Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Adoption Center

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pokémon Adoption Center redirect.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Note: as this page was getting fairly long, some of the earlier talk messages have been archived at Archive1 and Archive2. If anyone wishes to re-open an archived discussion, free to move it back here.

The following non-Wikipedia sites should come of value to anyone attempting to create a new article for a pokémon. Feel free to add any well-organized sites with information that will come in handy.

• http://www.pokemondungeon.com/pokedex.htm - For pokémon from the Kanto and Hoenn series (Red, Blue, Yellow, Gold, Silver, Crystal, Stadium 1, Stadium 2). Includes pokédex entries, attacks, stats, and where to find it.
• http://pokefor.greenchu.de/zukan/gba/pokemon - For pokémon up to the Orre series (Ruby, Sapphire, FireRed, LeafGreen, Emerald, Colleseum). Includes pokédex entries, attacks, stats, foreign language names (French, German and Japanese), and where to find it.

  Italy and Spain both use the same POKéMON names as the English version. Not sure about Portugal, didn't know they had a seperate version as well - but I'd think they also use the English names. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 1 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

  Assuming http://www.devir.pt/pokemon/pok_mundo.htm is correct, Portugal also use the English POKéMON names. Removed note about POKéMON names in those languages. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 3 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

• http://www.serebii.net/potw/ - Although only about half of all Pokémon have thus far have been a 'Pokémon Of The Week' here, this site is handy because it tells you what episodes of the animé it has played a role in, and links to exhaustive descriptions of each episode's action (which can readily be summed up in a sentence or two).

If you need an image or the Japanese POKéMON name, use http://pokefor.greenchu.de/zukan/gba/pokemon/$1 (replacing $1 with the name of the POKéMON you're working on). Note that the images on that site are saved as 24-bit PNG - they should be converted to 8-bit PNG to work around Internet Explorer's transparency issues.

If you need help with the Japanese names, either getting them Romanized or getting them into your article, let me know. (Note that the site displays the Game Freak Romaji - this should be used for the infobox, but regular Romaji might be nice for the article itself.) The same applies for converting the images. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would using those images be completely on the up-and-up? It'd be nice to have images for every article (especially if multiple images can be obtained, such as promotion image for the main article and game sprite for the video game information section), but I don't want to do anything illegal... Almafeta 22:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively on Template talk:Pokeimage - as long as we stick to the artwork on Pokémon Forever (linked above), we should be in the clear (fair use). We already have a number of these - they're marked with {{pokeimage}}.

Usually, we only use the regular artwork image, but I suppose it would be possible to include others, depending on the source.

Using sprites would probably be of rather doubtful legality, although I suppose they could be considered a screenshot, thus fair use (but since they're cropped, things might be different). If we want those, I already have all 386 R/S images on my harddrive - I just need to run them through a converter to get PNG, then upload them. I also have the smaller images available - those seen in the Evolution section on Pokefor. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pidgeot, did you get permission from Meowth356 to use the images from there? IIRC, he's granted Bulbapedia permission, but I haven't heard a thing about Wikipedia getting it. It's fairly rare for him to grant permission after all those incidents of theft by Serebii years back. I doubt he'd deny the request in this instance, but you should still ask him before using them regardless. --Mukashi 08:06, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Meowth is not the copyright holder of those images (it's official artwork drawn by Ken Sugimori), so I don't see a point in asking him that. Of course, if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to contact him. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added 19:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC): If you were referring to the sprites, I never claimed to have gotten them from Pokefor. But since those are not created by Meowth (they may have been extracted, but that's not enough to grant copyright), I believe the same would apply. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e)

Indeed, he's not the copyright holder, but to use the images which he spent a great deal of his hard time and effort extracting from the game without his permission is a serious breach of webmasters ethics, not to mention simply impolite. --Mukashi 22:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

The artwork is not extracted from the game, only the sprites are - and the sprites are not currently an issue, since we're not using them. All I said was that IF we wanted to use them, I have them on my hard drive. I never said they were retrieved from Pokefor - they're not.

Like I said, you're welcome to contact Meowth on behalf of the Wiki if you are concerned about this - but I do not consider it an issue with the artwork files, which I believe were made through a simple batch process. (Don't get me wrong - I have absolutely nothing against Meowth. I just don't think this particular issue requires contacting him.) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could make up a common template for all gym leaders and the pokemon they use, such as we have a common template for all Pokémon... gimmie a few to make one up. Almafeta 20:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave Brock (Pokémon) such a template. His template was going to be about the upper end of complexity, as he is one of the most frequently seen gym leaders, so no point in not starting with him first... Almafeta 20:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure this is a good idea.

On one hand, you have the Kanto gym leaders, who appear all over the place and recur in at least five different games, all of the anime series, and all of the manga series. These gym leaders will need massive infoboxes with all of their apperances and all of their different teams of Pokémon, when prose can handle things in a much more encyclopedic way.

On the other hand, you have the Johto and Hoenn leaders and the Collosseum area leaders, who appear only once in the games and anime and are generally minor recurring characters in the manga. For them, you can cover the necessary info with one paragraph about appearances and one paragraph about their Pokémon. For these characters, a pair of paragraphs of text does the job much better than a big honking infobox.

