/Layout. Not here at "Huntail looks awful." The things are figured right now, Torchic would probably remain independent... the current FA/A/GA article total is 25. However, taking just a cursory look at Category:GA-Class Pokémon Collaborative Project articles I think we will need to be asking for reviews. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to me to let Torchic have its own article rather than Blaziken. I always thought that Blaziken was more notable. TheBlazikenMaster 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is recommended that this project consider a rename to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon collaborative. Please discuss here. --NThurston 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? The merging will kill this project anyway. Though, I think WikiProject Pokémon should be good idea. TheBlazikenMaster 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to waste time on such trivial things like renaming and merging. If we all focus on the species articles we'll make 200 GA's in this year. Vikrant Phadkay 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this would be in line with our kind-of sister Digimon; originally called Digimon Systems Update, Ned Scott later simplified it to just "Digimon". But I like this acronym for PCP. hbdragon88 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. No harm can come of it by the look of it. Funpika 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if someone watns to take the time to make the moves, fine. But they'll also need to update all references to Pokémon Collaborative Project in instances where temporal relevancy is important (like categories, lists, portals, WP pages, templates) the redirects will be fine in talk pages. honestly though, too much work for something that doesn't change anything. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take the time to make the moves. Funpika 16:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, I can't move Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon. 4 edits on that redirect page. I will have to request the move. Funpika 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thougt it might be a good idea to include pictures of the Pokemon while they're in the three-dimensional games (Pokémon Stadium, Pokémon Stadium 2, etc.) on each Pokemon's individual page. I know it might take a while to get all of those pictures and put them in, but I thought I might ask about it here. Opinions?Leprechaun Gamer 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...--Tempest115 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? I don't think it really offers anything... -Sukecchi 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with sexual dimorphism running rampant in D/P, there's really no point to include the 3D image. The 2D image with the Characteristics section is good enough, and besides, everything is being merged (See either above or the newest archive). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh heh [1] hbdragon88 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting you want us to Lickilicky your Baltoy? BTW, the Baltoy is only several inches away from the Arseus... Put the two together and you get AIDS. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need to add that?--Tempest115 20:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Course not. I just assumed he was making a joke by posting that link and was expecting an approproate (well, inappropriate) answer. I assume the comment can be outright removed if anyone finds it offensive, and I don't plan on making more comments like that unless asked. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i was actaully expecting you to be laughing at the old page serebii had that talked about the gender changes, it showed Scizor's abdomen growing larger and then smaller, over and over... i hope i'm not the only one who thought it looked a little nasty. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lawl. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rofl... hehehehe, thanks! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers creepers, that never occured to me! Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat major gaming site uses the 'leaked' names: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.38.172 (talk • contribs)

I'm a little wary of it for now–the confirmed species are wrong–i.e., Turtwig is the "Young Leaf" Pokémon; they've got "shoot".—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 05:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, when are you guys going to start using the English names? You can't just change them on Sunday since fansites will have exactly the same reliability issues. How're you going to find a good source?

Darkrai/Shaymin/Arceus also won't be officially revealed for a while. (Darkrai will for movie 10. Arceus might not for a couple of years.) What are you going to do about them? --Sonic Mew 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the only source that there is that Sheimi and Arceus even exist at all is fansite hacks and shaky YouTube videos. If that was good enough to create the articles at all, surely English examples would also be good enough to move them to their English names? That or delete them, frankly; that'd almost be less objectionable. 217.42.64.91 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can change the names on tommorow. We get the game, play the game, and most likely, change the names.--Tempest115 18:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the game and I sent a Tangela and the Pokémon it evolved into was called Tangster. To actually move Tangrowth would violate WP:POINT but how is one Wikipedia contributor a reliable source compared to the stuff that isn't allowed? Though I lost the trail of Wikipedian logic ages ago... --Sonic Mew 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed Erik's example on how it might be on Pidgey evulution line, and I saw that there was no lost info. I apologise to anyone about my ignorance. But I know for sure, merging is no easy job. I should've viewed Erik's example on Pidgey evolution line before complaining. Sorry again, I now understand what it's all about. TheBlazikenMaster 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha... while I am extremely humored by the sudden change in opinion, I should warn that that page was only a draft of an evo-line page that I slapped together in a short period of time from the other Pidgey line pages. I would expect the page gets loads of rewriting, editing, and talk page debate before it can be considered a model for other evolutionary line pages; that's why this was the only evo-line page that appeared thus far. In other words, my "example" is a pretty rough one that requires a lot of refining and discussion. Thanks again, Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes Blaziken PLEASE help us to improve it... we really can't move forward with this until we've reached a consensus on style guidlines for these new articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good in merging. Besides I don't know what to do. TheBlazikenMaster 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well the current conundrum is what to do about TCG info... you can see the whole problem at the pidgey evo talk page. I've also created a proposed layout guideline at WP:PCP/Layout, that will hopefully clear up some of the misconceptions. It might be a little different than what erik or amarkov were proposing so that is why i'd like as many people as possible to see it. this guidline would allow more than just Pikachu and Mewtwo to remain independent articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Pokemon games.com it confirms a hand full of name--DSDark 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already had all those names. Funpika 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Mothhim, Burmy, Wormadam, Chingling and Drifloon--DSDark 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these on the site? (Btw, Burmy was confirmed by IGN a couple days ago.) – mcy1008 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mothim is right on the front page of the D/P page of Pokemon-games.com and the others are, click on Get Started, then learn more about sinnoh, and there keep clicking next, and the pokemon on the side changes.--DSDark 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also tell me where you found Roark? – mcy1008 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same site on the page where you click get started scroll down the page, and click on his image.--71.192.119.17 01:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. – mcy1008 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Pokémon for Wikipedia 0.7.. Hopefully it will make it! Funpika 02:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They revealed the names of a lot of Pokemon. Burmy, Glammeow, it's time to freaking move the pages. Toastypk 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it two days - AMIB's move-prots expire then, as do all the semi-prots. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the goddmaned move history. Jesus. Well now we've got five nosensical redirects and we can't move it to a good place anymore.
Cabush?!—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have any history, either, not even Beadull. For the love of Schnee... -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. "Beabarel", "Bibarell", "Cabush" (what?), and "BIbarel". Off the top of my head.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Conflict) Looks like BIbarel (Capital "I") is the actual article, likly a typoed "Bibarel". -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I requested a move back to Beadull just a little bit ago.[3] – mcy1008 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon sent out copies of the games early. Some people have copies of it already. - Forgotten hope

This is about something else entirely, Forgotten. Tell that to MCY on his talk page; this is about the quintuple-redirect that is Beadull, Bibarell, Cabush (wtf?), Bibrael, and Bibarel. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Wow... that's moronic. Sorry for not paying attention. -Forgotten hope

Gah ha ha... What's really funny about that is that those five names, as of this comment here, are redirecting to each other: Bibrael -> Cabush -> Bibarel -> Beadull -> Bibarell -> Bibrael ad infinitum... Thank god multiple-redirects don't keep on redirecting automatically until it's at the final destination, if there is one; rather, a double redirect lands you on a redirect page rather than being redirected to the next page automatically. Otherwise, this series of pages would probably break our browsers. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 21:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I...it's happening again...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily that one was fixable. – mcy1008 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahh... well, I just speedy tagged the nonsense redirects. – mcy1008 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are kind of funny, actually. Cut-and-pasted by someone who thought Mukubird's (or Mukuhawk's?) name was Staraptop... By the way, you guys should keep an eye on Category:Fourth-generation Pokémon - you should hopefully be able to catch a good number of "problems" that way. – mcy1008 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... when are we going to start letting people change the names since the games are out soon...? >.> I kind of don't feel like reverting them anymore. – mcy1008 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, um, and what'll do we do with stuff like Arseus/Arceus, also? I mean, it's not like they can be found in the games legitimately at this time... – mcy1008 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the published game guides have all Pokémon listed? Maybe I'll flip through one next time I'm at GameStop...Pokémon isn't really a game you need to buy a guide for.