Wikipedia

Talk:List of Pokémon/Archive 4

< Talk:List of Pokémon
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Greenish Pickle! in topic Reviewing notable Pokemon articles
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pokemon Articles having been removed?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I used to see Wikipedia articles for Pokemon like Latias/Latios, Rayquaza, Arceus, Deoxys, etc, but recently they are no longer around. Not in Google searches, nor on Wikipedia, and I cannot find a reason as to why these articles were removed. Why did this occur?Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: A late reply, many individual Pokémon articles were redirected or merged to lists for not satisfying Wikipedia:Notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latias and Latios, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayquaza, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arceus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deoxys, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Article alerts/Archive#AfD for many others. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Starters pokedex numbers.

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

If enamorus is 905 and we know the starters, wouldn't sprigatito be 906 and so on? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Probably, but it would be speculation until official numbers are announced. Generation V doesn't start with a starter. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter Gen 5 is the only one with a starter. Besides, It was given at the end of the generation, plus its regional pokedex number is #000. Although we have been shown patterns before...UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Blacephalon: Without official confirmation we can't add the numbers. We're in no rush to add them so it's fine to wait until HOME is updated with the official numbers (since it's unlikely SV will have a national dex). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Definitely best to wait until it's been confirmed rather than speculate, as well as being potentially wrong, it would also count as original research. -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
So is common sense wrong here? We can always edit it later if we're wrong. I get that we dont know for sure but we havent been wrong about this since gen 5. UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Blacephalon: It's a violation of WP:OR, full stop. Nothing we can do about it and like I said, there's really no rush at all. We're an encyclopedia, not a news source or fan site but for what it's worth, neither Serebii nor Bulbapedia list dex numbers for Sprigatito, Quaxly, and Fuecoco. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What Pokémon are in the world

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What Pokémon are in the world 2601:600:C87F:DBD0:0:0:0:6BCF (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid all Pokémon are fictional, as indicated in the first sentence of the article. Not sure what this question is for. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Why do the glitch species only have two sentences and the one species they mention is already covered Allaoii talk 20:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to go into more detail in that paragraph, as I find the glitch Pokémon fascinating, but I wasn't able to find much detail on the subject covered in reliable sources. I'm sure more information is out there, but I wasn't able to find much more. Note that blog posts or Youtube videos (which tend to be a gold mine for this type of obscura) aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
isnt there something from pokemon? Allaoii talk 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
A primary source can be useful too, though we try not to rely on them too much. Either way, the Pokémon Company doesn't talk about their glitches much at all. They're not very proud of them. It's largely fans that are interested in them. Missingno did somewhat hit the mainstream, but the other glitch species are considered trivia at most by established publications. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
too bad, i was hoping to find out about more glitch pokemon, however since missingno is already covered, until we find an acceptable reference maybe we should get rid of the glich pokemon section? Allaoii talk 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Missingno is actually only mentioned in that section? The fact that those games had "a set of 105 glitch Pokémon" is also useful information, even if it's not much. I think the tiny section stands alright, personally. If you do want to learn more about glitch Pokémon, I'm sure there's some really great Youtube videos or blog posts you can find by googling around :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
nevermind i was thinking of gen 1 list Allaoii talk 21:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Regional forms/Mega evolution/Gigantamax

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Like Pokémon that are parts of groups of starter Pokémon, baby Pokémon and legendary Pokémon, I think we should add symbols for Pokémon that possess Mega Evolutions, Regional forms and for Pokémon that Can Gigantamax. 83.33.148.82 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The list uses both a background color and a symbol for the displayed groups. The color only works if a Pokemon cannot belong to two groups. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing notable Pokemon articles

Latest comment: 1 year ago176 comments9 people in discussion

Hi, so I did this with List of Mortal Kombat characters and List of Street Fighter characters, where I and other editors share our thoughts on what Pokemon species are notable and what might need merging. This is a twofer, where we can both establish a simple consensus before any AfD or merge may be proposed, and we can try to strengthen the quality and notability of these articles. Pinging @Kung Fu Man:, @Pizzaplayer219:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Haleth:, and @DecafPotato:.

Below, I'll list all of the species, and I'll ask that participants either mark whether they want to Keep an article or Merge an article. If you are unsure, either don't !vote one or the other or mark that you intend to review it. If there are four Keeps with no Merges, I'll move it to the Keep section. Any discussion can take place in the discussion header. Even if a species is in Keep or Merge sections, you can still !vote on them - they're just put there to help keep things organized.