In one case, you're going to have a giant, obtrusive infobox (the one for Brock is gigantic), and in another case, you're going to have an infobox that duplicates almost all of the relevant info in a less-elegant format that lacks the context of proper prose. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Johto and Hoenn Gym Leaders are very imporant characters in Pokémon Adventures, so I don't know which manga series you're talking about. Ketsuban (is 1337) 22:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking some more, I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about, given the fact that you say, "On one hand, you have the Kanto gym leaders, who appear all over the place and recur in at least five different games, all of the anime series, and all of the manga series." "All" of the anime series? There are two anime series, one a sequel to the other, and the Kanto Gym Leaders are not recurring characters in either of them, except for Brock and Misty. And I don't know what you mean by "all" of the manga series, as none of the Gym leaders have appeared in Magical Pokémon Journey (except for Brock and Misty in short gag strips about the anime, and one brief mention of Koga), and only Brock, Misty, Sabrina, Giovanni, and Rudy (who's not even from Kanto) have appeared in Electric Tale of Pikachu (Lt. Surge might have had a one-panel cameo, if I remember correctly). I'd really like to know where you're getting your information. Ketsuban (is 1337) 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly from a largely faulty memory of the manga; my interest lies much more with the games and anime, frankly.

I just think the infobox as-is is a bit obtrusive and duplicates the body of the text rather than supplementing it. Why not try slimming it down, with names in different languages, signature (instead off all Pokemon levels and all, GameFAQs-style) Pokémon, and first appearances in games/anime/manga? It would make it handy for quick reference, and would eliminate the always-awkward "Brock is called (whatever) in Japanese, and (whatever) in French, and (whatever) in German..." That way you're getting a consistent-looking box across all the characters, and not needlessly duplicating info. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I tried fiddling with it (and came up with this), but something about the design still bugs me. I do think that an infobox might be the way to go, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I updated that infobox and adapted it for another Gym Leader at User:A Man In Black/Gymleaderboxmorty. It still needs to be slimmed down design-wise; it dwarfs the listing at List of Johto Gym Leaders#Morty. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You probably wouldn't approve of similar infoboxes in languages, Pokémon articles, countries, et multiple cetera, then. Almafeta 00:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Alfameta! I really like the Brock infobox. Keep it up! --Celestianpower ^talk 13:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{gymleaderinfobox |
name=Whitney |
image=[[Image:Poke-Whitney.png|center|125px|Whitney]] |
japanname=Akane |
voiceactor= |
hometown=[[Goldenrod City]], in [[Johto]] |
badge=Plain Badge |
firstgame=[[Pokémon Gold and Silver|''Pokémon Gold'' and ''Silver'']] |
firstanime="A Goldenrod Opportunity", ep. 160 |
firstmanga="Vs. Smeargle", chap. 105 |
speciality=Normal-type Pokémon |
gameteam=[[Clefairy]], [[Miltank]] |
animeteam=[[Miltank]] |
mangateam=[[Cleffa]], [[Magby]], [[Ditto]], [[Miltank]], [[Igglybuff]], [[Smeargle]] 
|}}

Well, I went and made us a new Gym Leader infobox template, Template:Gymleaderinfobox, based on the scratch infobox that had been in use at List of Johto Gym Leaders. I'm still tweaking it a bit, but it's more or less complete (and is currently in use at List of Johto Gym Leaders#Whitney.

It's pretty straightforward, except for the speciality/specialityverbose listings. If you just want to specify a type, it uses the PokemonType series of templates to link to the headers in Pokémon types, but if you want to do something more complex (like with the Orange Islands Gym Leaders, who don't specialize by type), you leave speciality blank and replace the "-type Pokémon" in specialityverbose with whatever you'd like to have in that field of the infobox.

So, what do you think? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. The PokemonType templates have category links that don't belong in the Gym Leader articles/listings, and don't even link to the proper place. Time to do some work. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the best solution is to get rid of this speciality/specialityverbose complexity and just make speciality a text-entry field. There's no need to do this much work to link to the individual sections of Pokémon types. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It's going to be interesting to see which article is the last to be expanded...

Anyhow, I just wanted to make a formal invitation: Any article that has been expanded may be translated to Interlingua and moved to ia:. I'd like to see more well-researched 'niche' articles of decent size there... ^_^; Almafeta 11:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video game base stats (percentile)¹
Hit points	73 (43%)
Attack	76 (56%)
Defence	75 (54%)
Speed	100 (65%)
Special attack	81 (63%)
Special defense	100 (71%)

Just a crazy idea that came to mind...

In my articles, I generally noted whenever a pokémon's stat was in the top 20%, the bottom 10%, what have you. What if we expanded this idea to all pokémon stats, for all articles? I created the faux infobox to the right (stats-only) to show what this would look like.

That way, you'd not only see their best/worst stats in absolute terms, you'd also see how well they rank compared to the rest of the field.

The only problem is you'd need (1) someone with a pokémon database, and (2) enough 'bot programming to update 350-odd articles... Almafeta 16:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely Wikibooks material, not Wikipedia material. It'd be a great thing to have on b:Pokémon, but this isn't encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be encyclopedic as such, but it can still be relevant. If, as I'd prefer, we keep the base stats, this will make the seem more sensible to someone who hasn't read about base stats yet. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at the Wikibooks link in the Pikachu and Scyther infoboxes. Part of the reason that I've been pushing to move certain things to Wikibooks is that a lot of them are already done, there. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it can't be here as well. The info is mostly static, so there's little to no maintenance and updating that needs to be done. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you quite got my point. Take a look at b:Pokémon in any event; Im fairly sure the info is duplicated there, saving you the trouble of setting up a database to do so. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's no trouble. It'll only take me a minute or two to export and import the table, thanks to PhpMyAdmin. But if whoever makes the bot would prefer to scrape the data from b:, then that's up to him/her.

Personally, I think it'd be quicker to just make a PHP script that gives the Wiki-source needed for that table. That source code can then either be copied over manually, or a bot could get the existing article and find the part of the infobox to replace.

