Bulbapedia talk:Project Pokédex/Archive 1

This is a talk page archive.

It contains old discussions of topics relating to the article. Please do not add or remove any content from it.

Movesets

Just a thought, should we add movesets to each Pokémon page? Maybe it could be a subproject. Also, should would add the Serebii.net Pokédex to the infobox? Should Move Tutor moves be on each Pokémon? -coppro

To Move List, we're getting there. But that's not a critical project yet, we have bigger things to do.

To Serebii dex, no, we only link to our affiliates. Serebii is not one of them, nor is his Dex all that accurate from personal experience.

To Move Tutor, yep. It counts as a learnable move. Evkl 00:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we have Serebii as an affiliate? They've greatly improved their Dex recently, too. - hey-nahny-nahny-and-a-hey-ha-ha

If you knew about all the bad blood between myself (and by association, this site) and Joe (and by association, his site, Serebii.net), you wouldn't be asking that question. ^^; --Archaic 07:18, 4 October 2005 (CDT)

I'm new to bulbapedia, very interested in helping out, and have a ton of time to kill coming up soon. I was thinking of starting to mass update Pokemon Movelists. I'm planning on effectively copying over the moveset list of Bulbasaur and correcting the fields.

I'd also like to add a section of "ways to acquire move" for moves other than leveling up such as breeding or TM/Tutor only. Is there a sample pokemon I can show my potential designs for this on? --- Bouldersnap 04:44, 12 December 2006 (EST)

We'd be glad to have your help. Generally, we like to avoid having people experiment on main articles; it would be for the best if you could demonstrate your idea here, or in the Bulbapedia:Sandbox. --Pie ^~♪♫ 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to become a participant also Ivysaur 18:07, 15 Januari 2007 (GMT)

My mistake

Thanks for that! About the move tutor, I didn't see it on the bulba page the first time, but I see it now. My mistake! Coppro 00:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can help with card text, if anyone needs. Mostly the older sets.--BJ

Pokémon Information

The Pokémon pages would benefit from information as a species. I am unsure how would be best to go about this. It's no secret that the best place to get information on a Pokémon from would be the game Pokédexes, now we could do a few things:

Have subheadings for each Pokédex entry from games.
Have a single long paragraph with the text from all the Pokédexes mushed together.
Have a single long paragraph, totally re-written but taking bits of information from Pokédex entries.

I personally would go for the last one. What do you lot think? - Ferret 03:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is no one replying to this to give their opinion? I believe individual species background is a very important part of Pokémon and what makes it special from other creature-training games. I did not want to go ahead and add things when it's not what is wanted or required. - Ferret 03:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having no clue what you mean by it, I suggest you make a sample set of edits and see how people respond to it. - 振霖_T 04:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First one should be included anyways, maybe third as well. Definitely not the second. - Jshadias 04:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zhen Lin: It should be obvious really, the Pokémon pages do not cover information about species themseleves yet, only statistical stuff and name origins, the first goal for the Pokédex Project is "Expand Pokémon pages to have at least a paragraph of information about a Pokémon, preferably background information on that Pokémon." I'm trying to bring up some ideas to help achieve this goal. - Ferret 04:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Movelists

Add all Generation III movelists to both /GenIII pages and the main page of a Pokémon.

Why put the same information in two places, especially when it is just going to be moved when Generation IV is released? - Jshadias 04:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ease of deletion--you don't need to move everything over with the advent of GenIV. evkl 10:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reformatted the "By Breeding" move list for Squirtle. I do hope I did it correctly. However just in case I didn't, I have the old version saved on my computer. I hope I helped. - Canopydouble 10:44, 2 December 2007 (EST)

The Infobox

Shouldn't Pokémon heights and weights from the game Pokédex be added to the InfoBox - MTC

I think you're right... hoo, boy, it's going to be fun adding all those heights and weights, though. Especially since there's the English feet-inches-pounds versus (what I believe is originally used) the good ol' metric system. --Pie 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Locations

Would you like me to add game locations to each Pokémon's page? Please tell me what you think of the table on the Pikachu page. Fabu-Vinny 12:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Anime information and Manga information

These headings should be something like "In the anime" and "In manga", similar to the current "In the TCG" header. - Jshadias 07:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While on the topic of Anime Information, I'd like to see someone else besides me adding Anime Information more often. Please?--Pokencyclopedia 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokédex Data and TCG Pages

Already on it. Go check out my user page and see what all I've added in. I'd appreciate it if someone could put in the data that I haven't.

I think that each card should have its own page. I just want to know, how should we go about it? What should we name the pages, say something like Beedrill (TCG) for the Base One Beedrill? --Doug teh H-Nut

I see that the Pokédex Data from Stadium 2 needs to be added, but I believe it's the same data as in Gold. Anyone with the game with them wanna check? --PikamasterADV 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there even Pokédex data in Colosseum and XD? I don't think there is (not 100% sure) but if not, it should be deleted from the Pokédex template. --Mudkiplover56 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

TCG Pokédex entries?

Should they be just part of Project TCG, or be included in the data here? T T Echidna 00:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As a Species?

What gives? If this project is meant to classify Pokemon as a species, then why doesn't it? There are stats, yes, but the Wikipedia page on Pikas doesn't list those facts, does it? Listen, I worked hard on a Pikachu entry for Wikipedia, as follows:

==Biology== A Pikachu (plural also Pikachu) is a ground-dwelling mammal belonging to a subspecies of [[rodent]]s including itself, it's evolutions, [[Plusle]], [[Minun]], and possibly undiscovered others, although pikachu are by far the most well known. Pikachu have short, yellow fur with brown stripes on its back, black-tipped ears, along with an unusually shaped tail, resembling a lightning bolt. They are often found in forests, plains, and occasionally near electrical sources, on most continents throughout the world. It is also a popular pet, and relatively easy to maintain, with little exercise necessary for it's well being, although periodic electric discharge is extremely important. Pikachu are known to have acute senses of hearing, thanks to its large ears. Most domestic pikachu are very intelligent, understanding and interpreting human [[speech]] at levels far surpassing those of any pet [[dog]]. Pikachu can be harmful [[pests]], eating and sometimes destroying telephone poles, wires, and other electronic equipment. In communities found near wooded areas, it is not uncommon for a pikachu to sometimes show up under or near houses, presumably attracted by the electrical output generated by the dwellers' appliances. ===Diet=== Living in wooded areas, pikachu often are found foraging for berries. Instead of climbing trees, they use small electrical shocks to release the berries from the tree, roasting them at the same time. As pets, they can be fed a variety of processed food, available at many pet stores. Alternatively, pikachu are tolerant to most "human" food, and sometimes enjoy it more then the more nutritional food designed for their biology. ===Electrical Abilities=== Exclusive to the Pikachu's subspecies is the obvious ability to release electric discharges of varying intensity, at will, through glandular pouches residing in its cheeks. These glands allow it to store and release a unique form of chemical energy, which can be released in bolts of lightning or [[ball lightning]] to defend itself from attackers, to cook food, to be used in battle, at the command from it's trainer, or in self-defense in the wild. Pikachu are rarely known to purposefully attack others besides the aforementioned, but particularly aggressive pikachu have been recorded. Pikachu often travel in packs, and are rarely territorial. However, when threatened, a group can generate an intense electrical offensive, and the electro-magnetic forces exerted by the resulting field can even produce a short lived, localized thunderstorm. As pikachu build up energy in their electricity glands, it is often needed to discharge, as to not result in a short, or worse, which can lead to physical [[Paralysis ]], or in severe cases, death. Pikachu release the built-up energy through their tail, which acts as a grounding rod, to safely remove unneeded energy. A sure sign to tell if a location is inhabited by pikachu (or a member of its subspecies) is to look for patches of burnt grass, which is the result of the discharge. Through an inability to release a buildup of electricity, a pikachu may develop a rare condition, very similar to the human [[flu]]. This illness is most often caused by strong nearby electro-magnetic forces, which severely impact the electric glands. If a pikachu is introduced to a magnet, it will be attracted towards its cheeks, and display other common attributes of [[magnetism]].

Good, no? I'd be willing to write comprehensive facts on every pokemon, but first, I must ask, is this acceptable, or are you fine with figures and charts? A disgrace, I say! Pokemon as a species means treating them as real, living creatures!

Again, I would be fine with writing articles like this on all pokemon, even if I was the only one writing them. Hell, I think I'd prefer it that way. So, would everyone be fine with that? I'm gonna go ahead and add this to Pikachu's Page, ok?

