Talk:List of Pokémon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Resolved

Why is this even on Wikipedia? "Pokemon # 181-200", for example, is its own article. Why? There is no reason. 199.227.204.3 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So that readers don’t have to go to multiple pages for a complete list, also this one is reorderable, and has the other numbers, which those lists do not. --

talk

) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Originally I wanted the page to have all the regional Pokedex numbers on it, but thinking about it, the page is very, very large now, but in the future the numbering systems will only grow. Therefore I suggest we remove the Ranger Browser numbers from the list. It's not really part of the main series, and isn't that important, almost falling into a game-guide area. In the future as other systems come up, especially in remakes, they'll probably be longer and more inclusive. So for now, I suggest we remove the Ranger numbers, and if it's agreed I'll do it myself. Later we can consider others. - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 12:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And, if/when we decide, I made the edit here. - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the removal sucks. But space is a consideration, I grant, especially with a completely different Browser in Almia. --

talk

) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Please continue adding additional pokemon to this table. There are other pokemon. Anything found with Gameshark is original research. We need to catch them all for me to cage. 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bull. --

talk

) 12:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be at least semi perotected, so much vanalism (#494 and such). --Kuriza (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

While looking at this in boredom, I saw that the Trademarked Romanization of the Female Nidoran said "Vagina", and it seems to have been there for a while. Yet, when I translated the Kanji or whatever of the female Nidoran, it still came up as "Nidoran" instead of "Vagina". So I believe somebody forgot to fix this. Sir Sanjuro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. It looks like a case where we just missed some vandalism. I've fixed it now.

talk

) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I think the List of Pokémon should be un-merged back into individual articles, because the lists contain virtually no information compared to the original articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.214.9 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative. Allmost all of the Pokémon are not notable enough to have their own pages on Wikipedia. If you want individual articles, go to Bulbapedia. Cheers, Face 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon are notable enough 24.184.206.83 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Pokémon merged-list articles are useless and uninformative. They are a product of a double standard in notability policies between English Wikipedia and foreign language Wikipedias. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs

talk

) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Someone (not me) put a merge tag on Bulbasaur. I wholeheartedly endorse it, and, when it is done, let's protect the redirect this time. Many years have gone by, and no one has found independent, third-party sourcing for anything related to Bulbasaur. It's all "official game guides", sponsored novels, sponsored this, sponsored that. If Bulbasaur hasn't been covered by third-parties yet, it never will be. Time to give up ... it will never be an acceptable article in terms of sourcing.Kww (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well someone apparently has, under the reasoning "if some are on a list all should be" @_@. Along those lines he put up a merge proposal on Pikachu and Jigglypuff for the same reason. Bulbasaur...I really don't know in all honesty. It's a former featured article, so that at least leaves some indication it could be repaired, so I'm divided. But if it's merged I won't object either really.

Now, as for Pikachu and Jigglypuff...both of those could be salvaged, and I'm working on the Jigglypuff one atm to try and do that (see its talk page). And Pikachu's notable enough given he's outright compared to the japanese equivalent of Mickey Mouse, so while not a stellar article a merge proposal shove on it is senseless.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times do we have to do this? As you said, it's been hotly debated for years on end. Can't it just be let be? There are countless valid points on both sides. There'll never be a consensus. What's the point in dredging it up again? —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no valid argument for leaving it as a separate article. Kww (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking around at everything involved here, and there seems to be a very big qualm about the merge proposal I have. We'll all agree there is indeed some information to support notability. Intense digging and proper handling of the sources (for example, the TIME nod would be perfect if it instead cited the name change was in relation to making it suitable for western audiences, and then followed with a mention of the french version, Bulbizarre, which can relate more direct relate to the japanese original name) would be well enough to make things work. Now it gets shoved on that massive list...truth be told, it'll probably just sit there and grow stagnant. Making a single article into something FA worth compared to a list is a lot easier, given the list has to compensate for *everything* on it, and a lot of those characters are barely worth a footnote.

Not to mention too, there is already some dissention over the merge already: TTN's suggestion had his usual allies agree for the most part, but the mention in the abritration bit that recently came up had even an admit shout foul about a merge. So really it isn't something you could readily get full consensus for either.