Heck, since I've got nothing better to do right now, I'll do it now, even if it won't be put to use. I'll probably need to get the table up regardless at some point, so might as well do it now. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dur, dur, dur, I misunderstood what you were doing. You're adding percentile ranks to the statblocks. I still don't think this belongs on Wikipedia, but it's not already on Wikibooks by any means.

If you want to do it, I can't see how it could possibly go to waste. After all, Wikipedia and Wikibooks use the same Wikisyntax. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Use http://birdiesoft.dk/basestat.php?id=1, replacing 1 with the Kanto number of the POKéMON. For Deoxys, all four variants appear with id=386 (using the order Ruby/Sapphire/Colosseum, FireRed, LeafGreen, Emerald).--Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If your browser doesn't show line breaks or if it offers to download this as a file (IE, possibly others), replace .php with .txt in the above URL - I've set it up so that this will trick the browser into thinking it's downloading a standard text file. However, the server takes longer to respond that way, so please try the other way first.--Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this becomes relevant, I can do number 1, since I made a IV Calculation system quite a while back, and imported that data into a database. I can easily transfer it to my site, and it should be trivial to make a script to calculate those percentiles and put it into a useful format. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pidgeot's handy tool

Erf... I just noticed a small problem in your tool. For those pokémon who were in red/blue/yellow, it doesn't list their pre-stat-split Special stat, and it doesn't rank them.  :/ Almafeta 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, right - knew I'd forgotten something - evidently, that was adding that data. I'll add that within the next hour or two. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 09:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Special stat is now shown for Mew and earlier POKéMON. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a minor error in percentile calculations for Deoxys - when calculating these, I accidentally counted regular Deoxys as well, like I do for all the other POKéMON. The same error was present in the basebooks.php script, but is also fixed.

The impact is minor, but if anyone used the Deoxys percentiles before now, they should re-get them. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 18:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikibooks version

Pidgeot, could you take a look at b:Pokémon/Pikachu and make a version of the tool that spits out the stats in the format the Wikibook uses? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'm a little busy right now, but I'll take a look at it later today. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 15:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That should easily be doable, but you'll have to tell me how you want it to look for Deoxys. Is <stat> (<percentile>) (<version>) good enough, or do you have a different preference?

In the meantime, I'll work on the remaining 385. ;) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 16:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it's a good solution for Deoxys, and it could always be restructured by hand if necessary. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Completed - the URL is http://birdiesoft.dk/basebooks.php?id=1 (or http://birdiesoft.dk/basebooks.txt?id=1), substituting 1 with the Kanto number. Use the .php one if your browser correctly displays it as plain text, otherwise, use .txt. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 17:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've had a lot of crazy ideas lately. However, this one would be simple to implement.

References have been mostly excluded because they would be hard to update, which is especially problematic with pokédex sites -- many that go down become redirects to other sites. Fixing 380-odd articles if one site goes down is not anyone's idea of a good thing.

However, what if we added them to a template? Something like this:

 ==References==
 <b>Books</b>
 *Book 1 citation
 *Book 2 citation
 *etc.
  
 <b>Websites</b>
 *Website 1 citation
 *Website 2 citation
 *etc.

In the cases where a pokémon has its own references (such as controversial species, or extremely popular species), you could easily code in (say) a "<b>Jynx-specific</b>" section right under the {{pokerefs}} template.

This way, new references could be added to a number of pages simultaneously, and old or depreciated references taken out with similar ease. We could have our cake and eat it too -- properly referenced pokémon species articles, without the difficulty of having to edit hundreds of articles to add a single line if we ever find a really handy book.

How does this strike people? Almafeta 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. FAs need citations and this seems the most economical way of doing it. --Celestianpower ^hab 10:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can now add {{pokerefs}} to any article. Feel free to add any good books or stellar websites to the template, too. Almafeta 08:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know how to properly reference games? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MLA's never done video game citations. Besides, most information that we get from games is reproduced in a book somewhere. Almafeta 04:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet the MLA has a generic miscellaneous source citation format. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx
Wikipe-tan says, "You can't use fair-use images outside of articlespace!" National Pokédex Scyther - Jynx (#124) - Electabuzz Johto Pokédex Smoochum - Jynx (#153) - Elekid Hoenn Pokédex Scyther - Jynx (#282) - Electabuzz
Japanese name	ルージュラ - Rougela
Evolves from	Smoochum (only in Pokémon Gold and Silver and later)
Evolves into	None
Generation	First
Species	Humanshape Pokémon
Type	Ice / Psychic
Height	4'7" (1.4 m)
Weight	89.5 pounds (40.6 kg)
Ability	Oblivious

We haven't had a good argument in a couple of days, so I figure we're due.
It's coming time to start going back and polishing the articles that have been destubbified, and, as part of that, we we should probably shift to a proper template infobox instead of an inconsistant and difficult-to-change table with a half-dozen variations across hundreds of different pages.
Right now, we have Template:pokeinfobox, the template User:Celestianpower and I made.
It has a place for all three Pokédex numbers, all the biographical info, as well as a handy link that has all of the mechanical stat info for the games.
Currently, this template is on:

• Pikachu
• Jynx (Pokémon)
• Scizor
• Kyogre
• Magnemite
• Clefairy
• The proposed Pokémon species manual of style

So. Does anyone have any objections to using this template with all rewrites? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know my opinion by now. I'm opposed to any removal of encyclopedic information or unnecessary merging of articles, as those things were what created PAC in the first place. But we can't stop you, and you'd simply revert any change we made. Almafeta 08:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, assume good faith here. I brought up the template to generate discussion, to finally resolve this. Nobody's threatening a revert war here, and I have no intention to engage anyone in a revert war.