            Supermariorobot 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, and think it's great. The more the better, not everything has to be hard mechanical game information. It's the fluff that makes the Pokemon universe go 'round anyway. Surgo 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice. So, I guess I'm in charge of this? Or would I need to ralk to an Admin? Supermariorobot 04:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Like it's said on Wikipedia: be bold. Surgo 04:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LET ALL KNOW THIS!!!! I, Supermariorobot, am in charge of writing Biological discription of Pokemon as a species! w007! Supermariorobot 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there somewhere I should put this on the site, besides here? Supermariorobot 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not the worst idea we've ever had, but take note of some of the edits I've made on the Pikachu article itself. --Pie 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Supermariobot, you have come up with an excellent idea. The articles for other well-known Pokémon like Bulbasaur will be easy to update. However, I wish you good luck in trying to find such comprehensive information for the newer, lesser-known Pokémon, such as Vespiquen or Pachirisu. And the legendaries will be even harder to produce information for. :) Pokéball 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Type effectiveness

All Pokémon pages have a section called, "Type effectiveness". Currently the Template used for "Later versions" reflects "the average physical/special ratio". For Diamond and Pearl it has already been revealed that whether an attack is physical or special will be determined individually for each attack instead of based on what attack type it is. This means that the physical/special ratio no longer applies to type effectiveness. There needs to be another section that does not reflect the physical/special ratio. I would like to know how we should go about doing this. Drapion 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was working on this but got confused. Can someone explain this? At first I thought that the bar meant how well an attack from other PKMN with that type would do, but it turns out that it's a measure of STAB as if this PKMN were using an attack of that type or what? Gambler 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The type effectiveness is how effective a type of that element would be against the Pokémon. For example, against Onix, Water is x4 (400 on the graph), Ground is x2 (200 on the graph), Psychic is x1 (100 on the graph), Flying is x0.5 (50 on the graph), Poison is x0.25 (25 on the graph). But the system we have was designed for when the Defense and Special Defense also came into play for this. Even before the DP changes, the section was badly explained and the visuals were unuseful and caused page stretching problems (though this problem has been reduced in the new system, it still exists for screens with low resolutions). I think a better system needs to be designed and implemented. --Pie 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Let me give it a thing over the night and I'll try something in the Sanbox tomorrow. Thanks Pie! Gambler 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea! Now that was quick! How about replaceing it for a "Damage Ratio" table? it should have a column for every type and 2 rows, one for Physical and other for Special. Inside each cell goes the effect of that type of attack with that kind of interaction. Onix Ex.

	PKMN Def	Normal	Grass	Rock
Physical	160
Special	45

Style issues

Or Bulbapedia feng shui. Believe it or not, Bulbapedia was discussed in the #bulbagarden chat. Wow. Anyway, besides a general consensus that more useful information should be added than the Name origin information and the articles really need fleshing out in a lot of ways, some thoughts about the style of the Pokémon species articles came up, and since I have a backbone, I'm the one who's sharing what those thoughts were.

Apparently, the Type effectiveness is not being well received. Others have told me it's ugly and not particularly informative. Why was it added? Does it need to be kept, or could it be removed, or replaced with a more stylish alternative?
The Name origins are not being considered particularly factual, interesting, useful information either. These may be better moved down to the Other information section, perhaps even as two subsections under Trivia (since, despite the fact that it's unrelated to the name, speculation on design inspirations are usually included under Name origin).
Appearances may fit better before the Game information, rather than after. In general, it will help the flow of articles if sections with tables are moved below sections with text.

The majority of these are not my own suggestions, though I understand the thought process behind each point and think that this major reorganizing is worth consideration, particularly since I've just started working to organize the articles anyway. --Pie 08:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I think should be done: The RBY Type Effectiveness section should be removed, because the information is only useful to a small number of people. If that's too extreme for some people, then a small section detailing the differences in RBY should be added as part of the current Type Effectiveness section. Secondly, the Type Effectiveness sections should not take into account the physical/special ratio because it won't apply in Diamond/Pearl, and because Pokémon with lower special defense have bars that extend far beyond the edge of the page. Drapion 15:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly true. I mean, one only has to take a look at Rhyhorn's type effectiveness section to see the problem with the current style. Perhaps we should only indicate x1/4, x1/2, x2, and x4 type effectivenesses, and then how more or less effective a physical attack is compared to a special attack - if anyone still can't figure out which attacks would be best for them to use, then clearly they need to start using a calculator more frequently. (Which, conveniently enough, will be part of the Pokétchi or whatever it's called.) --Pie 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Style issues take 2

All right, the revised layout has been up on the project page for a while. Now, does anyone have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this layout? If no one has any changes they'd like to see to this layout, I think it's about time we set to work organizing all the articles and adding in the appropriate sections. --Pie 23:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Last call for comments. Otherwise, reorganization will begin. --Pie 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)