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So uh, now that we can actually move them, how exactly can you do it? I tried moving Garmeil to Mothim but it says I can't, an article of that name already exists, in which case it is the redirect page to Garmeil. Forgotten hope 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. We just have to wait for the requested move I mentioned in that post. – mcy1008 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Legendary Pokémon requires massive cleanup. Massive. There are large amounts of unsourced claims including original research and original terms, loads of speculation (Darkrai may be the Rayquaza to Dialga and Palkia), and intermixed gameguide. I'm willing to help, but I 'd rather have someone agree with me first. You Can't See Me! 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often, it's best to be bold and do the edits. It's usually anons who make the objections, but they shouldn't, of course. Best recommendation? I agree with you. Get out there, be WP:BOLD and snipe the evil that is gameguide. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 10:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to changing the articles for Fourth-Generation Pokemon to the correct names? It would make Category:Fourth-generation Pokémon simpler to navigate. -- Jelly Soup 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Um, I think we lost our Bibarel talk page. – mcy1008 (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there being a big discussion about this about a month ago, but, for the life of me, I can't find it in the archives. I don't know what the end result was for the names. -- Jelly Soup 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonater (talk · contribs) has recently been creating a series of templates based on Pokemon. i.e. {{Fossil pokemon}} and {{Legendary pokémon}}. Does anybody else believe these are useful designations? I'd rather have a category for these typings instead of a template. hbdragon88 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i added the 4th gen fossil pokemon--DSDark 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can have the legendary pokemon template, but I don't think we need a fossil pokemon template. Funpika 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the merging having consensus enough to go forward, this is like adding new paint to an unsafe roller-coaster car. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this merging thing is going forward? Ugh boy... I wish I had the link to the talk. I can't find it. Toastypk 04:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think the decision was made in the last archive. and it's not really final. we're seeing if it can work. you can also view relevant discussion at #Huntail looks awful - a fitting name huh? There are three articles, List of Pokémon (1-20), List of Pokémon (21-40), and Pidgey evolutionary line. The articles have discussion that should be about content and style. Discussion about the merger in general (not about what info is going in each page) is at WP:PCP/Layout. Hopefully you'll like this idea.

As for the templates. I don't think they're going to work well when the merger goes through. additionally, navboxes should ideally be able to convey information can't be contained in a simple See Also list or category, which these aren't doing. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not being merged the way it could have been, which was to cut it down to 25 descriptive list pages only, with about 20 Pokemon being in their own articles based on quality sources (the merge method you Toastypk had opposed in the past, and probably with good reason in retrospect), and that is key; it's instead being merged by evo-line, which will tone down the number of pages to just over 200 without much actual content actually being removed. This way has indeed much more consensus behind it because it still provides a large kingdom of pages detailing the Pokemon, but organized so that Pokemon like Chingling and Chimecho get covered together, which both provides better context and provides more material on merged evo-line pages so that they won't be stubs, and therefore become much better Good Articles. It's like we're gathering our nearly-500 stubs together to build a metropolis of Pokemon articles organized to promote better and more clear coverage of the Pokemon to whoever visits our city, including some Wikipedia readers who don't know much general stuff about the species but would like to. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this also pair with implicit Pokemon pairings like Tauros and Miltank? Or Volbeat and Illumise? Plusle and Minun? Toastypk 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not for Tauros and Miltank; we can't be sure if they were ever considered a pair by Nintendo, unlike the other obvious pairs like Lunatone/Solrock and Zangoose/Seviper. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the one-on-the-fields and standalones; i.e. Farfetch'd, Arceus, Celebi, Kangaskhan, Dunsparce, Corsola, etc? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 20:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was Zapper who stated here that the stand-alones get fully covered in their respective sections in the series of list pages that starts with List of Pokémon (1-20). The first Pokemon to be covered like this would be Farfetch'd, #83, in List of Pokémon (81-100). So searching Farfetch'd would section-redirect you to the Farfetch'd section in that future list page, and that section would be much more detailed than the rest of the sections on the other Pokemon, who would have Main Article links to their respective evo-line or pairing pages. I believe Zapper should be considered the biggest source on how this merge plot is supposed to work, considering this is more-or-less his plot. I also remember some talk about the Legendaries getting grouped together in pages as well. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH WILL THE DISCUSSION FORKS NEVER END?!?!?!? i'm trying to play Pearl here.... All questions, comments, suggestions, discussions should now be directed to WP:PCP/Layout and i'm really annoyed at the person who moved the pages without touching anything else... grr... hopefully everything is fixed right... (Palkia is way better than Dialga)-ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Zapper. I'd rather control time over space. But Dialga got so screwed with Time Roar - nobody likes the elemental Hypber Beams, and this one is no exception. hbdragon88 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ the fact that Dragon/Water only has one weakness... muahahahahaha... ok... this has gone off ytpoic enough hasn't it? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not a member of the PCP, I have created some userboxes for people's favorite Pokémon types.

• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Normal}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Fire}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Water}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Grass}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Electric}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Ice}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Fighting}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Ground}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Psychic}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Rock}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Ghost}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Poison}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Bug}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Flying}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Dragon}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Dark}}
• {{User:Andros 1337/Pokémon Userboxes/Steel}}

What do you think about them? ANDROS¹³³⁷ 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are unneeded, I at least have no use for them. My opninion. TheBlazikenMaster 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's critical to like all of them if you're going to do any good in the video game. I suggest you use these three-letter abbreviations from the early games to better fit the boxes: BUG DRG DRK ELC FIR FLY FTG GHO GRD GRS ICE NRM PSN PSY RCK STL WTR --Brandon Dilbeck 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While a good strategy would be to use a variety of types, these userboxes are for your preferred type. I am sure most Pokémon trainers have one type that they prefer. BTW the four-letter abbreviations fit well in the boxes; I wasn't able to think of a good abbreviation for the Steel-type, so it is the only five-letter one. I guess STL is good enough. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're coo. They couldn't hurt. Totally putting fire and psychic on my page. Toastypk 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, you're right, a lot of trainers have a pokémon type they use most. I, however do not, I use powerful ones like Tyranitar, Rayquaza, Salamence, Steelix, Blaziken etc. I use misc. types. But you're right though, a lot of trainers use a lot of the same type. TheBlazikenMaster 17:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And not to mention people just have their general favorite types. I use many types in battle, but my favorites are always fire and psychic. Toastypk 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to create one for each type - there are parseer functions that allow you to turn bits on and off. See {{User newspapers}} for one single template that can be modified a lot. hbdragon88 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are color parameters supported though? Note that on my userboxes, I gave each box their own colors, i.e. red/orange for Fire, blue/cyan for water, etc. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you could, it's just a matter of finding out how to do it. I for one was quite surprised ot see that {{User newspapers}} used a #switch paramater to switch images; I didn't know that existed. m:Parser functions offers a lot of technical jargon that is difficult for me to process. hbdragon88 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the changes to your Normal template so that users just have to add the type to a parameter, you can put it into the template space urself, Happy Mother's Day! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, Bronzor is the only Pokèmon with the Sub rating on it. Does that mean that it is a stub with the template and all that, or is it just a name for an extremely badly written article. Coby 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{stub}} template automatically adds the article to Category:Stubs. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)statement retracted - misread question. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no template, and if there was, Bronzor isn't a stub. (But it's close.) Coby 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i;ve been playing this a while and i've noticed something right away: The descriptions for moves aren't exactly what i'd call accurate. Two examples are Miracle Eye and Rock Tomb they have the descriptions for Foresight and Rock Slide... i'll be keeping an eye out, but i know there are other ediotrs who read the news articles on the gaming sites more often than myself and i was hoping someone might be able to find something talking about it. It's actually a pretty bad error on Gamefreak's part, simple info getting looked over??? I know my Prima guide for RS got Shadow Ball confused with Shadow Punch, but the games themselves have always been reliable IMHO. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweltering... This is not the only Nintendo RPG to have inconsistencies in its in-game descriptions; Golden Sun 1 and 2 have some as well. But maybe that's part of the reason why A Man In Black was so against total reliance on direct observation of a subject to source an article, and rely instead on reliable second-party sourcing. BUT DA GAME ROX ANYWEYS!!! Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 22:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...That's NOT what Miracle Eye does? D: I hope it wasn't too useful, I deleted it for Psybeam.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did Miracle Eye say? As far as I remember, it is identical in effect to Foresight, with the single exception of making Dark-types vulnerable to Psychics instead of Ghosts vulnerable to Normal/Fighting attacks. You Can't See Me! 02:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*laughs at the fact that in this case serebii was more reliable than the games themselves...* anyways, Miracle Eye is a Psychic-Dark version of Foresight... my Pearl game duplicates the description of Foresight, saying it will make Kadabra able to use any type of move against Ghosts. Of course, i haven't yet tried giving it a fighting/normal move and using it on a ghost... hmmm... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody know which glitches, if any, have been fixed in the American release?--Tempest115 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just hope they aren't as serious as the glitches were in Red and Blue. TheBlazikenMaster 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I just caught my Heatran (yes, it's MY Heatran, thanks)... The description of its Iron Head attack reads as follows: "The foe slams the target with its steel-hard head. It may also make the target flinch." Deary me, who slams who!? Gible's Pearl Pokedex entry reads as follows: "It once lived in the tropics. To avoid the cold, it lives in caves warmed by geothermal heat." Uh, I thought the tropics were known for being hot and balmy?

I'd say there's evidence of a slightly rushed localization job here. (But nothing compared to Final Fantasy Tactics, I hear.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing wrong with Gible. It once lived in the tropics. It obviously no longer does and has to keep warm somehow.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just that the way the Pokedex is worded implies that the Tropics are a cold place, and to keep out of the cold Gible started living in caves. If we're using these Pokedex descriptions in our articles, there might end up being some edit warring over the actual meaning, so that might be a concern. But if I'm the only one who sees an inconsistency, then perhaps its moot anyway. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I see your view, but I notice then that in that case we're kinda inserting our own interpretation of the Pokedex into what it states. You take it to mean that what the Pokedex entry is actually saying is as follows: "Gible once lived in the warm tropics, but it moved over to cold places, which it didn't like. To avoid the cold, it now lives in caves warmed by geothermal heat." It makes sense that way, but is there a hint of original research? Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think the articles in these categories should be merged into Pokémon regions? The locations themselves obviously have importance inside Pokémon, but as for real-world importance they have ZERO notability. Although there might be a bit of real-world merchandise based on the locations, they don't seem to have unique notability. I know this argument could be applied to the Pokémon creatures themselves, but that's another story... what does everyone think? --Teggles 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think that by looking at the lists, a merged article would be WAY too long. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a merged article. Only the important information from each article is taken, not all of it. We don't need to bring up every single town and city... --Teggles 19:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually we do... each town (theoretically) plays an integral role in the video game, and potentially the anime. Most towns contain gyms, or some other important aspect. these lists are actually the result of merges from town articles. so the should already only have the most pertinent info. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was we don't need to elaborate so much on the towns. They can be mentioned, they just don't need as much information as they have now. To add to that, I have serious doubts EVERY town plays an integral role. Most are visited upon, what, once or twice? --Teggles 04:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deciding importance based on number of visits is fallacious. in the anime, they only visit almost EVERY town only once or twice. but they gain some extra notability by being in both main genres (and i suspect in the mangas as well), added to that there is something to say about about those towns that significantly affects gameplay (Fuscia is home to the Safari Zone, etc.) and most are signficantly involved in the story arc. (almost every town in the game has a gym... making it important to both genres)i don't see how two small paragraphs on a town is TMI. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 08:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the "visited upon" comment was not the direct basis, it implied that the towns have little focus. Of course these towns do affect some gameplay and storyline, but not all are focused upon. You'd have to be joking to claim something like Lavender Town significantly affects gameplay, which was why I made the comment to mention all of them, but elaborate on some - because some do have focus. When you have two small paragraphs on every location slightly affecting gameplay, it is excessive. Let me digress: this forms a bigger picture of unique real-world notability, something the Pokemon project as a whole fails to understand. For example, Torchic and Sceptile have been featured in many things, but they are not the feature of many things. Pokemon Cards, Pokemon Books, Pokemon Merchandise - these two creatures never have a focus, they are packaged along with every single other Pokemon. This means they have notability inside a list, but not as a sole article. Personally, only creatures like Pikachu and Mewtwo (etc.) should have their own articles. --Teggles 09:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your example of Lavendar Town. It was the only place to get Ghost-types in RBY and was the scene for the rescue of Mr. Fiji who gave you the Pokeflute which was required to advance past Snorlax. Seems pretty integral to me.... And any Pokemon that has a show focused on it has been featured outside of its list. Thanks to Pokemon.com all the pokemon are now available in any type of merchandise. But in the early stages of the franchise, only select pokemon were deemed popular enough to be made into plush or action figures. Is their special notability now only seen as part of a list because of the franchise's money-grubbing goals? It shouldn't be. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that happens in Lavendar Town is a plot obstacle. This plot obstacle does not affect later points in the game. Not once is Mr. Fiji or the Pokeflute ever mentioned again in the game. It's like saying a puzzle in Zelda is integral just because you have to do it to get past it. In regards to the Pokemon in each episode and the Pokemon action figures... you miss the key point in Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This speaks for itself. --Teggles 06:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have just merged the "List of X locations" articles into "X" articles (eg. List of Sinnoh locations into Sinnoh). I think this is something we can agree on, I haven't removed any information and the articles are not lengthy. --Teggles 07:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. But the Hoenn article can't be on my watchlist though, as you may or may not know I only add things on my watchlist which I have read the entire page history on. But nevertheless, I agree with this idea. The list wasn't that long anyway, and in my opinion there were some places not notable enough to be on the list anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cities and towns have long been merged into List of X articles, thanks to a huge effort by A Link to the Past (talk · contribs). That is nothing new. hbdragon88 21:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...did I miss the part when anyone said anything about that? --Teggles 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, you didn't. I misread and thought that you merged Lavender Town into the List of X locations, when in reality you merged the List of X locations into the X article. hbdragon88 22:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of Pokémon in the games, anime, and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon, untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments, and tamed Pokémon owned by Pokémon trainers."

Is it really necessary to include this statement on EVERY page about a Pokémon?? Plough | talk to me 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you know, that's actually a question that gets brought up a lot, and hopefully the merge will take care of that problem. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revival of Pokestart won't help. I did try to get it speedy deleted (since it was a revival of Pokestart it could be deleted under G4), but I wonder if the administrator bothered to look at Pokestart (Can't admins see deleted stuff?). I will TFD it later. Funpika 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Pokémon articles have a section which talks about their name origins. Should this section start with "Its" or "The"?--Tempest115 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that every Pokémon species article has a whole section devoted to name origin; I think you're referring to sentences like "The name Charmander is a portmanteau of...", right? You could start with "Its name is..." or "The name Charmander is..." or "Charmander's name is..." and any of those would work just fine. The important thing I want to point out, however, is to remember to include use-mention distinction in the sentence if the name itself is the subject of the sentence. Since you're referring to the name and not the Pokémon itself, you have to put the name in quotation marks or italics (e.g. "The name Charmander is..." and NOT "The name Charmander is..."). The same goes for the words that the name is composed of—sometimes I've seen mentioning of a word emboldened ("...a portmanteau of char and salamander), but that is unorthodox and inappropriate. You have to put it in quotation marks ("char") or italics (salamander)—either is fine. I understand how this could be confusing, but it's important to get right. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basicaly you're saying it doesn't matter as long as the name is in quotes?--Tempest115 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, quotes or italics, same for the words comprising the name. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i beleive the WP:MOS states italics are preferred for consistency within wikipedia. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I never took the time to read the Manual of Style. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a compelling reason for keeping Professor Rowan, Elm, and Birch as separate pages. Per the gym leaders and Elite Four precedent, should we not merge them into an article titled Pokémon professors or something like that? hbdragon88 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have those as precedents, I don't see why not. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great idea, go ahead. I don't think any in their right mind would disagree. --Teggles 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for merging! You Can't See Me! 06:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Professor Oak? Shouldn't he be merged too? TheBlazikenMaster 09:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Oak should be left alone with a link to his page on the merged page.