Frankly, I've been impressed how willing people have been to contribute despite disagreeing over procedural points. I know people were initially (and may still be) opposed to merging the Gym Leader articles, but that doesn't mean people haven't contributed to List of Johto Gym Leaders. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd pretty much say the same. But if base stats (with or without percentiles) and gender distribution were added back in, then I'd quite like this one - although I'd probably move a couple of things from the parameters to the template before it's put into all the articles.

I also think we should consider making the Japanese Name something like: ハッサム (Hassam/Hassamu) - that is, kana (GF Romaji/Standard Romaji).--Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I have with the stats is they make it really long and thin. Personally, I want to put the gender distribution back in. A lay reader'd have no problem i n understanding that. --Celestianpower ^hab 11:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can add all of the various Japanese names to this template, if you want. Whatever you want to have in the "Japanese Name" box, just plug into the japanese parameter. I didn't have it in there because a previous version of the box didn't have enough room for more than one version of the Japanese name, but since it's been changed, go for it.

I'm not a big fan of the gender distribution, myself, but it's not a big deal.

The stats do bloat the infobox, in addition to being unencyclopedic. I maintain that raw stats aren't encyclopedic material, and that the predecessor Wikiproject felt similarly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, believe they *are* encyclopedic. Though they're not directly visible to most people, you can draw a direct link from them and to several other things, such as typical trading card stats and the power displayed by them in the animé. Because they constitute such a big part of them and their personality, they are worthy of inclusion, and it's not enough to give an approximation in the article text, IMO. That said, I won't mind if the stats are moved into the main article, as long as they are kept accurate. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are one click away, for those with the background to understand them. For everyone else, they contribute little comprehensible information and are generally unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't GameFAQs, nor should it aspire to be.

That I've said before, though. As for compromises, how would you feel about making it clearer that the specific stats are on the Wikibook, in the Wikibook see also field of the infobox? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NOT section you're referring to does not list any category that base stats fall into, IMO. Unless you can argue otherwise, that point is moot.

That said, I am more willing to accept the removal of them if it is properly indicated that they are available at the Wikibooks link. Though I still prefer keeping them in the article. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No sense sitting here and arguing procedure if there's a workable compromise sitting in front of us, then.

How do you suggest that that be indicated? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem - I have no idea how that would be done. That's one of the reasons I'd prefer they just stay in the infobox - they play too big a role to remove all references to them, and I don't see a way to reach that golden middle in an elegant fashion. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about replacing "See Also" with "Video Game Info"? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but no. I'm not happy unless it's 100% clear that the base stats can be found at b: - "Video Game Info" is far too broad a term to automatically have that implication. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Game Statistics," then? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better. (As a reminder: I'm not at all happy about removing the stats, but if it *must* be done, that wording would be preferred. I'm still not convinced it should be done, and it's highly doubtful anyone will be able to convince me otherwise.) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that the template could be used that way. But we should use a standard format across all the infoboxes, and to do that, the parameters should not contain anything that is identical across all instances of the template. To give an example, there should be two parameters for height, one to specify the metric height and one to specify the imperial height. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yeah, splitting the parameters that way would be great. Unfortunately, it makes things a lot more complicated in situations where you don't have the metric measurements available. The national, johto, hoenn, evolution parameters, and measurement parameters are more complicated than is strictly ideal to allow for blank sections or missing info without generating any problems.

All of those things are available at Wikibooks, so there should never be any missing info. The only exception would be the {{{johto}}}-stuff, as not all POKéMON have Johto numbers. That, however, is easily fixed by either using a seperate template for RS POKéMON, or extracting all of that into the parameters. The former is likely preferable. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Between Pokéfor and the Wikibook, I haven't had any trouble getting Johto numbers for the third-gen Pokémon. That said, I'm fiddling with a hacky, more-flexible infobox for Pokémon that need special attention for the Pokédex line. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, if you can think of a way to simplify it, go for it. It's just that I'm stumped, and I assume Celestianpower is as well (else he would have fixed it already). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I redesigned it some. I haven't added a gender line, yet (I'm fiddling with some drafts)...but why do we have a Pokémon Color line still? Does anyone want to make a case for keeping it? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The color is not always what first pops into mind. For example, Ditto is pink to me, but it's classfied as purple. Plus, we already have a List of Pokémon by color, which it nicely complements. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what purpose it serves. I can't remember any time the classification by color is ever actually used. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's used in the POKéDEX for searching. It was introduced with POKéMON Gold/Silver, IIRC. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I played the hell out of Silver and I don't remember that. Huh. Well, you learn something new every day. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. It was introduced in Ruby/Sapphire. I was probably thinking of searching in general, which *did* appear in Gold/Silver. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That would explain why I didn't remember it...I didn't play Sapphire quite as much. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone crop the whitespace out of this and reupload it? I'm getting squished images when I try to do it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I found a new image. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the main page is terribly out of date seeing as all of the articles have been assigned but people are still coming for Pokemon articles! What should it say now? --Celestianpower ^hab 17:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The project has currently assigned ALL articles, thanks for your help. Soon, a clean-up operation will begin, in the mean time everyone is welcome to contribute to any articles."

How about that? Deskana 21:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering adding this statement to the Charizard article:

"Charizard's Fire/Flying type combo is mostly superior to pure Fire-types. While the Flying-type adds a weakness against Electric-type and a double weakness against Rock-type attacks, those weaknesses are largely outweighed by the resistances. The Fire/Flying-type combo has a double resistance against Grass-type and Bug-type attacks, an additional resistance against Fighting-type Attacks, and an immunity from Ground-type attacks, which Fire-type Pokémon are normally weak against."

