Talk:Gameplay of Pokémon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Artificial Shiny Pokemon

I know of a way to make artifical Shiny pokemon with the seemingly little known device called the Brainboy from Peligan.

I was messing around with the pokemon and found that a certian number values for the gender will produce shiney pokemon. also changing the pokemon from example the red garados can easily get you more and different shiny pokemon. Most of the steel pokemon take on copper or gold appearences. Mewtwo will have black in place or its purple and Mew will be blue. Butterfree will still not turn pink though but will be purple with green eyes

I think this is worth mentioningYami (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be done ingame without an outside device, and is therefore considered cheating. Not worth mentioning. -- 67.165.139.44 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, Butterfree are never supposed to be pink, that was a special ANIME ONLY pokemon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.25.245 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Natures

If I remember correctly, Pokemon Natures were first introduced in Ruby and Sapphire (which were released before FireRed and LeafGreen). This article is misleading and incorrect. Hta9bbb888 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They actually were. I agreeEddy Dude 06:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Time

There's nothing here about day and night in the games that support it. Shouldn't there be? 24.255.152.91 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

actually yes, i agree, it got kinda overlooked i guess. feel free to add a section and you can type {{poke-stub}} to bring it to the attention of others in the wikiproject. btw, start new topics at the bottom :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from berry growing, I don't see much that could be added to Pokémon Gold and Silver#Time. SubStandardDeviation 08:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PP merge

moved from Talk:List of Pokémon items

has ne1 seen the Power Points page? it's really sad and i don't think it could realistically ever be expanded ino more than a stub. Elixers and Ethers are already covered here, so all that would need to be added would be a section on PP UP and PP max and the article in question becomes obsolete. Any comments? -Zappernapper 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

almost all the information covered on Power Points is now covered here, except for a paragraph, that by the article's own admission is pure specualtion, and has no sources to back it up. I suggest creating a Power Points (PP redirect) disambiguation page that links to both Pokemon items and the pages mentioned here. -Zappernapper 09:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Power Points aren't technically "items". Maybe Pokémon game mechanics would be a better option.--The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He said exactly what I was thinking. If you agree then we can change the merger to the mechanics page. Hybrid 08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree, however how should we redirect the page "Power Points"? I think it may be best to redirect it to a disambig page of "power point" because it is relevant to Domestic AC power plugs and sockets (what "power point" currently redirects to), Pokémon game mechanics, Magic Point, Dungeons & Dragons Psionics Handbook, In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas, and the Microsoft app Powerpoint. btw there are several possible combinations with capitalization, pluralization, and spacing that would require many old redirects to now point to the new disambig. page (i.e. "powerpoint" will give you the MS app and "powerpoints" gives you a search page - both are possible spellings of someone trying to find out about "Power Points"). -Zappernapper 16:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. i would have responded sooner but i was up late and then my internet stopped working.

Go ahead. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

eh..... Powerpoint/Powerpoints, PowerPoint/PowerPoints, Power point/Power points, and Power Point/Power Points all need to be fixed, they go wherever, and some don't even go anywhere. -Zappernapper 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got to be careful here. There's Microsoft PowerPoint, then there's powerpoints in terms of electrical fixings. We should see what happens to the Pokémon Power Points article before thinking about needing to make disambiguation pages or anything. It looks like it could possibly be moved into the Pokémon game mechanics article. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll talk to some of the other WikiProjects, including WP:WPDIS, about collaborating to make a disambiguation page at Power Point. One exists, but this one needs some large jurisdiction from the other projects. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aware for all the other uses, that's why i suggested the disambig page in the first place. Following other leads, the best practice seems to be to create something like, "Power Point (disambiguation)", leave all redirects in place (except for adding those red ones), and attach a "... for other uses see Power Point (disambiguation)" to the top of all relevant articles. creating disambig. pages without having the word in the title seems to be going against the trend and less intuitive. Especially with the variance we have. Another alternative would be to move general sounding articles ("Power points" is really the only one, e.g. the MS app is under the title of "Microsoft PowerPoint") to more specific titles (e.g. "Power points (pokemon)") and redirecting the old title to the disambig page. However i agree that we really need to decide what we're going to do with Power Points before assembling the disambig pages. -Zappernapper 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with others that the content of Power Points should be merged into Pokémon game mechanics and that the page itself should redirect to some form of disambiguation page. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should really be cleaned up and rewritten/merged into Pokémon game mechanics. Cabby2 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this proposition has been up for over a week and from seven comments for and none against the consesus is to merge. This discussion will be moved to the game mechanics page for posterity and Power Points will redirect to the game mechanics page with an "other uses see..." notice. Power points will redirect to the dab page due to the similarity with "powerpoints" (AC outlet ref). If anyone disagrees with this please discuss first before moving these redirects. -Zappernapper 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Move Pokémon attacks to own page

I feel like it's a little long. And it would certainly fit nicely on it's own page, but I don't want to invite people to add long lists and game-guide information to meat it out. Anyone else feel the length of this section disrupts the flow? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it needs to be changed to "moves", instead of "attacks". Second, I think that the page Types of Pokémon moves should have its name changed back to just "Pokémon Move", and that this information should then be moved over there. That would get rid of the overly-long section here and put it where it's more applicable. I agree with your reason for the article's name change, but I think it's longer than necessary (and the first subheading now has the same name as the article itself). If we move this more general information there, and put it at the top of the article, the page name could be changed back, because it would then deal with the general definition of a Move as well as the different kinds of Moves.~e.o.t.d~ 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion of using "moves" Perhaps you are using a non-US translation, but they described in the game as attacks and while move may be more encompassing or even logical, i don't think we should be forcing our own terminology when there is plenty from the game itself (a case could be alternately made for Vitamins or Nutrients because the game never refers to this group by name). Also, I'm not sure if merging the two pages is a good idea because the combined information would make a needlessly long article itself. Perhaps you can find a better alternative for the existing page's title if you don't like it's length. The heading problem can easily be rememdied by changing the hierarchy. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Move" is a catchall that has been used in the games themselves in English translations, such as when learning a new one: "CHARIZARD wants to learn the move FLY. However, CHARIZARD already knows four moves. Should a move be deleted and replaced with FLY? [Yes] Which move should be forgotten?" Got that directly from my LeafGreen game, though my Charizard has a nickname. I think I even saw "Pokémon move" get the trademark allcaps treatment once, but I couldn't tell you where. --Sparky Lurkdragon 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I concede to moves. Don't ask, I'm not sure why i thought i read attacks when i had checked it but i orginally looked at the game when i was writing the section and had changed all my references of "moves" to "attacks". Neway, that being said, I still don't think that it should be combined with the information at Types of Pokémon moves because it would be too long. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The info currently on Types of Pokémon moves needs to be trimmed way down, actually - I was working on doing that myself before schoolwork got in the way. :( If we make the rest less game-guide-y and move this stuff over, it should be a decent length. But the info here needs to stay in some form or another (probably also heavily trimmed), because it contains the basic information about what a move is and how they work.~e.o.t.d~ 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

of course there would still be info here :) it just would have a {{main}} template directing to Pokémon moves which would be a verbatim copy of the current section. As the author of most of it, i find it hard to find information that is unneccessary, just much of it would be more appropriate in an article about the subject rather than a section. I won't be inclined to think the two (Types of Pokémon moves and Pokémon moves) should be combined until I know exactly how much trimming will be done on the former. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This should be separated.

This user is a member of WikiProject Pokémon.

Yugiohguy1 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has this section been merged back into this article?! I can't seem to find any discussion around it...(Symo85 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

It was merged because it could not stand alone as an individual article. Besides, Pokémon moves are part of the game mechanics so I would make sense to merge it into this article. Artichoker^[talk] 01:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there was discussion about it. Someone was bold and simply made the merge. It was not reverted because the majority of people felt it was the right action. And I agree, there does not need to be an entire article devoted to Pokémon moves. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 14:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But who made this decision? Where is the discussion around it?! Theres clear discussion around moving the section out, but nothing about bringing it back.(Symo85 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Effort values

While i understand that dispensing charts and highly specific information about EV training would be what wiki is NOT, there is at least one item (Macho Brace), several berries, and a few NPCs that all utilize this mechanic. It would seem to be doing a diservice to not at least mention Effort Points.

Effort Values are a reflection of the effort a trainer has put into raising a Pokémon. They represent that Pokémon's skill in certain areas of combat, and take the form of points awarded for six main attributes: Attack, Special Attack, Defense, Special Defense, Speed, and Hit Points. Each of these statistics may reach a maximum value of 255 points, with a maximum total of 510 EVs in its lifetime. Each Pokémon specializes in 1-2 of the six areas. When the trainer's Pokémon faints another Pokémon, he or she will receive 1-3 EV points. Four EV points equals to +1 stat increase when the Pokémon levels up. Advanced FAQs often use the term EV spreads to describe what kind of EV training that a Pokémon should get. Players may also buy vitamins from a department store to boost EVs, but it is very expensive.

There is no in-game method of determining what EV points that a Pokémon currently has; players must keep thorough track of what Pokémon were battled. EV points accidentally acquired can be reduced by feeding that Pokémon berries. A Macho Brace will cut the Pokémon's speed in half but double the EV points that he or she gets. Once a Pokémon fills up all 510 EVs, a lady in Slateport will award the Pokémon a ribbon.

This was the section that used to exist on the page. I realize it could be slightly tweaked, sources added, specific numerical values removed, but I ask what is inherently wrong with having this kind of information in wiki? It deals with the info in an informative rather than instructive fashion, explaining Effort Values' presence in the video game in prose rather than resorting to lengthy lists of technical minutiae. Agreement? Disapproval? Improvements? There currently exists a page: Effort value points Rather than AfD it outright, I thought it may be possible to merge it here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should definitely be mentioned. The info on the page right now seems fine (I know little enough about the EV system, but it tells me essentially what it is).~e.o.t.d~ 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Abilities Merge

I'd suggest merging Pokémon abilities into this article as part of its improvement. I didn't put the merge template up, but I definitely agree with it. You agree, Zappernapper (or anyone else)?~e.o.t.d~ 06:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. I can't think of any reason that it would need its own article. -- M C Y 1008 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

yes definitly, as long as the histories are merged as well, pokemon ability has an indepth hitory. the other article is definitely short enough, I just want to wait a little longer before asking an admin to merge the histories, because there have been quite a few editors to it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. It would make a nice, beefy addition to the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pokérus merge

Pokérus is a very minor, advanced function. It shouldn't merit its own article, much like the rest of these advanced tactics and functions. Hbdragon88 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the Pokérus article contains so much info! I think it wouldn't hurt to merge it; it's hardly notable to deserve its own article. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

i'm actually disinclined to include it as a game mechanic. while it is definitely an aspect of the Effort Point mechanic, it is only in the same respect as the Macho Brace, deserving of a brief mention and nothing more. However, outside of this article there certainly is much more to say about it (as evidenced by the page) as long as it gets some references. Including an article like Pokerus in here not only would detract from the core topic of mechanics but also lead people to beleive other topics like glitches should be dumped here too. This is akin to the detail currently at the items. I would prefer to not talk about berries and such but am currently in the mindset of allowing people to add information so that it can be later pruned down. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a separate article for glitches: Notable glitches in the Pokémon video games. Other glitches sare covered in the games themselves. But Pokérus transcends two generations (G/S/C and R/S/E, surely in D/P as well but unconfirmed), so I think it's worthy of including somewhere. Discussing berries and those stat-boosting items (like Miracle Seed, Mystic Water) are extremely specific gameplay elements; they'd also be very list-like, with little or no actual prose. Hbdragon88 09:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the glitches article, my point was that this would be akin to performing a merger of that article if we were to perform a merger of Pokerus. Ok, so not totally the same things, because glitches are by their nature unintentional, but the effect upon mechanics is the same. Pokerus can get included with a passing mention, but not a full merger of the article as it is. And berries and such currently are discussed in this article (not for too much longer though...) and it is regettable. You may be interested to know that there is an article entitled List of Pokemon items. Now the thing is that while i certainly agree that the mechanic of items, both using them and being able to hold them, is important and within the scope of this article, i do not feel that what the items themselves are should really be discussed in all but the most superficial sense possible. There is (surprisingly) quite a bit of information in the Pokerus article, and if it were moved here it would have to be pared down to a couple sentences to stay within the scope of the article something like:

The Pokerus is a feature that was first implmeneted in GSC that caused Pokemon to gain double the normal amount of Effort Points from each battle.

And here's the thing, i'm even admitting it's a FEATURE, not a mechanic that's part of gameplay. Much like how the Mystery Gift is specifically not included (however it would be very appropriate in an article Pokemon items). The only place to put this sentence would be in the Effort Point section. The Pokerus article as it stands is plenty long enough to be it's own article and only needs to e referenced. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 11:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about length, it's about suitability. Other concepts arguably have a greater chacne of expansion, like Effort Values, but they're all merged into a big "List of" article. The Pokerus article as it stands now also includes a lot of game guide-like information that shouldn't be there in the first place, like describing the exact chances of catching it and how other players try to keep it intact. Like the other concepts, I believe that Pokerus should also be merged into an article. It would be deceptive to merge it into the Pokemon items, as Pokerus is not an item. If you state that it isn't a mechanic, where else can it go? Hbdragon88 23:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

you misunderstood me, i wasn't saying that Pokerus should go into Pokemon items, i was saying my example, Mystery gift, would do well in a non-listy article about Pokemon items, even though it is a feature and not an item itself. I don't think it can go anywhere else, that's why i don't want to merge it. I disagree with you about the Pokerus as a game-guide article. Describing the odds' exact number is perfectly suitable for descrbing how difficult it is to come across, numbers don't always mean game-guide (even though i do usually remove them whenever i see them for the sole reason that a general layperson will not understand or really care what a 110 base speed means) when they are being used to convey relevant, useful information - see Monopoly (game). Additionally, as it stands, it is not suggesting what players should do it is only telling them strategies that have been employed, while this should be referenced (preferebly serebii's dissertation) it is not disallowed as it is documented strategy from a reliable source, much in the same way chess moves are discussed (but not properly referenced either). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

rereading your comments and my resonse i fear not addressing you concernse specifically enough. Effort Values may very well be expanded and when it is too long (perhaps like Pokemon moves) it will be put into its own article, but since it is a mechanic it starts here, and will always at least have a paragraph with a link to the main article. Because, as i've said, Pokerus isn't a mechanic it doesn't belong here. If you can think of an article that would be properly suited to contain it, that's fine. But i caution against something like Pokemon concepts as the term is too vague and could cause confusion as to why things like Pokemon capturing are located here instead of there. Pokemon features? That may be appropriate, and could then include more detailed discussions of the mini-games, a small section on the gamelink cable (and infrared port and cell phone adapter), discussion of Mystery gift, Pokepresents in Stadium, the Doduo and Dodrio GB players in stadium. There what do you think? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have to say merge, because the current options are a) leave it as its own article (and it's certainly not notable enough for that, in my opinion) or b) merge it into Effort Values in Mechanics. I say it's not notable because it's very rare, never discussed in the game unless you actually encounter it, and unless you know what EVs do (which those who aren't intimately familiar with the game mechanics don't), it doesn't seem to do anything at all, besides a vague "makes the Pokémon grow faster" idea.

ZN has a point that it's a feature, and not a mechanic, but check this out: the Victory Road article was recently merged into the Elite Four. While the two are different things, they're fairly closely related, and it doesn't seem at all weird to see Victory Road's info where it is. The same thing goes for Pokérus: no, it's not a mechanic, but it's very closely related to EVs, and doesn't need its own article. Summarize it in a couple of sentences, and ref/link an outside source (like Bulbapedia, whose article on Pokérus, though not as nice-looking as the one here, has all the necessary info).

Also, the hypothetical Pokémon features article isn't at all necessary - all these features can be discussed adequately in other articles, such as the game they first appeared in. ~e.o.t.d~ 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

quite bluntly - we are doing a diservice by merging any article that seems "non-notable" enough not to get it's own article, we are perpetuating a misconception of what constitutes a game mechanic. Additionally to reduce the article to a couple sentences because that's all it would conceivably deserve within this article is counter-productive to the encyclopedia. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shiny Pokemon merge

moved from Talk:Shiny Pokémon

Really, this is mostly just an article about Shiny Pokémon in the video games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i disagree, the article covers discussion of shinies in both the anime and TCG as well. In addition, i would even be adverse to the idea of adding a section along the lines of "Shiny Pokemon in the video games" to this article because shininess is most definitely not a game mechanic. It's like an easter egg or feature, something extraneous that has no impact on the core gameplay. please refer to the above discussion for similar arguments. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

TCG content could be merged into the TCG article, anime content could be merged into the Pokémon's respective pages. Also, really, the event of a Pokémon being shiny is a game mechanic - what with their being a mechanic behind it being shiny. Is the bag pockets section more relevant than Pokémon being shiny? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

actually i hate the bag pockets section, but have left it alone because i was too lazy to write a good summary of Pokemon items. Of course, now with that being AFD'd i'm just waiting to find out what will need to be done to this article. Anyways... setting aside the 2 wrongs = right argument... your definition of "game mechanic" does not fall in line with the nomenclature common to game development. Shininess has no impact on gameplay. Let's take Monopoloy. The Chance and Community Chest cards would be a mechanic, they are a driving force behind the actual gameplay. However, the Dog playing piece would not be a mechanic because it doesn't matter what your piece looks like. While it would certainly be appropriate to discuss even the mechanic (concept) of using playing pieces or (possibly) listing the pieces available, it would NOT be appropriate to discuss the fact that Monopoly has released gold-plated versions, or any significant history about a single piece (contrarily, it would be appropriate to mention if the number of available pieces had dramtaically changed throughout the history or in certain versions because that would potentially severally affect gameplay) - the non-relevant info would be better located at the main Monopoly page or something that talked about general changes in variations. Likewise, while i would concede to commenting on shininess's effects on EVs in GSC and saying that later this just became an aesthetic difference - the difficulty of finding one, it's relations to the anime, and any other info on it's history would not be disussed. This actually returns to the whole splitting-them-into-the-different-articles idea. One, it's inefficient for anyone who is just looking for info on that specific topic ("what is shininess neways?"). Two, we don't tend to split up concepts when they're found in multiple medium (Poke ball has it's own page, even though it could potentially be split into the different articles). -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well fine then - it's a minor concept, unlike Pokéball. Wherever it is merged or redirected, it doesn't matter to me - as long as it doesn't get an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

see, that's why i'm disputing this... your view is just "it shouldn't have an article". Not that it doesn't deserve commentary and not that it violates any policy. If it fit somewhere appropriate i would say GO AHEAD, but it doesn't. If you really detest the idea of concepts like these getting their own pages then go ahead and create a group article like i mentioned above, Pokémon game features would be an aptly titled article for these types of things, but i personally have no problem with them remaining their own articles so someone else will have to do the physical work. other topics to include would be Pokerus and the minigames. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't fit anywhere does not mean that it has to be separate. I just redirected Nintendo underwear to Nintendo, should that stay an article because it wouldn't work at any article on Wikipedia but its own? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

no, b/c it is properly related to the Nintendo company which is what the article is about... this article is not about extraneous features irrelevant to gameplay. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say...SuperWiki5 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anime/TCG

Shiny Pokemon appear in the anime and TCG, so therefore technically it shouldn't be considered a game machanic.

Someone add a Union Room section and a Mystery Gift section

I don't really know anything about Pokemon anymore (I haven't played since the days of Gold and Silver), but I'm editing an article about the Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter and was wondering if any of you Pokemon Masters out there could add some decent information about the Union Room and the Mystery Gift feature of FireRed, LeafGreen, Emerald (and others?) that I just found out about. I linked to this article from the wireless adapter page, so just add your information here on the Pokemon game mechanics article. Thanks! --CBecker 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mystery Gift, like you said, is a feature, not a mechanic. But the Union room info would fit nicely into the section: Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon trades. Go ahead and link them this way and hopefully in the next few weeks i, or someone else will get to writing it. Diamond and Pearl just came out, so... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Battles

Battles are such a critical and important part of the game I think we might as well create a new page on battling itself. Most of the content on battles explained can be expanded and by then e might as well have another article. Eternal dragon 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, we should have a battling article. 66.72.202.79 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Kinz

The risk of creating a page on battling would be to create a 'how to' article IMO. Yili2943 (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No XD/Colosseum Starters?

In the Starter Pokemon section it does not include the starters for XD and Colosseum starters, why is that and would anyone mind if I fixed it? -Fear teh Happy! 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because all you get in Colloseum is Espeon/Umbreon, and in XD just Eevee. And you dont even get to choose. Toastypk 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Sudowoodo

I was watching an episode of the Pokemon Anime recently, and an episode came on which featured a golden/shiny Sudowoodo. I was wondering, is there no refference to this because it turns out in the end it was turned into a shiny Pokemon, or was it just missed? Steg Blob 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't shiny, it was just.... special, yeah thats the word, but not shiny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.25.245 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 

Merges

Merge tag for Pokémon evolution: Although it would be nice to cut down on the useless trivia section (Special Evolutions), the "other media" section is so extensive that I doubt it would fit nicely in. It doesn't really seem necessary that it be its own page, though, because most of it is just lists of non-level-based evolutions.

Merge tag for Pokémon Contest: That I can and probably will do. The anime section would have to be cut out though. Hopefully it won't cause as big a controversy as Shiny Pokemon. SubStandardDeviation 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Alternatively, it could go into Pokémon game features, if that page isn't dead. SubStandardDeviation 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added Pokémon game features to this merger as the distinction between the functions of the two pages is hazy. This article could merge in seamlessly. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why does "Pokemon Game Features" even exist? It should be merged here.SuperChencho 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I think Evolution and Contests are fine the way they are. They can stand to have their own articles, but they need work. SuperChencho 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly because of the 'mechanic' part...Contests aren't a mechanic, you can ignore them and still finish the Pokedex (aka 'beat the game'). Moves having contest effects is a mechanic, but the contests are at best a glorified mini-game. Both the evolution and contest pages are bloated beyond what could reasonably fit in as a page section. The non-games section of "Evolution" is enough to warrant its own page, though. Contests, not so much.

Any suggestions for renaming this page to fit in both mechanics and "features"? SubStandardDeviation 07:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GTS

I've suggested the GTS article also be merged here, into the section on trading. There's no reason it needs its own article; it's not interesting outside the context of Pokemon, and has no real-world significance or impact on anything. It's only appropriate as a small section further explaining Pokemon games TheBilly (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

        Seconded, the GTS is a minor addition to the Pokémon Trading spectrum HeatPhoenix (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Starter Pokémon

I originally changed this article from a redirect to a real page because I thought that the topic merited a full article. Right now, it really is a stub, which is probably why it was added to the list of things to merge into this article. Maybe if we put some more specific information on the starters in this article, it would be better. Any other thoughts? --Superpika66 (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shiny probability

You can increase your chance of getting a shiny by using the pokemon radar (the article states there is no way at all). The specific equation isfound here. Nc = Number of pokemon in the chain caused by the poke radar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.28.221 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very true, but it qualifies as game guide information and isn't allowed into the article. Please see WP:NOT for more information. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

is that also the reason why there isn't a elemental type damage matrix comperison thingy in this article? I was hoping for one of those :/ ~shishikyuu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.38.46 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Shiny Probability information thats on the page is not accurate. The chance of any being shiny is 0.0001220703125% (source: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Shiny#In_the_games) 74.132.249.206 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge Pokémon moves here

I think Pokémon moves should become a redirect, as all of the information on that article is amply and sufficiently covered at Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon moves. It also has a lot less gameguide material and cruft than the individual article, and so there is simply no reason that article should not become a redirect. Thoughts? Artichoker^[talk] 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The moves article is way too detailed. If it's already covered here, please redirect. Pagrashtak 06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh redirect, per Pagrashtak's comment. Salavat (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I redirected the article. Artichoker[talk] 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Downsizing

At 54KB, this article is kind of large for its subject; to someone with the time, I would suggest mercilessly removing fancruft and other trivial stuff. Sections like the ones on the starter Pokémon and Gyms should either be removed or merged into a section about the basic plot common to all the games; the section on rare Pokémon should probably be removed: it doesn't really deal with the basic mechanics of the game, and most of it (all?) is unsourced; Pokérus doesn't even get mentioned in any reliable sources, so it should be removed; the Items section could probably be taken apart and each item mentioned in an appropriate section (for example, mention Pokéballs in the section about catching Pokémon); etc. Ink Runner (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and reliable sources for everything else would help too. Artichoker[talk] 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be baised to the later generations, as there are almost no first and second generation pics. Vinson 23:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just because not as many are available. If you uploaded pictures from 1st and 2nd generations where appropriate, they would be welcome. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the game mechanics. Since the overall interface (i.e., the battle platform) hasn't really changed, a picture from any generation would illustrate the points just fine. Ink Runner (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to "Gameplay of Pokémon" or "Pokémon gameplay"

This article has decent sources, and I understand why it needs to be split out from the main Pokémon series article as a matter of WP:SIZE. But technically, the section for discussion game mechanics is usually called gameplay:

• Our wikiproject guidelines set this standard
• Several featured articles use this convention, such as Crackdown, Bioshock, and Final Fantasy VIII.

Not to be a pain, but just for the sake of consistency. There are a few reasons we should do it. Any major reasons we shouldn't? Randomran (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I completely agree with your proposed move. Artichoker[talk] 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Double redirects

Someone recently moved "Pokémon game mechanics" to "Gameplay of Pokémon", its current title. I need help fixing some of the redirects to "Pokémon game mechanics#section" because they are now double redirects that do not point to that section. I have done a bit of work on this, but more needs to be done. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix a whole bunch. There's a lot of them. But hopefully editors can continue to chip away at these redirects and wikilinks. Randomran (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon regions and Pokémon Center

Overall, the regions just need to be briefly summed up in a paragraph or two. The four main regions can just link to the articles (hopefully setting sections for the games if the rest are merged), while the rest really don't need to be mentioned. It is just unnecessary for Pokémon Center to have an article. It should fit in here perfectly fine. TTN (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be OK with the merges. Artichoker[talk] 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon regions should stay as their own articles. Pokémon Center I am okay with being merged. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think merging all of them here would make a lot of sense. But then so would merging it into another general article about the Pokemon series. Randomran (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Pokémon Center to Pokémon game mechanics' section on it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and redirect Pokémon Center to this article, since there is information about what the center does sprinkled throughout the article. Randomran (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The regions have too much info to be merged into Gameplay of Pokémon and maybe even "Pokémon Regions" itself. It used to be that each individual town had its own article, but that was wrong. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe gameplay of pokemon would be too big a jump too soon, and maybe it's something we shouldn't do at all. But I think we can summarize those articles and merge them to pokémon regions. Thoughts? Randomran (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just merge the regions. Each of them has insufficient secondary sources (game guides and the games themselves are primary sources) to validate their notability. Most of these articles delve too much into being a location guide (which Wikipeida is not). What a good article requires is real-world information. Information should be had on why the game designers chose to design these areas as they are. What were they inspired by, or what special tools or methods did they use to create these areas? How did the gamers and viewers react to the designs of the area? Those are seriously lacking in each individual region article. Combining several stuff together allows one to find material which pertains to the whole region topic instead of desperately looking for scraps to awkwardly fit into individual area articles (note: a short blurb in a book about an area still would not help establish notability). So look at the regions as a whole and build a good article, rather than several flawed individual articles. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate target for merging, at all. Pokémon regions are far too important outside of the video games to direct to a gameplay article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is support for a merge, but not to this target. I think most people here agree with a merge to pokémon regions, though? Randomran (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's ok for them all to be merged into the Pokémon regions article, but not Gameplay of Pokémon. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited Shiny Section

"two Shiny Pokémon cannot breed, due to compatibility being partly determined by individual values, which are similar with every Shiny Pokémon."

This is incorrect, breeding compatibility is determined by the Pokemon's species and has nothing to do with individual values. I took the liberty of removing this line. If anyone minds, then go ahead and change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.89.189 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is actually true for GSC; adding back in and clarifying. Blue Mirage (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This information is dubious, so it doesn't belong in the article unless someone can provide a reliable source. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Poké Ball and Pokédex

These two really don't have the capability to stand on their own. If trimmed and reformatted, they should fit here perfectly. Please don't attempt to argue that they deserve articles because they are important to the series. Find relevant sources instead. TTN (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge, with leave to unmerge when a certain threshold is met. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support merging at this time. A Link to the Past is right that we can unmerge when there's enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to support a decent article. But not before then. Merge in the meantime. Randomran (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. There's so much that's already been merged here, why don't the Poké Ball and Pokédex have enough information to stand on their own?

The problem isn't a lack of information. It's a lack of reliable third-party references. They are required, according to our WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY rules. Randomran (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be a better idea to go suggest changes to those rules instead of enforcing them on articles where their odd standards don't fit and only lower the quality of the encyclopedia? Just saying. Honestly, just go trim and source the articles if you don't think they're up to snuff. Both articles are major elements of the franchise as a whole, have lots of merchandise relating to them and really don't have a place in an article solely about an element of the main series of video games. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

umm... sorry, but it looks like Poke ball has at least two good sources independent of the franchise - an interview about the dropped GS ball storyline and involvement in a major toy recall. This material fulfills the "more than trivial" requirement of "significant coverage". -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 10:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

wow... over a month without a reply, and then you just go ahead with the merge? bad form. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think at least Poké Ball has enough sources to be a standalone article. Pokédex I'm more neutral on. ^Tezkag₇₂ 14:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

agreed, which is why i didn't revert that merge. However, i am of the opinion that it could be a better article. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were a random editor, just passing by, I would most definitely nominate this article for deletion. It fails WP:GAMECRUFT, and really has no sources; user-submitted GameSpy cheat pages don't qualify as reliable, and nor do interviews on a Pokemon fansite. I strongly urge a merge, lest an editor delete the content before this is possible. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article gives only passing mentions to real-world impact which could be summed up on a main article.じんない 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also support the merge. They fail the final third of WP's three-pronged test. Even within the fictional work, the construction/history/etc. of Pokeballs/Pokedexes haven't been expounded upon much. Ink Runner (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I do too, for the reasons already stated. Sorry but the material just doesn't work as a stand alone item.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They need to be merged without a doubt, In no way are they notable enough to have their own article, Miles Blues (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I disagree with merging TO gameplay of Pokémon, because it's not just gameplay. Perhaps merge the gameplay descriptions, but not the whole article. I think that there should be a World of Pokémon article, because, quite frankly, the Pokémon universe is of great significance. And I don't mean Pokémon regions, I mean an article that discusses all elements of the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Perhaps we could merge Pokeball and Pokedex with the Regions article to create a "Pokemon Universe" article. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

we're getting off-topic. First of all, failing WP:GAMECRUFT is not an approriate reason for deletion - one it's an essay, and two, "cruft" is generally a poor argument because it's not specific, your nom would fail on that account. complaining about pokebeach is splitting hairs. guidelines aren't written in stone and state at the top that they can be flexible. The interview with Masamitsu Hidaka is a good source, and just because CNN didn't conduct it is no reason to ignore it (btw, large media publishers publish errors all the time and for some reason that doesn't make them less reliable). And right now, the 3-pronged approach is under edits, so forcing things one way or another based on a controversial, proprosed guideline isn't the way to do things. rather than cite them, why not point out a specific reason why deleting the Poke ball article would make this a better encyclopedia. I would be more inclined to agree to a merge, if only the good content was merged in as well. Time after time I've seen these merges and the resulting information is useless and less encyclopedic than what we started with. completely lost in this latest merge was the discussion in all aspects of the pokemon world (anime, video game, manga, tcg); no mention of its cross-world use in smash brothers; the notable mention of Pikachu's dislike of the pokeball and the running gag of pokemon breaking out at random times was replaced with the sentence, "though some Pokémon dislike it entirely"; for some reason the images were deemed unnecessary... the list goes on. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Pokeballs and Pokedexes are in the Pokemon UNIVERSE rather than just the Pokemon video games. You'd have to make a separate page, a la Star Wars galaxy, and then merge these to there instead.--_ZXCVBNM 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And anyways, besides the fact that there aren't enough reliable secondary sources, even within the Pokemon universe, the fact that Pokemon break out of their Pokeballs at random times isn't essential knowledge. Ink Runner (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They are probably most notable within the video games, but not by much, and this provides a reason only not to merge. ^Tezkag₇₂ 22:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Zappernapper, please, assume good faith. I would not have said something about deletion if I didn't believe it could be done; if you follow the link to WP:GAMECRUFT, it re-directs to a guideline on Wikipedia, not an essay. The essay you're thinking of is WP:FANCRUFT, which is an essay. In answer to your comment, a guideline should normally be accepted as what it is. There can be specific exceptions though, yes, but I feel as though this article isn't one of them.

The images were most likely deemed unnecessary because the images likely were fair-use images only to be used sparingly (see WP:FAIRUSE). I'm sorry... but this article would fail at deletion. Don't worry though, I don't want it for this article either. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed list of Pokemon types

The list isn't really necessary: all the layman needs to know is that all types have strengths and weaknesses against other types. The only people who need a detailed list of the types are the gamers, and WP isn't a game guide. Ink Runner (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, they're pretty important just to understand it... Tezkag72 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To understand what? Like I said, all the average WP reader needs to know is that certain types have certain advantages and disadvantages. Ink Runner (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I support its removal. Listing individual Pokémon types is about as close to gamecruft as we can get. It does not allow readers to understand anything, as long as they know multiples exist, I think it will be OK. Artichoker[talk] 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the removal, but I guess I don't really know what else we're going to do with it. At least say that there are 17 so the reader doesn't think there's only 5 or something, or hundreds. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But I don't see why the average reader would care whether there are 5, 17, or 100. It's trivial and irrelevant to their understanding of Pokémon types. Artichoker[talk] 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess the average reader wouldn't really care what happens in the games, but we still have the plot summaries. I think it's useful to have the number of types. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I support the list of types is because all of the species pages list/link the species' type, and the original Types page was way too long. But I suppose the names of the types are a fairly obvious indication of the Pokemon's abilities. I disagree that the number of types is "trivial and irrelevant" to gameplay; if a game has 100 types all playing rock-paper-scissors with each other, I expect it to be more complex and "hardcore" than if it has only 5, and my understanding of the other mechanics changes accordingly. SubStandardDeviation (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, not necessarily: if Pokemon had 100 types instead of 17, the underlying game mechanic would not change (they would still be related in a rock-paper-scissors sort of way). The number of types does not inherently change the basic game mechanic. The game might be more complex and "hardcore", but not the basic principle. Ink Runner (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's actually true. There are individual articles for 5 different Pokémon, and the rest are in lists. But all of them have links to the "types" section. If the reader cares enough to know what the types of the Pokémon are, they'll care enough to want to know which types there are. Most readers who actually bother to access the page will care. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the average reader wants to know the information is not the overriding criteria. The average reader who accesses the Star Wars page might be looking for detailed profiles of the extremely minor characters (like the X-wing pilot who...oh, never mind) but that doesn't merit the inclusion of such information. Ink Runner (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg: there is a lot of stuff in this article which I feel doesn't need to be there, and if anyone is planning to make this an FA, serious trimming will have to be done. An FAC recently tripped up over similar issues. Ink Runner (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of bad attitude that should be disallowed on Wikipedia. Delivering what the average readers want is the entire purpose of Wikipedia, otherwise the userbase would just say "fuck it" and use Encarta instead of editing and creating hundreds of thousands of articles that they believe other people will find of value. And the Featured Article status, especially when applied to a Pokemon article of all things, means absolutely nothing to the average reader other than that it's featured on the front page for 24 hours. Any average reader would much rather have a well-written and reliable article with a lot of information than an article of the same calibur with less information and a damn little star in the corner. - 66.19.203.48 (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Too bad no one's going to let anyone put it back now... Tezkag72 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that giving the average reader what they want is inherently a bad thing but rather giving the average reader what they want—when it goes against Wikipedia policy. In other words, WP never said its purpose was to "give the average reader what they want"; Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and the content included isn't ultimately decided by the majority. But I digress. For the sake of peace, maybe we can find a compromise, a "shorter summary", like what Randomran suggested. The larger issue—what should be included and what shouldn't (under which the argument on whether or not individual Pokemon should get their own articles falls)—should be discussed in a broader topic, perhaps at the Pokemon project. Ink Runner (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The current summary of only a few short sentences is fine as it is though, and any less would make the section pointless. Instead of discussing the removal of this section, a major recurring element of game-play, you should discuss taking out things like the parts on Effort Values. The games' behind-the-scenes system of distributing numbers doesn't have much value to anyone aside from hardcore players of the series. To comment about Wikipedia's functioning, WP's two main policies, WP:N and WP:V, were initially created to make sure content added to Wikipedia were A: Not extremely niche and B: True. Everything beyond that was essentially all decided by users. Going against Wikipedia Policy is really nothing more than just going against a small detail of that policy which was decided on by a small network of users with different opinions. And since Policies are viewed as God's word here, getting even minute things changed despite mass disapproval by the userbase is nigh impossible. - 66.19.203.48 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with outright removal, but I think a good compromise would be a shorter summary of what was already there. Maybe we don't need details on every single type, but we can explain how the types work, and some of the overall divisions. Randomran (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the description already adequately summarizes Pokémon types and their basic function as a game mechanic. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "overall divisions" and such. Artichoker[talk] 00:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Get a large image of the type vs. type table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.71.232 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Colosseum and XD

I think this article grossly underrepresents the gameplay in Pokémon Coloseum and XD, and also the rest of the non-"main" Pokémon games like Ranger, Stadium, Mystery Dungeon, Trozei, etc. Maybe they're not as important but they should be taken into consideration when writing this page. For example, near the end of this artiecle it says "contests have appeared in every game since Ruby and Sapphire" This is not correct; it has only appeared since then in Emerald, Diamond, and Pearl. Consider what I said; I am only trying to help you make a better article. 99.141.71.232 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a late reply, but those games are completely different from normal gameplay. This article would be twice the size and would be very messy if it had every game's gameplay. This is why it only represents the main series's gameplay. --Blake (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm replying to something late, but oh well, actually, contests were in Ruby and Sapphire. Have you even played those? Mokoniki | talk 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Loyalty/Happiness

I don't recall this function being called "loyalty" on any other site I've been to; it's always referred to as "happiness". Is this from a translated Japanese source or something? Blue Mirage (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging Pokémon Trainer

Pokémon Trainer doesn't look like it can really develop, so it should be merged here(or somewhere better). TTN (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• A merger isn't really necessary. (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• This article encompasses more information about a Pokémon Trainer than is only relevant to the gameplay of the main video game series. The article needs a good prune 'n source, but I don't think it should be merged to the gameplay article. —Ost (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is a great article. It just needs sources. Also, where would the Brawl Trainer info go? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• There are a few sources in some literary sources examining the concept, it should be fine to keep as long as its worked on. The poke project's currently working on improving the current articles a lot more, so we should be good to keep it around and improve.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that it should be kept Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain what kind of content would go into such an article? As it stands, there is really only about two paragraphs worth of actual content. The rest is either redundant to this article "Pokémon Battles" and "Gym Badges" or just fluff. TTN (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, as Ost316 said, the idea of a Pokemon Trainer isn't just in the video games. On the other hand, it is written entirely in-universe and, IMO, could easily be explained in the main Pokémon article. I think it should be merged there instead - unless you can find a bunch of sources that demonstrate real world notability.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The talk about battles and badges are relevant to the subject. Pokemon Trainers are known for participating in battles. Its what they do. Their goal is to get badges to show how good they are. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the job of "Pokemon Trainer" itself isn't notable enough to have its own article. It's completely inside the Pokemon fiction. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia focused on reality.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I am ok with this article being merged to here, but where will the Brawl trainer go? It doesnt seem right to put him in Gameplay. Maybe List of Pokémon characters? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could say a small paragraph like "The concept was personified" or so forth a la Mr. Game and Watch...honestly it would've been damn easier if they'd just said "This is Red"...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

i would endorse paraphrasing and merging the article. maybe ehre, or maybe Pokémon. there's a lot of redundant facts, and a real lack of reliable sources. Otab (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer it be kept. However, it's indisputably not in a good place now. Tezero (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• The whole article is based on a type of person from a work of fiction. I don't think it should be merged into Gameplay of Pokemon since a Pokemon trainer exists in the anime, manga, etc. I think it belongs in the main Pokemon article. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 21:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

about the chart

I was wondering if you could change the red and green squares to something more contrasting such as blue or yellow. The reason is a colorblind person would not be able to distinguish x2 from x1/2 and personaly it seems to be creating an optical illusion where the pallets keep swapping and i need to hold something to the screen to block out the others to see the true color of the square. --Bloodkith (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional

We need some serious cleanup on the "legendary" section. Sounds like some random thought of it off the top of their head. I don't want to delete it all, but we need to fix it. Lots of people probably look for it. 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{RQQ et al} _{favorite haunts} 16:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted it all before you posted this. No problem. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apricorn redirect

The wiki page for apricorn redirects here but there is no apricorn-related content to speak of. This is not useful wiki behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.219.56 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a sentence explaining Apricorns. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Gym Leader table

It is just something that fits on wikis like Bulbapedia, but not Wikipedia. I know we have a type table, and a starter table, but a Gym Leader table is going too far. Just link them to Gym Leaders. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, something as massively detailed as that is really overkill for Wikipedia. All that's needed is a basic summary of everything, not going into major detail, since last time that happened, there was a massive cull of Pokémon related articles. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible New EV Page?

Is there any chance that a new page specifically about the EV/IV game mechanic could be created? Or is this a dumb idea? Insomniachonchkrow 02:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomniachonchkrow (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia covers notable subjects. Gameplay mechanics like this are not notable. Look on Bulbapedia for articles like Effort values and Individual values. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I know what they are. I was just asking... Insomniachonchkrow 00:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomniachonchkrow (talk • contribs)

Graphic for damage calculations

Is there any need/want for example attack demonstrations to illustrate STAB and dual type resistances? --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Power

A common topic of game mechanics that seems to be missing is hidden power. Should we add a quick one or two sentence mention that the type is calculated from IV's?Sloftin (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Such minutae are not important for a general discussion of how these video games are played. And also they are only written down on fansites, and there as been no such official publication that states how that works.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

the different towns

this appears to be no list of towns and whats in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z19pghost (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the place to put that, this article is about game play mechanics, not locations.SGPolter (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Friendship

"Happiness" is a common term but it is not correct given that all official sources refer to friendship. 93.108.37.189 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Bank date restrictions (or lack thereof)

The page states: "The Pokémon Bank [...] allows players to upload Pokémon from Pokémon Black, White, Black 2, and White 2 (Not including any Pokémon caught from February 20, 2014 on forward) to the Pokémon Bank..." I've never seen or heard any official or unofficial mention of this date restriction, nor have I found issues with using the software to transfer Pokémon caught on or after February 20, 2014. In fact, I captured and attempted to transfer such a Pokémon from Pokémon White while writing this and had no trouble doing so. Where does this statement originate from? It seems misleading and ought to be removed if it has no verifiable source or is flat-out untrue, as it seems to be through experimental trial. 174.24.225.196 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Prize Money Loss

Generation 4 and above, you can lose money, but not half of yours. It is in this formula:

Base * highest level of your Pokemon party

Base is:

Gym leaders beaten	Base
0	$8
1	$16
...	...
8	$100

Check bulbapedia/prize money. --Pikachu6968 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Steel vs. Bug

This type chart contains an error. Steel is not super-effective against Bug. However, Steel is super-effective against Rock. Therefore, the 2 should be moved. I am not sure how to change the chart. Can somebody correct it? Timo3 21:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured out how to change the chart. It is now correct. Timo3 14:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Too many redirects

This page seems to be abusing redirects. There are 300 of them. I'm here because the redirects are titles, and titles have high value for search results.

The following 105 search terms are not about Pokemon, yet Pokemon can easily make the top search results for these subjects:

abilities ability attack awakening badge badges badges ball balls battle battles berries berry bird blaze blender blender boulder breeding breeding candies candy center centre contest crystal dark dogs dragon effort electric elemental elements evolution features fighting fire flying frontier game ghost global go goggles grass great ground gym gyms health hidden ice incense indexer items items leader leaders ledgendary legend legendary list machine machines master mechanics move moves national natures navigator points points potion power psychic rare scope scope sea searcher series shiny stage starter station statistics steel stone technical technique techniques tower trade trading trainer trainers type types types ultra value values water weather

It just doesn't seem right. — CpiralCpiral

OK, I tried more searches and don't find them in the top 500 of most searches. They seem to land in the top results where where the term is rare like "indexer".

And these titles lack the disambiguation term (Pokemon) Master Ball Technical Machines Technical Machine Hidden Machine Silphscope Battle Searcher Rare Candy Devon Scope Go-goggles Sea incense Berry Blender Berry blender Legendary Dogs Power Points Gym leader HSOWA Effort Values Devon scope National Dex PKRS Silph Scope Battle Tower Elemental Stone Effort values Rare candies Rare Candies The master ball Effort value points Ultra ball Awakening Stone Battle Frontier Great ball Poffin Boulder Badge Global Trade Station Global Trading Station Fire types Hidden Machines GS ball Razor leaf Shiny Pikachu Battle Subway Aku Type Icy Wind Hydro pump Dextette Fire Blast Masterball Master ball Mega Evolution Mega Stone Master Balls — CpiralCpiral 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about create a new article Glossary of the Pokemon terms due to the fact there are a lot of redirects to this page? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Pokedex

The article says, unrefrenced, that Pokedex is a portmanteau of Pokemon and Index. As the word 'Codex' is regularly used as a name for reference material for games it is possible that it is a portmanteau of Pokemon and Codex. Is there a source that can confirm its derivation, otherwise it is speculation. Stub Mandrel (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point but are overthinking things by adding in your own speculation.Correctron (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Legendary section needs revisions

Because of Pokémon Sun and Moon, the part that says legendary pokemon can't evolve needs to be change, since the legendary pomenom of these games are a part of an evolutionary chain. SGPolter (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Though you are correct, a more approute answer is to add the word most, as every other Legendary, excluding Soleago and Lunala have no evoluntionary line. Potatoboy23 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)