--Tempest115 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the professors are common in the series of their region. So why should Oak have a page while others do not? TheBlazikenMaster 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of a good question. While there's no doubt Oak is a lot more notable than the other professors, have enough reliable sources talked about Oak so that he can have his own page that can get to Good Article status and beyond? If not, he would be part of the Pokemon professors page, in which his section would probably be a good deal larger than the other three. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) yrah, while he would defintiely end up with a longer section than the others i'm not sure it would be considered distracting from the rest of the article. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article and merged the above-mentioned professors, plus Felina Ivy. Still no consensus on Oak. hbdragon88 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. While Oak's article status may end up being a debate later, for the moment there should probably just be a Main Article link to him in the merged Professors article. We might be able to decide on this if we brought Oak over to provide his opinion on the matter, but for the moment he only seems interested in grading my National Pokedex whenever I access his PC from my DS. :( Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously don't think Oak has any opinion on this. He is a pokémon researcher, what would he know about Wikipedia? TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether he's finished debugging Porygon2's source code, or if he's still busy debating whether half-breeds exist. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he always asks to check my Pokédex as well. Not even interested in any small talk. hbdragon88 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please stop this guy.--Tempest115 00:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAve him {{uw-vandalism3}}, but I'm tempted to reduce it to 2. Reverting his edits. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Lowered to 2 and told him about extraneous info and disambig'ing other languages (He disambiguated Sandshrew into Sand based on his Japanese name). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you recuded and explained, you should assume good faith. For example, what he did on the edit of the first pokémon in the pokédex isn't much of a vandalism. It's just something someone new would do, you shouldn't give high level warning to a guy that's trying to help. TheBlazikenMaster 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the warning after noting he has edits elsewhere, but reading over his edits, I opted to lower it - he just made an innocent mistake. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should've posted this as something other than "vandalism", but a was pressed for time and that's all I could think of.--Tempest115 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sceptre (talk • contribs) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

grr..... oh well... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the above mentioned TfD discussion, Zappernapper brought up the point that these things are useful for enforcing style guidelines. Since the templates seem to be headed towards deletion, I think it should be discussed whether or not we should have style guidelines that lay out what the section headers will be. My personal opinion is that style guidelines that give the exact format of what the page should be like are too restrictive. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? -Amarkov moo! 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. hbdragon88 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it nobody cares? -Amarkov moo! 02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this template today.--Tempest115 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time that someone made a redundant template. It's redundant with the category--there's already a category for that. This is redundant, and the category already says all of it. That said, not only is it unnecessary, but it's rather big and unattractive. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pokémon like Blastoise and Blaziken should be in the template, but that would make the template too big. I think it's time someone nominates it for deletion. TheBlazikenMaster 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I'm at a loss as how to do so.--Tempest115 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. Click here. TheBlazikenMaster 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned these tampltes above but nothing came out of it. Should those be nominated, then? Also, TBM - remember to tag the template with {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}. hbdragon88 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always do that on redirects and articles, never done that to templates. I would do, but I simply forgot. TheBlazikenMaster 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Just a reminder for next time. hbdragon88 00:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pokeproject now has 150 members! We caught em all! Toastypk 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unobtainable member Nintendo doesn't want you to get? :p

Or the other 342 now that we are in Generation IV? --Sonic Mew 15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this isn't 1999? ;_; Toastypk 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]