Forcing improvement would be far better than a merge ever could in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concept, but I think it has failed in this case. I notice that you have been making some changes today. What the article needs, that no one so far has been able to find, is independent sourcing. Sources that aren't sponsored, affiliated, or approved by Nintendo or the Pokemon creators that mention Bulbasaur. So far, all that people have found are official game guides, official Pokemon guides (the Scholastic editions are "official" and "approved"), or completely unreliable fansites.Kww (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then the current agenda should be to replace the unreliable references with reliable ones, something I'll take a look into tomorrow at the college though you are welcome to help cite any here in the meanwhile or those I miss so we can get those cleaned out regardless of how the final merge decision goes. Now for references from third parties, the Time one is obviously there. CNN has mentioned the character more than once in the context of recognizability in the pokemon franchise, which is how those references would be best handled. That interview with the children over their favorites comes to mind as something that augments it a little (and would be further useful if significant reception info could be found to restore the MewTwo article at a later time). More or less brainstorming possible references beyond this, but the article mentioned children's books. What about sale number of those books, and possibly professional reviews (that last one is doubtable, but possible). Think too a few various references with citations that Bulbasaur is indeed one of the most popular pokemon, or at the very least was during R/B/Y's time in the sun, would augment a little too.

As for the article having more references from the games than it will third party...it's in truth understandable when you think about it. Magazines and whatnot when covering pokemon will go for the lead character(s) because they're the ones people will know the most; people will always recognize Kirby more than King DeDeDe for example, even though DeDeDe's been in almost every Kirby game. So that's visibly going to reduce the number of direct references...however, one has to look at the ones given too. More than one mention on CNN, even if not the world's strongest ones, are nothing really to sneeze at. Google News has a large archive that might be sifted through for some too.

What I'm getting as is, there is something there *for* an article to remain, it'll just have to be dug up, and even then won't dominate the reference count for material from the games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, just in case, when you do dig through Google News, turn "All Dates" on and be forewarned that there are a great deal of articles in there also that seem to deal with a "virtual race horse" that apparently goes by the same name...at least I think it's virtual o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. And Peregrine Fisher *did* add independent, third-party sourcing to the Bulbasaur article, so your argument holds no water Kww. If you had taken a few seconds to look for sources yourself, you probably would have found them too. And since Aussie Evil was the one who added the merge tag, and appears to feel that either all Pokemon should have an article or all Pokemon should redirect to a list, I see no problem in un-redirecting all the other Pokemon articles as well. --Pixelface (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did re-review the article. If you would like to point out the independent, third-party source that provides a direct and detailed examination of the topic, as required by

WP:N, I will stand happily corrected and withdraw my support of merging this article. What I find from third-parties are passing mentions: Bulbasaur being included in a larger list of Pokemon, with no statements that establish any notability.Kww (talk

) 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

@Pixelface:Alright early on I'll state right out splitting the articles back apart en masse would be a terrible idea. If notability *could* be established for any slew, the best bet would be the first 152 (that number including MissingNo.), back at a time when children were being mentioned by tons of refutable sources to be able to name all of them. The ones beyond those just didn't end up carrying the same cultural impact short of Gardevoir's evolution tree (blame 4Chan) and Wobbuffet (blame Team Rocket); the "weight" of Pokemon has diminished with each installment.

Kww, it might be easier to understand your stance if you can cite the exact lines in

WP:N you feel the article is violating, because I did a quick readthrough twice and missed comments about how third party references needed to be more than first party ones. (significance...can be debated. We both know that and it'd be a lost cause to argue on that ground alone).--Kung Fu Man (talk

) 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The weight argument comes from

WP:SELFPUB

into effect:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

...

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Kww (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is open for interpretation: there's no guideline on what constitutes relying on third party sources. An article's reception section easily can for example: does that cover the entire quota for the article? Lastly, it's a guideline: even the article itself points out it's open for interpretation and common sense. Not every article will fit it.--Kung Fu Man (talk

) 08:21, 14 May 2008

I strongly disagree that Bulbasaur should be merged, his page has lasted this long and nobody has objected. Besides out of the 495 there are bulbasaur is one of the most well known and has gotquite a bit of history in the series..--Behellmorph (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should be merged, because otherwise there are other Pokémon which deserver their own articles, too. For example, Charmander, who is more popular than Bulbasaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.103.96 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are others that deserve their own articles: the issue is can notability be proven or not, not a popularity contest. If you feel Charmander fits the notability guidelines and can back it up, then build the article again and cite it. Simply saying "article B doesn't exist so article A shouldn't" is just an inverse of