I do not want to get into an NPOV war over this. However, I feel that this is not a POV statement.

Any thoughts on whether it should be included? Andros 1337 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Include it, yes. it's not nearly as bad as most of the rubbish we've been editting out like "A good moveset for this Pokemon is...". --Celestianpower ^hab 21:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes, it's entirely grounded in fact. You might want to add that Charizard became a Fire/Flying type starting in Pokémon Yellow, as well. Almafeta 21:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Charizard was always a Fire/Flying type, only that it wasn't able to learn Flying-type attacks until Pokémon Yellow. Andros 1337 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about NPOV-ing it?

Charizard's Fire/Flying type combo gives it a range of advantages over typical Fire types, as well as some new weaknesses. Adding the flying type adds a new weakness to Electric attacks, while exacerbating its weakness to Rock attacks and negating its resistance to Ice attacks. The Flying type does offer a complete immunity to Ground attacks, while adding resistance to Fighting attacks and increasing resistance against Bug and Grass attacks.

There's also a more direct, less technical slant:

Charizard's Flying type offers a major advantage: immunity to the Ground attacks that are typically the bane of Fire Pokémon. This doesn't come without a drawback, however; it adds a weakness to Electric attacks.

I don't care about Bug attacks and I actually care about Pokémon, and Grass and Rock attacks are relatively less common. Plus, it neatly summarizes the actual dilemma; I don't think anyone debating between Charizard and, say, Arcanine is really thinking, "Oh no! Choosing Arcanine will make my Pokémon more vulnerable to Giga Drain and...uh...Fury Cutter!"

That said, Charizard totally sucks in 386 play, though, because you see Thunderbolt (or rarely Thunder Punch, with Emerald) all over the place. When it's not Thunderbolt, it's a Suicune or Gyarados or Swampert or Starmie with Surf. Bleaugh. Make sure you mention Belly-Drum-izard, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will not allow your POV-based lies. BTW Electric Pokémon can get KOed with an Earthquake attack. This can become the nuclear power dispute of the next generation. Andros 1337 00:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The italics are what I was suggesting adding to the article. The rest is just me kibitzing about strategy.

As for KOing electric types, a TON of things can learn Thunderbolt, not all of them Electric-types. Plus, most of the Electric-types you'll see (exception: Magneton) are faster than Charizard.

Or are you kidding? I can't tell. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think people need to lighten up on A Man In Black a little bit. He's trying to contribute, and regardless of whether he's being successful at it (which I think he is), he's trying in good faith... I think comments like "Sorry, I will not allow your POV-based lies" are a bit out of order. -- Deskana 08:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of support. And I am actually making edits in article-space while debating endlessly about policy. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category for our Poke-cleanup tag now, at Category:Pokemon cleanup. I went around and tagged a ton of articles that need attention, so feel free to go and clean them up. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm a sucker for being yelled at by everyone for being overly mergist and exclusionist, I proposed a structure for the Pokémon articles over at Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project. Since this intended to be a goal for WP:PCP and will involve a lot of merges and rewrites, I wanted to get everyone on board to either make suggestions and correct oversights and implement it, or just yell at me to stop telling everyone what to do and just go rewrite List of Pokémon items.

If we implemented this plan (or a much less mergist plan like it), we could easily point to it when someone tries to VFD something (hey, we've got these lists and such-and-such other fandom has similar things), have a plan in place for adding new articles/info, and simplify cleanup/rewrite efforts and vandalism patrol. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone with a nose for finding good images for articles, some articles' images need replacing. Some stuff I've noticed (although I'm sure there are more):

• Butterfree could do with a better-quality image.
  • Couldn't find any better images. Alvin6226 04:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kadabra could do with an image without the drop shadow. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Uploaded better image. Alvin6226 03:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mew (Pokémon) could use a simpler image, preferably one of the simple Sugimori pictures we've been using for everything else.

  Can you please explain what criteria you are using here? I think that image of Mew is fine... Deskana 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its a bit like Celebi, it needs on focussing on mew without all of that extra "fluff". That picture needs to be moved to further down the article when we've got a new image. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 21:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the image of Celebi was fine too. Nobody in their right mind would think Celebi would be a structure made of wood... but I guess that isn't the point. Deskana 18:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not criticising the quality of that particular image, just looking to standardize the infoboxes. The other images, when they're not garbage, should go elsewhere in the article, as far as I'm concerned. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Steelix could use a higher-quality, non-gif image. Done -WindFish
  • Is there a larger version you could use? This isn't a big deal, but it just feels small. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Scizor could use a somewhat larger image.
  • The one currently used is the PNG Ken Sugimori one, which I uploaded under my old account. -WindFish
    • Likewise, is there a larger version you could use? This isn't a big deal, but it just feels small. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that an older image still on Wikipedia was larger and less washed-out, so I used it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Celebi - Needs a specific image focusing on Celebi --Celestianpower ^hab 10:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this a while ago and thought of changing it, but I didn't change it as I liked the pic. But I suppose it should be changed. --RealWingus
    • I like the image a lot, too, but the infobox needs a clear, simple image. Looks like Celestianpower just moved the well image to elsewhere in the article, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there something wrong with that? I liked the image and felt it added to the article by being there. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 10:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing at all wrong with it. I was just noting the fact that you did, not condemning it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh right. Without facial expressions and voice tones, lots of meaning can be lost. --Celestianpower ^{hab | myRFA} 10:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Treecko needs a higher-quality image. -Uploaded better image. User:Alvin6226 6:11, 5 Mar. 2006 (UTC)
• Beautifly could use a simpler image. -Uploaded better image. User:Alvin6226 6:31, 5 Mar. 2006 (UTC)
• Taillow has a manipulated anime screenshot, which needs to be replaced with a simpler image for both aethetic and copyright reasons. -Uploaded better image. User:Alvin6226 7:02, 5 Mar. 2006 (UTC)

• Corphish is a badly-cropped image.
• Shuppet could use a profile or a 3/4 angle, but this isn't strictly necessary.
• Banette has a background circle. - done WindFish 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Tropius needs a higher-quality image. -Uploaded better image. User:Alvin6226 6:37 5 Mar. 2006 (UTC)
• Chimecho needs a higher-quality image. - done WindFish 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Absol has a scan of a TCG card.
  • -Uploaded a better image. Personally, I don't think it is good enough. User:Alvin6226 7:06, 5 Mar. 2006 (UTC) -Uploaded better image. Alvin6226 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Spheal has the same weird background Rayquaza had. - done WindFish 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Walrein needs a higher-quality, hopefully larger image. - done WindFish 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Bagon is badly cropped. Bagon is fixed. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Anorith could do with a higher-quality image.
• I don't know if there's a better-quality Munchlax image we could use, but this one sort of sucks. -Uploaded better image. Alvin6226 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pokémon evolution has photos of a screen and an image with an anti-leech tag.
• Image:BulbasaurCard.jpg - This has a no-leech tag, albeit a subtle one, and isn't a very high-quality scan. Someone needs to break out their own card and scan it for us.
• Image:Pokémon Technical Machine.png - This is a derivative work, and ugly to boot. This needs replacing ASAP, as it's blatant copyright infringement.
• Image:PokemonCrystal-character.png, Image:Maxpokenav.png - All rough and manipulated
• Cianwood City has a photo of a screen.
• Pokémon Colosseum needs new cast images, as Image:Pokémon Colosseum characters.png is terribly low-quality and is a derivative work (and thus probably not fair use) to boot. Plus, I'd like to have an image of Wes I can crop to use in List of Pokémon items#Snag machine. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• List of Pokémon items#Berries has a low-quality image that needs replacing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add any images in need of replacing or articles in need of images, and remove any you take care of. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just appeared on RFA and I wondered if any of you would please vote/leave your comment. Thank you. Here's a link! —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 13:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vote is over and with 66% support, it failed. I will try again in a m,onths time and between now and then I will attempt to diversify. --Celestianpower ^hab 10:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, tough luck. 66% is still good though, its leaning in your favour! :) -WindFish 10:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - 17 support, 8 oppose and 3 neutral. --Celestianpower ^hab 14:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this guys edits can be considered vandalism (he is making some good ones), but some are down right dodgy... it's taking me a while to revert dodgy ones, can someone help? He's deleting sections of articles (that he no doubt feels are irrelevant)... take a look. [Contributions of 24.57.121.167] -- Deskana 09:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it doesn't matter. I seem to have reverted all the dodgy ones... sorry, I think I probably only saw the bad edits and thought he was a vandal. Deskana 10:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say. Some of the edits have some issues (not sure why he/she is delinking Pokémon articles, or restoring the verbatim Pokédex entries), but he/she looks like an honest contributor. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions of 24.86.124.111

Edits of this person need reverting... they seem to just be removing random sentences from pokemon articles.

I finished an article, could someone just adjust the percentage please?

ViperSnake151

Done. Which brings me to my next point...

We currently have the problem that we're waiting for people to finish the last few articles. Several seem not to have edited anything recently, so we can't do much.

I propose we un-assign all articles that have not been edited by the assignee for a week (excluding articles that haven't been assigned for a week, obviously!). People can get them re-assigned if they wish, but they have to show some results, or we'll never get the articles done. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • When they are unassigned, fancy throwing me a couple of articles? Deskana 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since no one's contesting this, I will be doing this now. I will also leave a message on the talk pags of the affected users. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Turns out all articles faced unassignment. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 14:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe.... at the bottom of the page it has the categories Ice Pokémon and Psychic Pokémon. Reminds me of Jynx. Hehehehe.... Deskana 23:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I realise the Jynx infobox is above... but it makes me laugh anyway!) Deskana 23:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Raikou at Raikou (Pokémon) if Raikou just redirects to Raikou (Pokémon)? This is not consistent with other Pokémon articles, unless there is a disambiguation page or more popular usage of the word at the page without the (Pokémon) suffix. (eg. Electrode) Deskana 21:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went back in the history of Raikou and found this. It was changed to a disambiguation page on that edit, and when that was undone in this edit, it was merely done by making it a redirect. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

I'm a coder. Once a long time ago, when I was learning how to code, I wrote a Pokedex program.

From a small project, it got huge, till it contained most information possible to extract from the RBY/GSC games. Sadly, it never got too much attention on the WWW.

I haven't touched the project in quite some time.

Here's a link: http://www.geocities.com/pv_wer/progs/masterdex.html

I also started (but abandoned) a Pokedex for the Advance games.

Screenshot: http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot1me.png

Download: http://loadup.dr.ag/s/MasterdexAdvance.zip.HtMl

If you have any questions, please e-mail me. I'm afraid I won't be able to watch this page closely.

thecybershadow gmail com

--The CyberShadow 18:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, I will now edit under the name WindFish instead of my current one. My previous user page redirects to my new one. --realwingus 07:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that there only be three list articles at most - Kanto Pokémon, Johto Pokémon and Hoenn Pokémon, or just a list containing all three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:34, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure ALttP is referring to the lists at List of Pokémon. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct, Amib. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that they are not your usual disambig pages however, due to their relative inactivity and stability, I would presume that they are not a great server load and may be useful to some people. I would not oppose a move but not support it either. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The current lists were created because they were considered useful indexing methods. Also, there's no reason given for the proposal. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 13:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't NEED indexing methods. Only three lists are needed at the very most. There is such a thing called fancruft. This is strategy guide information, not encyclopedia information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Their presence has never before been contested, despite all of them having been around for the entire year (most of them longer than that). This alone makes a strong argument for keeping them.

Besides, they're not doing any harm: they're written well (taking into consideration that they are lists) and their presence do not inconvenience the user anymore than it would if we boiled it down to the basic four (each numbering system + name) - the original list contained these four in one article, and was split because it by far exceeded the recommended page size. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of articles that get deleted or transwikied are not causing any harm. It doesn't matter how well-written it is, it's not encyclopediatic. If I wrote a guide for Pokémon Snap and put it on its article, no matter how well-written it is, it is not meant to be on Wikipedia.

And the idea that it being old means it's encyclopediatic is just silly. They went unnoticed by non-Pokémon fans, and Pokémon fans want it up. Creating multiple versions of the same list is made for a strategy guide, not an encyclopedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Strategy guides and lists are two completely different things. Strategy guides implies advice, lists are merely a way of displaying articles in a useful order.

Would you rather we replaced the current lists with categories? That would easily end up being very messy, not to mention unfriendly to those users who would use them.

Besides, how can you *know* they went unnoticed? Just because no one contests having an article/list doesn't mean nobody sees it. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What now? I can't speculate that they went unnoticed, but you can speculate they were noticed?

Yes, I would rather have a dozen less lists than necessary. If these lists are 10% encyclopediatic, then they are 90% booky. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:17, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not claim to be able to know if they were noticed or not. But since you cannot know either, you are making an invalid argument by stating that since they were never put up for deletion, they were overlooked - see denying the antecedent. Being in favor of keeping status quo, it is my responsibility to point out flaws in the arguments of the opposing side. You, of course, are welcome to do the same towards me and my arguments. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy guides and lists are two completely different things. Strategy guides implies advice, lists are merely a way of displaying articles in a useful order.

It can be argued (although I am myself ambivalent) that certain lists lend little encyclopedic understanding, and are instead lists of data useful only to a player of the games. For example, a list of Pokémon by the place where you could catch them, a list of Pokémon by competitive tier, or a list of Pokémon by TCG set would definitely be more strategy guide than encyclopedic list. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I'll give you that one. But the closest we have to that is List of Pokémon by Type, which I do not believe falls into that category. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 09:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that logic applied a bit more to Pokémon Abilities than anything, but I'm clarifying what I see as ALttP's argument, here, by extending it to a clear hypothetical case. I think. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question for ALttP: What lists are you suggesting be deleted? Why do those specific lists have no encyclopedic value? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A question for Pidgeot (and anyone else who wants to take it): What encyclopedic value do List of Pokémon by color or List of Pokémon by species have? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed they were encyclopedic, but then again, lists generally are not and should not be encyclopedic. A list is an index of articles, not an actual article. In this case, we have many of those because we have many articles on the list, and it can be quite confusing to find the one you're looking for.

A list like List of Pokémon by color is quite useful if you wish to read about a Pokémon, but cannot remember its name. Instead, you can look it up by its color and see if you recognise the name when you read it. It's much easier to do this with ~50-100 names than it is with 386+. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 09:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that many/some/one of the lists is useful as a reference aid, rather than an encyclopedic resource of its own. I hadn't thought of that. Hmm. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe List of Pokémon by species is not intended to work as an index, but rather as a sort of trivia article. If any of these lists fall under the "indiscriminate collection" in WP:NOT, that would be the one. None of the others do, IMO.

However, it is worth pointing out that even if the basic four lists are kept (each numbering system + name), you would still have to leave List of Pokémon as a disambiguation page, since the combined size of the list is well over the recommended article size (64K vs. 32K) - that's why it was split in the first place. As a result, you'll be deleting pages for no real reason at all; WP:NOT paper and user-friendlyness will not improve (on the contrary, actually). --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 09:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you're admitting they have no place on an encyclopedia? OK. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where Pidgeot said that, save for maybe the list by species. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I state that. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed they were encyclopedic, but then again, lists generally are not and should not be encyclopedic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

So [Pidgeot is] arguing that many/some/one of the lists is useful as a reference aid, rather than an encyclopedic resource of its own. They're a tool to make the encyclopedic resources more useful, rather than useful encyclopedic resources of their own. Pidgeot is arguing that the lists are valuable for the context they lend, not the information they contain. (And answer my question above, please. Nobody knows which lists you want to keep and which you want to axe.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure no one's blood pressure is gonna rocket through the roof if the lists are moved. There's only one list needed. Pokémon is the only one that actually has this excessive amount of lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Er. You're not planning on just going ahead despite Pidgeot's objections, are you? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly misunderstood something, ALttP. It is correct that I do not believe they are encyclopedic on their own. However, I do not believe *any* list is or should be - if a list is encyclopedic, then it's not just a list. Lists improve the experience of users browsing the encyclopedia, as it helps them find the information they are looking for. Granted, we have categories for that too, but using them locks us into using one indexing method only and decreases overview in situations where it's beneficial to be able to see multiple groups at once. Also, one index is too little for 386+ articles. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You DO realize that the only list without all Pokémon is Johto's, right? Again, let me point out something - Pokémon doesn't have a special privelege that makes it exempt from cruft. List of GameCube games. Do you see more than half a dozen variations of that list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The topic of the lists has relevance to the amount of lists as well. Games are most frequently organized by title, and apart from genre (which can sometimes be hard to identify), a game has no identifying mark by which to recognize it. Pokémon are often categorized in many ways (number in a certain region, name, type(s), etc.), and there is no agreed upon standard.

