Talk:List of Pokémon (202–251)

Note

• This page was previously Talk:List of Pokémon (201–220)
• Talk:List of Pokémon (221–251)

Pictures

The least you can do is show some pictures! I mean people would want to know what the Pokemon look like! LIKE ME! WHO DELETED THE PICTURES! thank you for reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigirl16 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanding

HELP ME FINISH THESE. PLEASE. I'M NO GOOD. PLEASE HELP. --Blank88 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering it's one of your first major edits, you did fairly decent. I don't know how to merge either, but as far as setting up the list you were doing a nice job of it. (I should know; I've done A LOT worse on my first major edit to a wiki . . . defaced the html on the entire page, I did!) Anyways, I fixed it up so that it is ready for merging, or at least close to it. -WarthogDemon 00:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys know that your missing Shuckle, right?Stormfin 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been added now. :) -WarthogDemon 01:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wobbuffet

Wobbuffet deserves its own page. It's character in the anime isn't small and has its own personality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.5.18 (talk) 09:37, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

It's needs WAY more than common anime appearance to deserve its own article. However it could deserve an own paragraph for being big part of the anime, but no, I disagree with own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Untitled section

I liked the old way the Pokemon pages were... Why were they changed to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.91.242 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm on a vocation from Wikipedia, I will only give a short reply: Check WT:PCP. TheBlazikenMaster 22:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unown

I think there should be images/an image of all the unown forms... no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.102.197 (talk) 20:34, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No. SpigotMap 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If they were random symbols, rather than the alphabet with two punctuation marks, we'd probably add two or three but not all. I suppose if it was okay, there could be a picture showing all of them at once, though such an image would hard to make out as a thumb and probably wouldn't look very clean. -WarthogDemon 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The way it was

Why on earth was this changed?

It doesnt seem to contribute anything, and I do not seem to find any reason to get rid of the Pokemon Pages as they were.

Before, it was easy to use Wikipedia to find Sugimori Art of the Individual Pokemon needed, and to look up facts on the myths and legends behind these creatures.

Now these pages are useless, and serve no purpose, so why not bring back the old individual pages and revert it back to the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHTR (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the archives of WP:PCP. If you want the Sugimori art, try Bulbapedia or Google Images. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a Thought

Why don't any of the Pokemon mini-articles ever mention if they are obtainable in Colosseum or XD? You don't need that much detail about it, just to mention their presence as a Snaggable Shadow. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be considered game guide information. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't. Game guide data would be the specific location and rarity of a given Pokemon in a given game. The problem is that some don't assume Colosseum and XD to be real games, so they assume they don't need mentioning. Just say they are there! We can mention them in passing, as long as we don't say how many trainers have one on their team. Sincerifically, 2D Backfire Master (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So it Seems...

The section about Wobbuffet has some interesting information. Particularly the reference to an obscure Japanese comedian. Not that obscurity matters, just that it seems to be Original Research. Is it? I can't tell, so I'm not deleting it. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was original research so I removed it. -sesuPRIME 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That information seems to be in a lot of places. I searched "Sanpei Hayashiya Wobbuffet" and got different things including Bulbapedia and Serebii forums. I dont know what started the rumor. I think it the fact that Wobbuffet's japaneese name is the same thing as Sanpei's catchphrase. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Pokémon (202–251)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Pokémon (202–251)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gr":

• From Zubat, Golbat, and Crobat: http://www.gamesradar.com/ds/f/the-complete-pokemon-rby-pokedex-part-4/a-20070820133028489035/g-2006100415372930075/p-9
• From Onix (Pokémon): http://www.gamesradar.com/ps2/f/the-complete-pokemon-rby-pokedex-part-9/a-2007082295639479041/g-2006100415372930075/p-7
• From Super Smash Bros. Brawl: "Super Smash Bros. Brawl Reviews". Game Rankings. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
• From Pokémon Platinum: "Pokemon Platinum Version for DS". GameRankings. 2009-03-22. Retrieved 2010-10-10.
• From Eevee: "2010 Pokemon Championships announced, plus Shiny Eevee giveaway (!!!)". GamesRadar US. April 14, 2010. Retrieved 10-15-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I "closed" this proposal as keeping the articles separate. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that Girafarig, Steelix, Smoochum, Entei, Lugia, and Celebi be merged into List of Pokémon (202–251). I think that the content in each of these articles can easily be explained in the context of the List of Pokemon article, which is of a reasonable size in which the merging of these articles will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Each of those articles is essentially the same as the summary blurbs already provided here for other pokemon. For consistency's sake, either all the pokemon should be merged into the "List of" articles or each pokemon must be given their own page.

Tis neater to have a concise list than to go full Bulbapedia. Wwwwwwwwwvw (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Hi, sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Articles are considered notable enough for a split article when they have significant coverage in third party reliable sources. The "Reception" sections in each article show this, with Celebi and Entei being the strongest. Also, "ALL OR NOTHING" is not a good argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you think that the same information in these articles can easily be learned in the list, then add more content to them. Some of these are lacking necessary information. Use good articles like Mewtwo, Charizard, and Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam as guides. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with above. Especially after the release of Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, Lugia's (and the others') notability has been revived and has been promoted by PKMN and third party sites. Per WP:FICTION, Wikipedia isn't a Pokédex; the list article doesn't cover how well/poorly the Pokémon were received in depth, showing a huge lack of notability, unlike the Pokémon you have mentioned. WIKIPEDIAN Penguin ^(♫♫) 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

split all the pokemon into seperate articles

i think we should give every pokemon their own articles. these lists don't give enough info about them and articles will give lots of info. this MUST be done. after all, wikipedia is an informational website. Valehd (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not Poképedia, we aren't going to make hundreds of stub pages that list one pokémon per page. Ogress _smash! 22:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

they wouldn't be stubs. like i said, the articles will give lots of info instead of the boring, short stuff on these lists. also, i'm suggesting to split the lists, but still keep them. Valehd (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For people wanting deeper information, there are sites like Bulbapedia(well maintained and kinda better than wikipedia too), Wikipedia has more important things to do that waste resources on duplicating information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

split the lists but also keep them

the pokemon deserve their own pages. if the mario games have their own non-stub articles, then so should the pokemon. Valehd (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nooooo, there are how many pokémon? And "Mario games" are for the individual games. Pokémon Red and Blue deserves its own page - and has it -, not a thousand individual stubs for each Pokémon. Ogress _smash! 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

really? stubs? just take a look in Bulbapedia. there is LOTS of info about each individual pokemon and those are not stubs! Valehd (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not Bulbapedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Ogress _smash! 03:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Opppose - This proposal is being made without any understanding of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

the articles would follow those rules. don't you get it? Valehd (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There is very different standards and style of writing here at Wikipedia than there is other places like Wikia's like Bulbapedia. Content that is written there does not necessarily belong there. For example, Bulbapedia may contain details on how to catch a certain Pokemon. That information would be inappropriate here, because Wikipedia is not a video game guide or a game manual. Past discussions have shown that, once you trim out that sort of stuff, there's not enough there to warrant an article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

To those who want individual Pages for each pokemon.

Users who want separate pages for each pokemon please note that there already exist sites for those(eg. Bulbapedia), and pretty well maintained ones too.There's no reason to create an inferior copy of that information on wikipedia. The best we might be able to do is maybe link to Bulbapedia articles, if that's within Wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiyusha (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible Alolan Granbull?

In the Sun/Moon demo, if you go to the police station, there is a statue of a Granbull in a police uniform on the counter. However, it is blue in color as opposed to the normal pink color. Could this be a possible Alolan variant for Granbull? If so, do you think it would be Fairy/Dark type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErStelz (talk • contribs) 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)