This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
As to the question above, I tagged the article due to a misunderstanding. The speedy delete tag should not have been added due to a decision made by WikiProject Pokemon to combine individual Pokemon articles into groups of twenty.
Useight06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This is horrible!
These new changes tell absolutely nothing about Pokemon! It was bad enough that simple things like the height and weight were completely removed, but even basic information is being left out in favor of this garbage! Just look at Gardevoir alone, paragraphs of perfectly viable information have been totally cut! This new format is utterly pathetic. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.140.12.53 (
talk)
18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Perfectly viable for who? Individual pokemon are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, it's hard enough to make a list of 20 notable enough. What do you suggest to fix this other then adding in gameplay information or in universe information? What do you suggest we add to the list to make them notable?
SpigotMap18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)reply
In that case you're on the wrong place. Use
Bulbapedia, it's linked at the bottom of each page. Game info and anime info shouldn't be too specific, which is what the articles did make them.
TheBlazikenMaster17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that individual pages are redundant, but the new lists are an eyesore and not well thought out (the generations are overlapping under the current system, like Mew and Chikorita being on the same page, and evolution families are split up, like Ralts->Kirlia->Gardevoir). If users wanted any good info they'd go to a content specific site instead of Wikipedia anyway, the lists are silly. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.8.71.33 (
talk)
20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I see that my addition about the resemblance being corrected. Good job, as I was not sure how to say it correctly. I just hope it stays because it is factually correct (look at pictures of Gardevoir and C.C. and you will know).
Can anyone tell me how you did it to not show the whole article title in the addition (you wrote it as C.C. when the whole topic name is C.C. (Code Geass))?(
75.109.31.40 (
talk)
18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC))reply
Thank you for your help, 75.109.31.40. You can make a
piped link by writing this: [[Test|some article]], which results in this:
some article.
I've compared images of
Gardevoir and
C.C., and I agree there is a resemblance, but a slight one. It might be a coincidence. I would leave it in, but I won't be surprised if another user removes it tomorrow. Cheers,
Face14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I see. I have read the thing about Original Research you posted. I am sorry for putting that there when I did not know it did not need to be there. I'll try better next time, ok? :)
75.109.31.40 (
talk)
16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply