Talk:List of Pokémon (121–151)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Pokémon (121–151) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Does not evolve?[edit]

Why is eevee listed as "does not evolve"?

The coding for the box doesn't allow multiple things to be listed. Someone that knows how to format those correctly will likely fix it soon. TTN 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured out a way to type it in so that both links work, though it looks funny. Should I try to do that for all the required pokemon? -WarthogDemon 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the same problem applies for stuff like Poliwhirl. There has to be a way to display 2 or more links at once.--Zxcvbnm 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now all linking needs to be done manually, but multiple ones will work. TTN 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condensation?[edit]

Why did people condense these Pokemon into one page? It used to have a lot of detailed descriptions! Tell me why!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.253.83.88 (talk • contribs).

See WP:PCP. -WarthogDemon 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, "condensation" is what happens when water changes from a gas to a liquid. Rest assured we did not liquify the pages. -WarthogDemon 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The previous 493 articles were of uneven quality, with various grammar/spelling errors, and provided 493 easy targets for vandalism. Condensed as just 25 articles, the text is 20 times easier to cross-check, revert or update. A similar grouping has been done for small year-in-topic articles, condensing 100 yearly articles as redirects of 10 decade articles (10 times faster), but the Pokémon grouping is even faster, as 20x times condensed. Consider the effort needed to add common traits (such as birthdate) to all 493 characters: just trying to verify edit coverage of 493 articles is a nightmare. Note that each character has a subheader to still allow concurrent editing of the 20 characters in each article. -Wikid77 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike it. There is a lot more potential information in the original Pokémon pages. I used them for reference all the time! Bifgis 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there's Bulbapedia. -WarthogDemon 02:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it better previously as well, provided much more (useful) information and is now severely condensed. For efficiency I suppose, though I won't be looking up information on this subject here anymore now that it basically just says what is already common knowledge.Sdws17 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also condensation can mean converting something to a more condensed form and not just that liquid thing. 66.240.17.13 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Condensation?[edit]

But what wiki used to interest people is that, it has issues such as controversies on the Pokemon pages which carried a controversy, such as racism issues. But now, what wiki has is the same with other Pokemon sites, or rather, carry even less information! I consider what wiki is now MORE USELESS than other Pokemon sites, because what it interested other people are gone!

It used to be very useful! Why do you want to carry the same information with other Pokemon sites? If you want to be the same, why would people come here instead of proper Pokemon sites? 218.253.83.88 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um . . . I can guarantee you many people came to check things other than Pokémon. And as we've said before, everyone is free to add on to Bulbapedia. -WarthogDemon 15:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggest people to look up Pokemon stuff on Bulbapedia instead of here? But to say the truth, the resources wikipedia used to have were very valuable to many people, and useful to many people. Cherubfish 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah. Gameplay information and pokemon universe information is s what Bulbapedia is supposed to be there for isn't it? -WarthogDemon 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why would wikipedia want people to go somewhere else instead of using wikipedia? 218.253.83.88 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a competitive business we're running... -WarthogDemon 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is supposed to be good for knowledge for people that know nothing about the subject. Game info is useless to them. See what Wikipedia is not, oh and go to Bulbapedia if you still want the pokémon stuff. TheBlazikenMaster 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we're not aiming to be a repository of the world's knowledge, just a reference. Places like the Internet Archive are way ahead of us on the "cataloguing" part, Wikipedia is just to neatly organize notable information in one place. Anyone wanting extremely detailed information are expected to find primary sources or visit a community which specializes in that info.--_ZXCVBNM 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to register to edit Bulbapedia :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with registering? -WarthogDemon 21:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to point out that Bulbapedia no longer can be displayed on my computer, just sends me to a "forbidden" error. If Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive online encyclopedia, then why do people keep trying to push it back into the realm of paper by condensing articles and such? I mean, it's not like all the information has to fit into a confined space, like a regular dictionary. I may not be a member of Wikipedia, but I am a very frequent visitor and plan to become a member soon. I hereby stand for replacing the 493 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.45.242 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding some main articles[edit]

27-July-2007: As in many subjects, there might be a need to re-expand some major Pokémon characters into "main articles" (such as an "Omastar (detailed)"). However, the previous 493 articles were of uneven quality, with various grammar/spelling errors, and provided 493 easy targets for vandalism. Condensed as just 25 articles, the text is 20 times easier to cross-check, revert or update. Also, someone interested in most of the 493 characters can read just those 25 articles now, rather than having to access up to 493 articles to scan the similar information. However, a highly detailed character might need a recreated "main article" as in other subjects, just not 493 again. Thanks. -Wikid77 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Omastar would be notable enough for a main article. However, some articles about the most famous (in the real world, mind you, not based on how useful they are in the game and/or anime) will be kept (see Mewtwo).--_ZXCVBNM 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that those with a controversy, (such as racism issues like Ludicolo and Jynx, and the copyright issue for Kadabra) should have their own page, so that people know what's going on around them, I mean so that people know about the controversies. But to say the truth, why not group them in evolutionary lines instead? That is a more fair way and more systematic. Cherubfish 10:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother if they're not notable except for the controversies? Those in themselves aren't enough reason, because they were pretty frivolous (Did Uri Geller really expect to win?)--_ZXCVBNM 03:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes one or two sentences to mention controversy and a reference. How does that merit an article? Spigot Map 07:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series[edit]

A discussion on the recent removal of fair-use images from this series of articles has been posted at the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. Morgan695 23:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell happened to all the useful information here? Now everything's in one page, and none of the information I was looking for is there. Why are people intentionally making wikipedia less useful to browsers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.206.142 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old wikipedia pages[edit]

I moved the individual pokemon pages which redirects to this page to the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki. Since they are filled with information that is mostly game related I thought it would be still relevant to be saved and updated. --Cs california 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magikarp Moves[edit]

Under Magikarp, it says that they can learn solar beam and hyper beam, yet there is no citations for this clam. I have raised 6 Magikarps to this level and the moves never came. Also, Bulbapedia and Serebii do not mention it. That is enough reason to believe the claim is false, however I do not want to step on any toes, so I'll wait for a response to this message before changing anything.

Alyosha 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing says anything, it means it's just made up, madeup info doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Just remove any info like that: Remember this: Wikipedia:Be bold.

team rocket mistakes Scyther for Alakazam[edit]

While naming the multiple pokemon captured by Mewtwo, team rocket mistakes Scyther for Alakazam. I'm not sure if this is a error 100% team rocket are often shown as being ignorant. It should be noted that in no point does Alakazam appears in the scene involving the pokemon being captured by Mewtwo and that a real and clone Scyther can be seen doing battle. I Think this would be a nice addition to the description for Scyther.Yami (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable about it? Did it have any effects on the future? Is there a reliable source to support this? Unless you can answer all those three questions specifically this can't be added. TheBlazikenMaster (talk)

It was a dubbing error from the first movie. Not notable. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kabuto and horseshoe crab?[edit]

Should the horseshoe crab be mentioned as the basis for kabuto? I've found a fair amount of references that verify this, but they're mostly wikis, and I'm pretty sure those can't be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroshinobi (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lapras[edit]

The last statement under the description of Lapras assumes two things that are (depending on the source) quite likely not true. First, it assumes that the Loch Ness monster is real which is still unproven. Second, even if it is real there is no real consensus as to what it is and even if it is indeed real, it may not be a modern pleisosaur. In any case the statement of it being a modern plesiosaur contradicts the sentence that proceeded it where the plesiosaur is stated to be extinct. That aside, if both of those things were true plesiosaur shouldn't be capitalized. Just a minor thing, yeah, but still.

Also, I question if Lapras was actually to be called "Ness." I haven't done any research of my own except for my checking of the wikipedia page on the Loch Ness monster and noticing that it is mentioned on the "Loch Ness Monster in Popular Culture" page that the Loch Ness monster "could be based on Nessie." Perhaps if someone is more ambitious than I they can find a reference for that tidbit and include it here and on the page concerning the Loch Ness monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.185.164 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jynx[edit]

I think that it should be mentioned that Jynx also bears a similarity to the Japanese ganguro Fashion trend, as only the black face resemblance is mentioned. -69.124.55.254 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source (that isn't a fansite) then I say go for it; I've done some brief searches in my free time but haven't found anything. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Quake"?[edit]

Someone wrote this unprovable nonsense here:

In Pokémon Pearl, one trainer named "Ander," found outside Lake Valor, possesses a Magikarp whose move "Quake" replaces the normal Magikarp's equally useless "Splash.".[1]

Not only is that not at all true whatsoever, but the citation for it links to the ubiquitous citation for the article about Pokemon Sales. We need someone to omit this rubbish, someone to track down the crazy vandal who typed such falsities here, someone who will...fix this. I could just delete it, but first I need to know what you people think. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to wait for approval; if you see some obvious vandalism then feel free to remove it. And there's no reason to "track down" the author of the nonsense. The only thing we can do now is revert it. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just being dramatic :) we don't need to track anyone. I fixed the vandalism again; also added something on the Magikarp in the Resort Area. Being that high of level wild Pokemon is definitely something important...if it's true. People I know have found really high-level and low-level 'Karp there, so if there is any other proof of it, try to find a reference. 2D Backfire Master (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild level 100 Magikarp is something you'll definitely need a reference for. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 12:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the only reference I know of is Serebii (a nice fansite, albeit still a fansite), and that clearly isn't a valid reference. You could remove it for now, but if you have Platinum, you should try it out sometime. If they're not level 100 even, wouldn't a level 70 Magikarp be one of the highest level non-legendaries capturable? I forget... From the recently-knighted-by-the-Queen-of-Rome 2D Backfire Master (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]