Bulbasaur

Charmander

Charizard

Squirtle

Pikachu

Jigglypuff

Meowth

Psyduck

Kadabra

Cubone

Mr. Mime

Jynx

Magikarp

Gyarados

Lapras

Eevee

Snorlax

Mewtwo

Mew

Pichu

Unown

Lugia

Lucario

Greninja

Popplio

Mimikyu

MissingNo

Discussion

Of these articles, the only ones I feel confident about merging is Lugia, and I left Wooloo out since there's a merge discussion going on for it as it is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I put some Keep votes in there for ones I think are obvious. I would need to take a closer look at everything else to determine notability. I'm not convinced the starters are all individually notable. I think a better vote option instead of Merge would be Review or something like that, because right now you're asking people to make a quick determination on notability. And I really don't feel comfortable saying Merge on anything; only Keep for the obviously notable ones. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I like this approach. This way no one mistakes this for a merge discussion. Which it obviously isn't, but we've already seen some people rush in and start complaining without reading the discussion. Might help with that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Set that up, adding that if you're not sure, just don't vote on that individual Pokemon. Also, to be clear, I don't think the starters are inherently notable, just in case that is a concern. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
However then you have the issue that maybe there are 7 people that have concerns about Lapras, but aren't so sure in their feelings / have not had time to review enough to suggest a merge, but 3 people voted Keep, so it looks like a unanimous Keep, but in reality there is a substantial amount of doubt. Thus, this discussion should be treated as a casual place to direct focus and drive improvement, not give the appearance of a merge discussion which it has now. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would not move species into a "Keep" section. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this part is more to help figure out what ones are worth devoting extra energy too and which we feel may not be. Thin the pool so then they can be improved in a more concentrated manner, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I have concerns with this approach, namely that abstains are not considered, but whatever, you guys can put them into buckets if you think it's helpful. TarkusABtalk/contrib 05:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I don't really care that much, it was only for organizational purposes. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I mean, some like Pikachu and MissingNo. obviously will be kept, I am getting reminded of this AFD here. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but I also didn't want to even have a theoretical risk that I left a Pokemon whose notability isn't cut and dry. Ie, where do you cut it off? Should I exclude Charizard or Bulbasaur or Jigglypuff? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Really surprised that people voted "keep" at Unown article while Mimikyu being voted as "merge". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, as it is Mimikyu doesn't have sources in the article. I still have to search for some, but I feel confident that that'll change (though who knows?). As for Unown, Unown has research material on its use to "teach the biological concepts of classification and phylogeny to students." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
How do I add my votes to these? I'm a bit confused on how to do that, haha.
Though I must ask, if we vote "merge" and that becomes the consensus, are we going to open a merge discussion and discuss further there? Regardless, though, I'll probably end up doing a deep dive for sources to see if I can't find anything for the Pokemon who are primarily merge votes by the end of this. I appreciate the nudge to reassess the articles here, though I hope this leads to attempts to improve the articles in question before we go anywhere with merge discussions, such as like what's going on with Mimikyu right now. Pokelego999 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not a mergist, but I am a realist. So I'm not gunning for, say, Lugia to be merged, but I haven't had much success fixing the issues that make it prone to being merged. This itself won't be used to justify immediate merging, but I'll probably open a merge discussion for Lugia if there isn't any marked improvement in notability. My ultimate goal here is to have zero merges, but that's not likely I reckon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You can vote just by just putting your signature on the list under each Pokemon TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
While reviewing the articles while casting my votes, I feel Psyduck, Kadabra, Cubone, Snorlax, Gyarados, Pichu, Lugia, Lucario, and Greninja should have searches for sources performed as with Mimikyu. As of right now, their Reception is the most lacking out of all the articles, and thus, improving those articles should be prioritized, though I feel they all have potential for it. I'll probably go on a deep dive for sources myself in a few days time. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not even sure why you voted all of them as "Keep" already if you aren't sure yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I voted Keep as they all have good potential to be kept. I left comments on the ones I felt had a good shot at being Merged that I was fine with Merging them should not enough sources come up. I prefer to keep articles unless it can be definitively proven that they can't be established separately. If that can't be accomplished, I'll probably end up falling into the Merge side. I have personal thoughts on a few of them, but I feel I'll save that for after a source deep dive. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
In my research, I have found that Lugia does not have adequate sourcing to show notability. @Pokelego999: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Though I don't doubt the thoroughness of your search, I'll still do a check for sources just in case something was missed. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Well that's the thing of it - I can't really take the burden of demonstrating a lack of sources, because it's impossible to show a lack. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you the guy who mass nominated Doctor Who characters for afd? If you can't find anything substantial then its not notable, the same faith goes to the Pokemon articles. but you know, I'm still a bit surprised that 2 editors voted merge at Mimikyu without checking yet, thou others seems to be fine. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Greenish Pickle! The only reason I'm being slightly more picky here is that I know Pokemon already had massive clean ups in the past when it came to AfDs, and that there's at least some effort for notability in all of these cases, unlike the majority of the very poorly sourced articles on small topics I nominated.. Regardless, if nothing can be substantiated, I do intend to hold to the same faith I had there. So, for example, if I perform a search for sources on Lugia and find nothing, which is what Gherkin says, then I'll agree that a merge would be for the best. I'll probably end up beginning my searches relatively soon, I've been busy recently and haven't had the time to begin on these. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
All right, I'm in no rush to see any articles merged, so no deadline or nothing. Just don't take too long, aight? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah of course, I'll probably begin within the next couple of days. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I've performed three searches as of right now. I'll get started with the elephant in the room, Lugia. Combined with the current state of the article and my search, Lugia just doesn't have enough to work with to justify an article. The info on its development and some of the stuff in its reception section is worth keeping, but I just couldn't find anything beyond listicles giving it significant coverage. The best I found were these:
https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-go-real-shadow-lugia/ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Secret_Mythology_of_Pok%C3%A9mon/E-26EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Lugia%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT82&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Monster_Kids/bqFdEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Lugia%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT140&printsec=frontcover
And I don't think it's enough to justify the article's existence. I'll be changing my vote to merge for Lugia.
I next decided to tackle Gyarados, which, while I don't think it needs to be dealt with anytime soon, could do with some more stuff. After a search, I found these sources:
https://comicbook.com/anime/news/detective-pikachu-artist-teases-charizard-vs-gyarados-battle-photos/ https://www.polygon.com/2017/5/31/15702192/magikarp-jump-guide-gyarados https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/pokemon-prototype-omega-scyther/ https://screenrant.com/detective-pikachu-magikarp-evolve-gyarados-writer/ https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/pokemon-go-players-ignore-justin-bieber-as-they-rush-to-catch-a-gyarados-74165 https://nintendowire.com/news/2020/09/14/pokemon-gyarados-poke-lids-surf-first-into-the-kinki-region-of-japan/ https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-05-24/uniqlo-pokemon-design-contest-grand-prize-winner-disqualified/.147095 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Epistemics_of_the_Virtual/GaHKFZ4S_KMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Gyarados%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover (Iffy because of unseen pages) https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/jist/article/view/3110/2831 https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/70887/1/Published_Version.pdf#page=9
Some of these might be worth something, though some of them are talking about Magikarp a lot more than Gyarados. I'll be sticking with Keep on Gyarados, but I'm still unopposed to changing my vote.
I also tackled Lucario, though even without my search I'd still argue this article is worth keeping just based off what's there already. I won't be changing my vote on that, but I did find some more sources that may prove handy for improving the article, though I'm not sure how useful they are.
https://hypebeast.com/2021/8/lucario-poke-lid-kurashiki-city-okayama-prefecture-unveiled https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2019/jul/14/lucario-infinite-aura-looks-what/ https://gamerant.com/super-smash-bros-wiiu-3ds-lucario/ https://www.ign.com/articles/greninja-voted-most-popular-pokemon-by-players (Mostly discussing Greninja but discusses Lucario's high rankings a bit as well, admittedly there's probably a better source somewhere for this one)https://www.myscratchpadslcc.com/news/ (This one is a bit iffy in my opinion but I figured it was worth bringing up just in case)
I'll try to keep going through searches over the next few days, but I've been relatively busy, so I can't rush through these as fast as when I was doing Doctor Who AfDs a while ago. As such, I may also have missed some significant sources in places I'm unfamiliar with. If anyone finds anything that they think can help, please share. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Lugia, while the dev commentary is a bit neat it can be summed up in its notes, and I feel it's just overall too weak as an article. Beyond that though just a head's up @Pokelego999: eventhubs is marked as unreliable per WP:VG/S, and GameRant/TheGamer etc can be seen as touchy to use, especially for trying to assert notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I try to minimize GameRant sources as much as possible, but even then I still felt bringing up any potential options for sources was worthwhile here. Also didn't know that about EventHubs, thanks for the head's up.
As for Lugia, not saying it's enough for an article, but definitely capable of being summed up in the notes section. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: Do you have any objections to me merging Lugia then? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
No objections. Given that everyone else in this discussion has also said merge, and it's the only page here to have a 100% merge consensus so far, I'd say opening a discussion for Lugia is a given. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I opened a discussion. Honestly I would've gone more for a BLAR, but I feel this is the safer route as there's likely to be someone to chime in due to it being their fave.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll be honest I feel opening one for Kadabra wouldn't be a bad idea either: what's there just doesn't hold up and if I cleaned out the junk references, there wouldn't be really anything outside of the controversy. I simply don't feel there's enough meat there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Did a brief search just now for Kadabra. I think the argument is there to merge, given the majority of sources I found for Kadabra was about the controversy. I think there's hope to keep the article, as there may be sources I missed while scanning through them, but I agree that a merge discussion with Uri Geller may be beneficial.
I will note while searching that I found these
It's a Dark World - Google Books
These are the creepiest Pokemon to ever exist - WIN.gg
Sources are a bit iffy but might be worth something. Just sharing anything I found that yielded potential promise, really. Still, I don't think that's enough, and even then I still think the discussion should happen regardless. Thus, I agree that a merge discussion may be for the best. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Performed a search for Psyduck. I definitely think it meets GNG just from a brief search. The sources in the article aren't too too bad on closer inspection, and I found a few that could potentially be used for improvement.
https://www.cbr.com/pokemon-theory-why-misty-caught-psyduck/ https://soranews24.com/2023/05/18/pokemon-psyduck-perfectly-guest-stars-in-animated-version-of-one-of-japans-most-famous-paintings/ https://news.yahoo.com/kfc-chinas-dancing-psyduck-toy-235025262.html https://www.vg247.com/kfc-psyduck-china-toy https://comicbook.com/anime/news/detective-pikachu-pokemon-writers-reveal-demand-psyduck-film-anime/ https://bdnews24.com/society/pokemon-psyduck-becomes-symbol-of-china-s-lockdown-headaches https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Secret_Mythology_of_Pok%C3%A9mon/E-26EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Psyduck%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT22&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Deliver_Us_From_Evil/legPCKwJmbgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Psyduck%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA48&printsec=frontcover
I think Psyduck, for now, is fine where he is. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It should be fine, especially when the upcoming netflix film about Psyduck arrives. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Struck references have been added to the article.

