Talk:List of Pokémon (481–493)

Why was this started?

This is STUPID.

All twenty pokemon on this list LOST their wikipedia pages. So much info has been lost.

Cheezdude 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

AGREE!!! this is STUPID, it was better when the pages were separated!!! who had the idea? OMG!!

I also agree, considering that most of these pokemon are legendary, and their data is very important to this project.

• A third person chiming in to say that I feel this change was a mistake - a lot of information had been lost and I see no need for the change MagicBez 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You should join the discussion on the project talk page. TTN 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your claims that "OMG, info has been lost!" realize that that information has been confirmed as "fancruft" and is basically not important. Also, check Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pokémon for the reasons why the individual 500 articles can't be maintained.--Zxcvbnm 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

it was better before, and IMPORTANT info has been lost. or at least put that info in the new format...

Like what?--Zxcvbnm 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

look at uxie`s entry and compare it to the poor entries of the other two pokemon of the trio (azelf and mesprit)

Actually, Uxie's entry is in need of a revising. It's full of unsourced research and guesses. All the entries should be referenced to the Pokedex and/or another verifiable source of information. After the sentence, put the URL surrounded by reference tags (for example <ref> URL </ref>)

Another thing, nobody should be adding their own info in here, it's already in the main Pokemon articles and needs to be merged.--Zxcvbnm 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this being STUPID. I saw that we nominate these articles for deletion. Lots of important information has been lost, such as the in the video games section.--Ridley76 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ALSO!!!!! Why do the legendaries have separated articles but the regular pokemon have their own? A think they should at least keep the legendary articles. Tamashiihiroka 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all is lost, if you really want to see the pokémon's old page, just type in the name in search, click the "redirected from xxxx", then the history tab, then the archived version before the redirect by Zxcvbnm, because the pictures are still being used and not deleted, it's pretty much the same article. The reason for the redirect is for maintaining an encyclopedia like content. If you want to add game information go to Bulbapedia. Samx 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

why did u people take out the manaphy article??? 71.104.252.248 23:01, 12 July 2007

Did you even read what Samx posted on top? Stop asking until you're able to understand why. The extra information belongs in a fansite, not an encyclopedia.--Zxcvbnm 20:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not your average encyclopedia. I thought that the entire purpose of wikipedia was to have all of the information you can find on the internet in one convinent location. By the way, I tried the above trick, and it dosen't work anymore. 69.114.80.137 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be doing it wrong, since it works for me. Basically, Wikipedia may be a more detailed encyclopedia, but if you stuck all the information on the Internet on there, it would be too long to read through and probably appeal only to fans of that subject, making everyone else leave. That's why there are standards as to what content you can add without making an article full of cruft.--Zxcvbnm 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That does't make any god damn sence, why the hell would a non fan even be looking at these pages? Plus with the way these pages are pissing the real fans off aren't you concerned with them leaving? From the sounds of it I would have to say your not even a fan of poke'mon. So you have no idea how this makes us feel. The thing is these pages use to give valuable information, now you've got them down to a picture and a paragraph that doesn't tell me anything usefull. And we shouldn't have to go to the bulbapedia, the info should still be on wiki.

Zabbethx 8:47 am July 16

What a way to assume bad faith. We are fans, we're not concerned, this is a better way of doing things, and please be civil. Wikipedia is not a fansite. The original pages had unsourced information, amongst other things that do not comply with Wikipedia articles. THus, the redirects. If we seriously did not care, we would've deleted them instead of redirects. That's what Bulbapedia is for. We should not be making exceptions merely because other pokefans won't be happy with it. -WarthogDemon 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I apologize for not being civil. I lost my temper when I saw the pages were getting all screwed up, so I'de like to say sorry for that. I went to the bulbapedia and it's not all that bad. Saying this I would like to make a few request if you don't mind. For starters, under each poke'mon their should be a link to their article on the bulbapedia. That way if you look for them in wiki you can get a link to find the info your looking for. Second, I would like the bulbapedia articles to look a little like the the original wikipedia articles. The bulbapedia articles are a little confusing to read and they also don't offer the same amount of details the wiki articles did. I don't know who works on the bulbapedia and I don't know to change things that well. Just a thought and I would like to here what you have to say on the subject. I look forward to your response. Zabbethx 10:51 am July 17, 2007

Bulbapedia is a separate site, so we don't have any control over how their articles look. However, they're free to copy the original individual articles in order to save the extra information. Their site works exactly like Wikipedia, so it's basically copy and paste. Putting a link to Bulbapedia under every section probably will not work, but it's perfectly fine to put one under the entire list to direct people to more detailed information.--Zxcvbnm 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you could do that, that would be great. I'de do it myself but I don't know much about screwing with websites. I'm just a pissed off fanboy with too much free time on my hands. But I'm glad we could come to some sort of agreement. Thanks for your time.

Zabbethx 11:24 am July 17, 2007

So apparently the stuff from ingame and the Pokedex is all fanstuff, right? Look at the old Uxie page, then look at it's ridiculous new "page". Everything on the old page is straight from the game.

And that's bad...how? It's called referencing, you have to get the information from somewhere. Making up info to stick in the encyclopedia, or typing up plot summaries, is not part of an encyclopedia, it's part of an episode guide. As has been already said, if you have the urge to put down tons of information, go to Bulbapedia and help out. --_ZXCVBNM 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the episode stuff, the Uxie page was fine without it. You don't have to make stuff up to make a good article. I could sign up and make a perfectly fine Uxie article, for instance, with only the use of things that appear in-game. Why is it such a big deal? Having "List of Pokemon ____ to ____" is such idiotic. It's cramming information. We might as well not even bother with Pokemon pages, because they don't have anything but crammed information. It's not like having seperate pages will hurt anyone.

Just transfer the information to Bulbapedia

Can't you at least give articles to only the starters and the legendaries? The REST of the Pokemon being grouped , im ok with. OR you can transfer all the information to your lack luster sister, Bulbapedia. I mean, come on!!! It uses the same Media Wiki engine as Wikipedia, so why cant you at least transfer all the info to Bulbapedia??? MudkipNDS 16:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)This has been the BBC World News. Goodbye.

Too right, there's too much info here, and not enough on Bulbapedia. Samx 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why don't you transfer it yourself instead of complaining here? It's the Bulbapedia peoples' job to transfer the information, not ours. Just copy it from the page histories and paste it there instead.--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm already on it. Samx 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason we can't go to bulbapedia is because it's extremely slow.--Ridley76 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? I've been there many times. Hasn't been slow to me... -WarthogDemon 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Game data

Please include game data, like attacks perhaps or what games they appear on. Or at least something similar. This is slightly annoying. 86.5.13.121 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia isn't a gameguide. Go to Bulbapedia or gamefaqs for that. -WarthogDemon 22:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)