WP:OTHERCRAP and just as invalid.--Kung Fu Man (talk

) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur's article should be kept unmerged. It has great notability and is one of the most recognisable Pokémon characters from the franchise. It has plenty of information in the article, a lot of references and sources, very little spelling and grammar mistakes, plus it has been separate from the list for ages, and it has been a featured article twice if I remember correctly. Other Pokémon I do believe should have articles for their notability are

Marill. Evilgidgit (talk

) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has plenty of references; although many are published by Nintendo, this does not diminish notability. Furthermore, the article actually does have third-party references. Frankly, I think it is a little... on the absurd side to insist that it rely on them for most of its content. Feebas_factor 03:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Does this trash belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.88.219 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User, look at thyself and ask that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and whoever posted this message, you should be a little more civil in your language. 71.161.133.35 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon is a notable. This is not trash, just becuase it is about

Resolved

Is this a complete list of ALL the pokemon games, I misunderstood the beginning, or is it only diamond and pearl? Androo123 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh... what do you mean? This is a list of all the fictional species called Pokémon. If you want to see all Pokémon related video games, check

Face

09:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that nintendo's own site and helpline counts MissingNO. as "valid" enough to comment about, should it be listed here among the list for completion's sake? Been pondering that for a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I googled WP and to my surprise did not found a topic about this. I am pretty sure that MissingNo. was once listed, but later removed. I say we do not re-add it, because it is not a Pokémon, even though it looks like one. The word "MissingNo." stands for "Missing Numero", used during the development of the game as a placeholder. So when the game tries to load a Pokémon whitout a number, it labels it "MissingNo.". Cheers,

Face

17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well aware what MissingNO. is and why it happens. Point was to suggest it being on the list and a footnote explaining it's a glitch and not 'real', since they've been turned up one way or another in every game. Also it stands for Missing Number, not Numero.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. What do you think does "Numero" mean!?.. Duh. -- 77.54.112.55 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

There's missing pokemon on the big list, such as whiscash, which is in Diamond/Pearl. I would update it, but I'm not too familiar with how to edit tables yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigermonkey (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Where does it say that Arceus came from an egg from a void? Vereux0 (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the Canalave Library.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is, out of storyline does it actually *appear* as an egg in the game?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. --

talk

) 12:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

in the pokemon episode gost of madins peek a gasley combines a venosor with a blasbois to make venosdois should this be aded to the list of pokemon i mean it is notibul right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.31.19.22 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Only actual in game ones.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Not sure how else to put this. It's worth noting that Garmeil (Mothim)'s name would be better transliterated garMALE. That IS what he is, and may have a lot to do with the origin or meaning of his name. It may also be worth placing similar suggestions or queries here for discussion, for those of us like me who are too lazy to make a wikipedia account. 75.15.215.106 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, though to stress something it'd be best to go with as close to literal name translations as possible perhaps here, unless a reliable source can be cited. Saying this because I know how some people can get really colorful with translating the names of games in cases like these :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not really our fault the Japanese made the Romanizations all weird...we didn't make these up, believe me.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm curious about the various elements of the pokemon but do not want to delve through 100+ links, I propose they be added to the table. Breaking the table up into groupings is one idea but i assume you want to keep the pokedex registry order. How about creating a small symbol or achronym key of the 15 types then give them a 2 letter column TH=thunder PL=plant etc. I know the table is already crammed but that should not take up too much space. Bloodkith (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PS-maybe you can color code the first row column where the pokedex # is so we know what game pak they where implemented in.

I could agree with adding the

types of each Pokémon to the table. I'll wait and see what other people think though. Artichoker^[talk]

20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While it sounds good in theory, this page is very large as it is, and more information is going to be added with each new generation. Heck, even Platinum extends the Sinnoh dex... I would not add their types. 69.182.107.94 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I could add types from the official Pokédex sitting right in front of me, but for Platinum, you would have to use a third party source or wait for the updated Pokédex to come out. About the acronyms, there are 17 types, and I already have a suggested acronym list. (Bug=BUG, Dark=DRK, Dragon=DRG, Electric=ELC, Fighting=FTG, Fire=FIRE, Flying=FLY, Ghost=GHO, Grass=GRS, Ground=GRD, Ice=ICE, Normal=NRM, Poison=PSN, Psychic=PSY, Rock=RCK, Steel=STL and Water=WTR) It's from the Pokémon Emerald Strategy Guide. But I do have the Diamond/Pearl Pokédex. PMDFan (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is indeed quite large already. If and when a 5th generation is introduced, it will add yet another numbering scheme... We do not need types on this table, it just makes it longer and more cumbersome. I suggest removing them. 69.177.235.236 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

hi i posted the first veniosdois thing(i dont know how 2 post on the origenul and i cant spell good so bear with me)i thank that it should at least be lissted as a anima only pokemon or a notabul pokemon i mean not puting it up wont make it like it never was in the episode you are jest hideing it from others you should put it up as a anima only pokemon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.67.166 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What "anima only Pokémon" do you mean? And what is a "veniosdois"? -

Face

13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he's referring to that illusion that was a hybrid of a Venusaur and a Blastoise, it was created by a Gastly. I think the episode was called "The Ghost of Maiden's Peak". Rhonin the wizard (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, now I remember. That was "venustoise". Not notable enough to be at WP though, and it's already on Bulbapedia (see here). -

Face

17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Who thinks that more pokémon should have a picture. I only know a fraction of all the pokémon species (Pikachu, Squirtle, Ivysaur, Charizard, Lucario, Jigglypuff, not much more). I could illustrate up to 25% of all the pokémon species. If you agree, tell me which one you would like.

--

The Page Is To Large Already Adding Pictures Would Not Help That Perhaps The Page Should Be Split Up Between Generations. cal05000 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The page is NOT too large and will NOT be split up, but we don’t need pictures, and if we DID, we wouldn’t be using fanart. --

talk

) 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I noticed that according to this, Mew can only be caught from events. But in pokémon blue and red, you can catch it by yourself. Although you have to do a strange series of events, should this be mentioned somewhere? — 124.149.125.86 (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That is a glitch, it doesn’t count. Although I suppose the Japanese games should be mentioned with regard to Mew. --

talk

) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MEW is not only a event it can be caught in HeartGold and SoulSilver. Or DIAMOND and PEARL and PLATINUM.-Shadow19989 <POKEMON NERD> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow19989 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it cannot. Not without hacking. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Go away and don’t come back until you do and are ready to be serious.

talk

) 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion

or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at

Resolved

Pokémon no. 48 to 56 are missing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.142.27 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone vandlized the page a few days ago and it went unnoticed. I've restored the content now. Thanks for pointing it out to us.

talk

) 16:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.92.115 (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

This page is already very long (78 kbs at the time of this writing), and this column is borderline

Delete. Information is avaible elsewhere (serebii.net) and is not encyclopedic. BOVINEBOY2008 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else? - MK (^t/_c) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, removing the types would be best since they're also available on each individual Pokémon's article/section. -

sesuPRIME

13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above.
  talk, contributions
  ) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Redesign

Resolved

Alright. I have begun working on it in my user namespace and I will move it here when I am done. I am also reducing the width by moving the romaji. I will also change the Johto numbers as they are changed in HeartGold and SoulSilver, which should be released by the time I am done. Specifically, it will change from this:

National Dex №	English name	Japanese name	Rōmaji	Trademarked Romanization	Johto Pokédex №	Hoenn Pokédex №	Sinnoh Pokédex №	Evolution	Type
001	Bulbasaur	フシギダネ	Fushigidane	Fushigidane	226	–	–	001aEgg	Grass/Poison
002	Ivysaur	フシギソウ	Fushigiso Fushigisō	Fushigisou	227	–	–	001bBulbasaur	Grass/Poison
003	Venusaur	フシギバナ	Fushigibana	Fushigibana	228	–	–	001cIvysaur	Grass/Poison

to this:

National Dex №	English name	Japanese name	Trademarked Romanization	Johto Pokédex №	Hoenn Pokédex №	Sinnoh Pokédex №	Evolution
001	Bulbasaur	フシギダネ	Fushigidane	226	–	–	001aEgg
002	Ivysaur	フシギソウ	Fushigisou	227	–	–	001bBulbasaur
003	Venusaur	フシギバナ	Fushigibana	228	–	–	001cIvysaur

Any objections or other suggestions? - MK (^t/_c) 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely love what you did with the rōmaji! We save the space but don't lose the information. Also, how about we move the "№" and sorting icon to a new line, further saving some horizontal space? I also think "Evolution" should be retitled to the less ambiguous "Evolves from", which also saves a bit of space. It'll look like this:

National Pokédex №	English name	Japanese name	Trademarked Romanization	Johto Pokédex №	Hoenn Pokédex №	Sinnoh Pokédex №	Evolves from
001	Bulbasaur	フシギダネ	Fushigidane	226	–	–	001aEgg
002	Ivysaur	フシギソウ	Fushigisou	227	–	–	001bBulbasaur
003	Venusaur	フシギバナ	Fushigibana	228	–	–	001cIvysaur

This setup looks great to me, but we should probably wait for a few more opinions before implementing it. -

sesuPRIME

20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I can wait. I'll take quite some time to do anyways. - MK (^t/_c) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the modifications; no objections from me.

talk, contributions

) 21:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

--WikidSmaht (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a ton of time to work on the table so feel free to edit it yourself. It's located here. I removed the types from the rows I completed in terms of the teletype, so if you want to do all those changes, it may save time to revert to an earlier version. The goal in narrowing the columns is mostly aesthetic, but also to avoid some browser errors. Spaces will work fine now, however, the merging of the 3 Japanese columns saves a ton. I love the combination of the Romaji and Romanization under the trademark, it's perfect. As for the type columns being unsortable, there is a way to get around that: you can actually specify columns that are not allowed to be sorted, using class="unsortable". For example, below I copied the first 6 rows from the article as it is now and added all your suggestions, with a 2nd type column, split the types, and made both columns unsortable. Of course, this makes it unsortable, but having the colspan="2" makes it look pretty:

National Pokédex №	English name	Japanese name	Johto Pokédex №	Hoenn Pokédex №	Sinnoh Pokédex №	Evolves from	Type 1	Type2
001	Bulbasaur	Fushigidane	231	–	–	001aEgg	Grass	Poison
002	Ivysaur	Fushigisou	232	–	–	001bBulbasaur	Grass	Poison
003	Venusaur	Fushigibana	233	–	–	001cIvysaur	Grass	Poison
004	Charmander	Hitokage	234	–	–	004aEgg	Fire
005	Charmeleon	Lizardo	235	–	–	004bCharmander	Fire
006	Charizard	Lizardon	236	–	–	004cCharmeleon	Fire	Flying

How does it look? - MK (^t/_c) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

Done! I did it in four steps, so you can easily see what decisions were reached and what changes were made. I updated the prose, and using tooltips I condensed all the Japanese into one column, added more information about the quirks of the numbering systems, eliminated the need for users to scroll all the way down to the footnotes, and, per the discussion that spurred the whole redesign, I have removed the type column(s).
It only took about 10 hours total. MK, have you ever used EditPad? It’s a cool text editor and the advanced search-and-replace features made it all pretty simple. Plus, since it allows drag-and-drop, even the biggest hassle, switching the trademarked romanization column over to the left of the other two, wasn’t too big a deal. Most of the time was spent in tweaking notes and such. --

I use Notepad++ :P and fantastic work! - MK (^t/_c) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The work was really nothing compared to the first time I rewrote it. --

talk

) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Since the "evolves from" column is included in the newly-redesigned list of Pokémon, wouldn't it make sense to add the "evolves to" column? By the way, the redesign looks great. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean “evolves into”, this isn’t Digimon. :-p Anyway, sorry, but branching evolutions( especially of Eevee) make that highly impractical. Besides, “Evolves from”( which existed in the previous version also, btw) is primarily placeholder information so that Pokémon can be sorted by families without having a totally blank column. Please see the original merge/sortable redesign discussion in the talk page archive for more information about how the current system came to be when we originally redesigned the list.

You are right in your implication that “from” only looks unbalanced, though... what if we change the column name back to “Evolution” with a tooltip just like that? --

talk

) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eevee is the evolution Pokemon which adapts to any enviroment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow19989 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is more or less irrelevant. Go away. --

talk

) 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

You that have made with the table? Return back Japanese names! Morons. 78.138.171.140 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though I wasn't actually involved in the redesign of this table, I can tell you that if you are referring to the katakana and literal romanji spellings of the Japanese Pokémon names, they are present in the new version of this table. When you place your mouse pointer over a name in the "Japanese name" column, you will see a tooltip that contains the corresponding katakana and literal romanji spellings for that name. I hope this helps. By the way, please do not engage in namecalling, as such behavior may be considered disruptive. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)