Mimikyu

List

Pokemon Types

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I propose we remove the Pokemon Type columns from each "List of generation _ Pokémon" article. The reason is three fold:

  1. It is WP:GAMEGUIDE content. And some Pokemon have alternate forms with different types.
  2. It is a concept specific to the video games. In the trading card game, the "types" are completely different. In other Pokemon media, types usually not referenced.
  3. Since the change to Vector 2022, the table has become more narrow. Reading the "Notes" column has become challenging for users with the skin, most notably logged out uses. With a lot of our merge discussions, the merged content will be placed into the Notes column. Removing Types will allow greater space for Notes, making the table shorter and easier to navigate.

TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel the typing is a bit garish in those articles, but still important: it helps conjure up an image of the respective pokemon in some capacity, especially on the more narrow lists. And in the individual articles, still helps paint a better immediate picture. That said if they're kept, I'd advocate for redoing the column completely and just having it be a single line of text stating each type. This helps fix the accessibility issue (if need be we can point to the previous arguments on the infobox for why color is best not used), sort better by typing at a glance, and makes the notes column less compressed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Kung Fu Man. I also agree that the typing section on the list is a bit big, but it's definitely still useful in identification of a Pokemon. I feel the best bet would be as Tarkus proposed and include a reference in the Notes box stating something like "X is typically categorized as a Normal and Psychic type Pokemon..." or something along those lines. Allows for the Notes column to be less compressed, as Kung Fu Man said, while still retaining useful identifying information. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
As an aside, point 2 is false, types are very often mentioned in the anime, both with the in-universe Pokémon descriptions and their efficiency in battle (Rhydon's horn notwithstanding). (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pokémon/Archive_4&oldid=1246241547"