Talk:List of Pokémon (1–51)

Why can't we have both?

I believe it would make everyone happy. Wikipedia has damn near endless space for articles, I don't see why we can't have both your worthless list of vague paragraphs and a main article for the Pokemon themselves. Pikachu and Paras get to have seperate articles. These two get to have their own articles, and Good-Article/Featured-Article status pages were taken down for this seemingly unusuable list, so why can't there be a page for each individual Pokemon and the list? The Captain Returns 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read all the sections prior to this one. This has been gone over a thousand times now and it's getting old. You have left no reasons for having articles, we have left reasons for not having full articles. We can't go on explaining forever, maybe a template is in order. SpigotMap 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

you're being unfair

I have looked at other articles... and other shows have MORE articles than Pokemon EVER had. Either you need to condense all those articles, or bring back ALL Pokemon pages. 72.161.133.85 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens with other articles outside of the Pokemon WikiProject is none of our concern. That's like saying that we should do the same thing for Mount Everest as we do for Michael Shumacher. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What about use the {{splitsection}} tag on whatever you want split back to a separate article? Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record I'm an infrequent user (age catches up) who popped their head in and was appalled by this change. The amount of content that has been removed along with individual pokemon pages is immense. All plot information, series appearances etc. At least revert to 2005 content with a different naming convention ie Charmander -> Charmander(Pokemon). 58.105.178.30 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections to be deconsolidated into individual articles

I propose the following merge-to-list process on the following Pokémon entries to be undone: Ivysaur, Charizard, and Squirtle. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons? MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivysaur

First quadruped in Smash Bros.? How many legs did Pikachu and Pichu have again? 75.152.155.200 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's a pointless bit of trivia anyway. Let's not worry about it, let's just remove it when these things creep in TheBilly (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and already did it. :P -Sukecchi (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose we give each Pokemon its own article once more.

The reasons for merging the articles were idiotic and show that the editors are lazy. If the former articles were trolled and had spelling and grammar errors, then why not clean them up? There was no good reason for the merge. These articles contain virtually no useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.115.0 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for merging weren't laziness and idiocy, they were notability and verifiability. Each individual Pokemon is of little importance in the real world. They've had little cultural impact whatsoever. This isn't a game guide (WP:NOT#GUIDE), it's an encyclopedia. The will of the fans doesn't dictate content, the whole community does, with the goal of making a real Encyclopedia. This sort of fancruft is being trimmed down all over the place..... except maybe with Harry Potter, because those fans are the most rabid TheBilly (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon has had little cultural impact...? You've got to be kidding me. You have seriously got to be kidding me. Pokemon was one of the BIGGEST things ever. Where were you when the Pokemon fad started? As soon as the games hit the states, Pokemon's popularity EXPLODED. It's as big as Star Wars and Harry Potter. You cannot deny that THEY had a great impact on culture, so why do you deny that Pokemon did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.186.87 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You say that every Pokemon is of little importance to the world. Well, why don't we just condense every president of the US into one artivle? Sure, they may be important to Americans, but do the Chinese care? The Scottish? That logic is as retarded as this stupid project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.225.79 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree a lot. There where no good reasons for merging. --24.232.60.148 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. There were p[perfectly valid reasons for the merge. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing real world articles with fiction. The U.S. presidents have a lot or REAL-WORLD info, it doesn't matter if all of the world knows about them, as long as it has real world info it can have its own article. Pokémon only have info available through the games, TCG and anime, unless you can find info about most of them by an interview, newspaper article, they can't have their own articles. Simple as that. But you could check out Bulbapedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need these lists if the pokemon are of no importance? Does wikipedia even need a list of Pokemon? Ninja337 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth behind the merge

I think it's painfully obvious why all the Pokemon articles were merged. It had nothing to do with notability and verifiability. Wikipedia wants to consider itself, and be considered by others, a real encyclopedia. Anyone hearing that line, after laughing heartilly, would simply point to the fact that Wikipedia had an article for each Pokemon. Since no real encylopedia would ever have an entry for each Pokemon, Wikipedia could have no article for each Pokemon. Of course, given that encylopedias can't be modified by anyone, it's a losing battle for them, but there you go. Scumbag (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But why would no real encyclopedia have an article for each individual Pokemon? Oh, right, it's because they aren't notable. -Amarkov moo! 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why no real encyclopedia has nothing to do with notability. It has everything to do with the fact that real encyclopedias don't let everyone edit. When you let everyone edit something, it is no longer an encyclopedia. Scumbag (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to assume that I'm wrong for no reason, I really can't argue. -Amarkov moo! 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mislead people. There is an encyclopedia out there that deals with Pokémon, it's called Bulbapedia. It's a different encyclopedia that deals with Pokémon, and it's as real as Wikipedia, just deals specificlly with Pokémon. Don't forget that there are other encylopedias on the internet that deals more specificlly with a subject. Telling people that there aren't just is misleading. It doesn't belong to Wikipedia, that's the thing that counts. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now, was Wikipedia made JUST to tell people to go to other Wikis?!?!?!?! I know that when you look at Wikipedia, your supposed to go get a way to verify the info, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.26.233 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Individual Pokemon sections

There is hardly any information in this list as many people have stated. It was mentioned that they weren't important enough or something to that extent. That is completely ridiculous and biased. If that many people are requesting something, it must be important to them. Pokemon's cultural significance can't be denied. I've found myself curious about pokemon that I haven't heard of in 5 years and when I went to check on them here I was very disappointed. I found out nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.194.109 (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is quite ridiculous. Some characters on this list (especially the original starting 3: Bulbasaur was a featured article not too long ago!) are are prominent characters in their own right, each far more popular and recognisable than some other fictional characters on Wikipedia who have their own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.83 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At least do this...

If we can't have the individual articles back (quite what harm they posed is beyond me), then at least the link to Bulbapedia should be more prominent, rather than lounging alone at the bottom of the page. The full articles to each still exist, just on Bulbapedia, so I feel it would do everyone a favour if this was made clearer to the casual browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.83 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

External links go in External Links. The End. — TheBilly^(Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, but the articles suck without images, what's the deal with not allowing them on lists? Makes absolutely no sense, because lists ARE articles, whether you wanna believe it or not. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that really relates to where links are supposed to go....— TheBilly^(Talk) 20:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

Seems like there's an edit war starting/happening based on whether Bulbasaur should be a merged article, or a stand-alone like the Pikachu article. Instead of edit-warring, let's have a mature discussion on the matter here first. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu is the most used/recognizable pokemon, his importance to popular culture can not be denigned, I am not sure if the other pokemon have any of this impact at all?  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Most used? Hardly. Bulbasaur's used far more frequently, as it's one of three choices for starting Pokémon in four of the US main series games. Other than that I don't have anything to say about it (yet). Coreycubed (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not "most used" as in the game (though Pikachu does feature in more games than any other Pokemon), I mean all forms of merch contain atleast a pickachu!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A new discussion isn't going to help anything. It's already been discussed on four different occasions, and each time someone decides to wikilawyer over consensus. TTN (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do. The consensus is to have Bulbasaur as a single article and for reasons that are clear and supported by policy. Just because you disagree does not make you right. And does not give you the right to edit war and to peddle your own viewpoint over consensus. —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not. Characters need signifcant coverage in the form of creation and reception notes. You never added anything like that to the article. Being mentioned quickly as an example in a couple of articles because it's one of the first three starters is not notability. Is this all because you worked on the article when it first became a FA (at least I think you mentioned that)? That seems like the case because you would be making the same case for the other two first generation starters if you were truly working from the standpoint of notability. TTN (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See, you never listen. The "signifcant coverage in the form of creation and reception notes" is only your interpretation of a guideline. We've put forward many arguments many times, and you don't listen. You just carry on regardless of what anyone else thinks. That's certainly not working with policy. Who in this debate had an Arbcom case put against them? Surely that must tell you something? And the conclusion? "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Have you done that? No. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Celestianpower, you are probably right about that he doesn't follow cons. but he is right about one thing. Whether or not to merge Bulbasaur has been discussed too many times. Honestly, it's the largest discussion I have seen on Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom has to do with edit warring to keep wikilawyers at bay and because people don't like articles being redirected, not because I try to merge single articles. Editors currently are working on updating and gaining a new community validated consensus for WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE, so that's already being done.

Anyways, try to focus on the matter at hand. Significant coverage is shown within our good articles, and what you provided was never close. TTN (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But not being a good article has never meant not having an article at all, that's just silly. And guidelines have never overruled consensus on individual articles. Here, there are plenty of people (with valid arguments) who disagree with you. And as we can see when you redirect the article, it's nearly always a new person who reverts. You have no consenus, so you can't take the action. It's as simple as that. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And Blazikenmaster, I agree. It's a ridiculous amount of discussion, but what other options are there? —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that it needed to be a good article? No. I said that good articles show what signifcant coverage details. When you provide coverage that actually matches a something on the way to becoming a good article (not that is actually needs to be one), then you and the other people will actually have an argument. Until then, you are just trying to have a page based upon subjective popularity that cannot exist without reliable sources to assert notability. Guidelines (that are based in policy) overrule in this case. TTN (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And can you answer the question of why this single Pokemon is more notable than any other starter or legendary featured throughout the metaseries? In the very least, the ones within the first two generations could easily have the same coverage as what you're trying to pass off. TTN (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)