Also, I do not believe these lists can ever be considered cruft in the standard definition of the word. They add no detail not already found in the individual articles, they merely organize it for the convenience of users. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 12:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out the complete lack of usefulness in nearly a dozen lists with the exact same content organized differently. What, does some mystical computer now lack Ctrl F? - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone knows their browser is able to search within a page, and you seem to be ignoring my argument about not remembering the name, but remembering a specific attribute, such as color. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 12:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that has been the case before, but... hmm... you know what? No one ever made a million pages to do so!

Look at each list. Notice the .01% difference in content? How it's just the exact same content repeated multiple times? And notice how - I repeat - no one else does this. There is only one list necessary. Hell, we might as well find a way to make it auto scroll. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:57, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

List of musicians and Lists of people also have multiple ways of indexing. The only difference is that they split it out over multiple lists, due to size. We don't here, since the list is small enough to not require it.

And please answer AMIB's question, so we at least know exactly what you wish to keep and what you wish to delete. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you've found the minority, congratulations. Let me make one thing clear to you... MOST OF THE LISTS ALREADY HAVE ALL 386! - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

You have proposed a problem, not a course of action. What do you think should be done about this perceived problem? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have ALREADY said that i am trying to gather that no one is going to go crazy over the lists being moved. There is no size issue, it's all a navigation issue. The examples were size, not navigation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

LttP: Nobody knows exactly what you want to do. Please tell us what you want to do so people know what you're proposing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amib: And EVERYBODY doesn't seem to think it important that I have stated, oh, say, numerous times that I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T GO CRAZY OVER IT! If you READ anything I had said, then you would have known that...

I AM NOT FOCUSING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. Exactly WHAT does it matter WHAT I'm going to move when there are people opposing it right now? It has NO importance, because the people here will say no to ANY deletion. PAY ATTENTION, PLEASE. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody but you knows what the "it" you are proposing is, so people are reacting to what they perceive, correctly or incorrectly, to be your proposal. This conversation is at a standstill until you make a proposal that people can actually react to. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess me saying DELETE ALL BUT ONE LIST isn't clear enough for you. "But you didn't say which!" DOES IT FREAKING MATTER?! That is NOT of any importance right now! We're not even at the freaking deletion process! So, I repeat:

PAY ATTENTION! - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the shouting.

What form would this one list take? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A side note: If any of these lists aren't on the Pokémon Wikibook, they need to be there, even if they stay on Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any Pokémon articles using {{Pokeinfobox}} on your watchlist, please go through and make sure you add brackets to all of the preceding and following fields. I've removed the brackets from the template itself, because of problems with links to articles such as Persian (Pokémon) and Raikou (Pokémon). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I.. do not understand. May you please explain what to do precisely? -WindFish 04:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed plans midstream, since we might as well go through and change all the infoboxes at once.

I'm going through and redesigning the infobox, creating some child templates to allow for greater flexibility in the Pokédex number section. This way, we can remove the Johto dex section from third-gen Pokémon, or the Hoenn dex section from the first- and second-generation Pokémon who don't appear in the Hoenn dex.

Things are unfortunately going to be broken until all the infoboxes are updated. If you want to fix them in the meantime, to look like they looked before the changes to Template:pokeinfobox, take a look at this diff and do that to any articles that still look broken.

In any case, I'm going to go through and fix all the infoboxes tonight myself. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Blastoise's infobox.. is it correctly done? -WindFish 05:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) edit: I notice that, as of yet, you still need to put in the Hoenn info if you want it to not appear.[reply]

As of this edit, only Bulbasaur and Venusaur are done. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the template is done now, and, after all the articles are fixed up, now special cases can be made for the Pokédex preceding/following/number fields without breaking the template in every article. I'm going to go through the articles that use the template, but, again, if you see one that's still broken, look at this diff to see how to fix it. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to remove any type category links (such as Category:Electric Pokémon) from articles that have the new infobox. Pokeinfobox adds Pokémon to the appropriate categories automatically. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing said categories for a while now (when I find them anyway). Also, you'll need to update Wikipedia:Pokémon Adoption Center/Style#The_infobox. --WindFish 05:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm plowing down the list at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pokeinfobox, and as of this edit I'm done with Kakuna and everything above it on that list. Help, say, by starting at the bottom of the list, would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help, Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained has been updated to reflect the changes to the template. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're all updated now. All the articles using {{Pokeinfobox}} should be updated to reflect the new infobox. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's lot of good pokemon species articles, but what this project lacks is guidelines about creating a good featured pokemon article. This guideline should specify the sections of every pokemon article, the kind of info that should be included... For examples of features game characters articles see Goomba, Link (Legend of Zelda), Wario. CG 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we do. Please see WP:PAC/S. Also, WP:PCP has some ideas of which articles we would like to nominate at WP:FAC. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAC/S is good for taking articles from rough drafts to finished products, but I'm not sure it's quite ready to take articles all the wway up to featured status.

WP:PCP has the start of a getting-something-up-to-FA-status project, but it really needs someone to come in and get the ball rolling. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{Pokeimage}}, the template used for Pokémon Co.-owned images that aren't screenshots or box art, is on TFD here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]