Irony in Pokédex
Is it worth mentioning in the trivia section that the Alola Pokédex ironically does not include Solrock, Lunatone, and Bellossom despite Sun & Moon taking place in Hawaii?--PKMNAdventurer (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- No. It's not Bulbapedia's place to assume or assert what is and isn't ironic, or what Game Freak should or shouldn't have included in a region based on Hawaii. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. It's just ironic that Pokémon based off of the sun and moon are not in the regional Pokédex for Sun & Moon. Also, they have Oricorio Pa'u Style but not Bellossom when the latter is also based on a hula dancer? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you just want to discuss it, take it to the forums, please. Talk pages are exclusively for the improvement of our wiki pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just thought this bit of information was worth mentioning as trivia for this page. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- In short, it's opinion. That's not what we should be basing trivia on. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. My bad. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- In short, it's opinion. That's not what we should be basing trivia on. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just thought this bit of information was worth mentioning as trivia for this page. --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you just want to discuss it, take it to the forums, please. Talk pages are exclusively for the improvement of our wiki pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. It's just ironic that Pokémon based off of the sun and moon are not in the regional Pokédex for Sun & Moon. Also, they have Oricorio Pa'u Style but not Bellossom when the latter is also based on a hula dancer? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Rename
If the List of Pokémon by Unova Pokédex number is renamed as has been suggested, then so should this article, as there has been shown to be a new Pokédex order in USUM with Rockruff's Pokédex number changing from 103 to 126. Pikcahu (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Another thing is that we can see Mienfoo (that doesn't appear in Sun & Moon in the wild) in the latest trailer, so I agree, article should be renamed or moved to the other page as Pokédex won't be the same for Sun/Moon and Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon games, for sure. OrangeDoggo (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think this would be premature. We don't know the name of this new Pokédex order. It could easily be called the "New Alola" order in-game, in which case this article would not need to be moved. --SnorlaxMonster 14:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- On another note, it is nearly a year and yet the unova dex is still not moved. previous attempt to move was reverted because still awaiting Editorial Board approval. I know admins usually discuss among themselves but when things are still not done for a long time, we will be wondering if there is any discussion attempted at all. Should admins make such discussions public so we can be updated on what is going on? Just wondering... -Pokeant (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should wait and see if the how the changes in Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon will look. If the numbering is drastically changed (much like with B2W2) then I would support the move unless if it given an official new name (which is less likely to happen. For the Unova Dex for BW and B2W2, I think a more immediate decision needs to be done and I do agree about their page move only because the Unova Dex was not given a new name in B2W2 and it can be handled similar to the Hoenn Pokedex page moves for both the Gen. III and Gen. VI versions. -Tyler53841 (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to pipe up and mention, re:Pokeant, that the UDex renamings appear not to have been discussed at all beyond the initial suggestion, and the move attempt looks like just a rogue user who tried to act when there was no consensus. Therefore, it's unclear whether the EB are even aware of the suggestion, which explains the lengthy wait for approval. I would speculate that it seems likely that the attention garnered by this ADex request will in turn prompt them to act on the UDex pages at a similar time that they act on this one, which they are certainly aware of, given SnorlaxMonster's comment here. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is that looking through most of the pages in Category:Candidates_for_moving, either there is no discussion at all, or the discussion only consist of the person who suggested it (in the case of Unova dex, me). (Most of) Those that do have replies won't even last 5 people commenting on it. And the number of talk pages with the admins involved in the discussion is very minimum. And another note is that most of the pages in that category is just sitting there for months with no signs of any work to move or remove them from the page. Im sure the admins know about the page, and most likely have their private discussion but the lack of transparently about what is being discussed in the admin side just makes me wonder if the EB knows. But like you said, this ADex page will most likely garner attention and will be moved if necessary, but i cant say the same for those others in the category which had been there for months. -Pokeant (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just want to pipe up and mention, re:Pokeant, that the UDex renamings appear not to have been discussed at all beyond the initial suggestion, and the move attempt looks like just a rogue user who tried to act when there was no consensus. Therefore, it's unclear whether the EB are even aware of the suggestion, which explains the lengthy wait for approval. I would speculate that it seems likely that the attention garnered by this ADex request will in turn prompt them to act on the UDex pages at a similar time that they act on this one, which they are certainly aware of, given SnorlaxMonster's comment here. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think we should wait and see if the how the changes in Ultra Sun/Ultra Moon will look. If the numbering is drastically changed (much like with B2W2) then I would support the move unless if it given an official new name (which is less likely to happen. For the Unova Dex for BW and B2W2, I think a more immediate decision needs to be done and I do agree about their page move only because the Unova Dex was not given a new name in B2W2 and it can be handled similar to the Hoenn Pokedex page moves for both the Gen. III and Gen. VI versions. -Tyler53841 (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- On another note, it is nearly a year and yet the unova dex is still not moved. previous attempt to move was reverted because still awaiting Editorial Board approval. I know admins usually discuss among themselves but when things are still not done for a long time, we will be wondering if there is any discussion attempted at all. Should admins make such discussions public so we can be updated on what is going on? Just wondering... -Pokeant (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think this would be premature. We don't know the name of this new Pokédex order. It could easily be called the "New Alola" order in-game, in which case this article would not need to be moved. --SnorlaxMonster 14:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Island Dex Numbering
It mentions that each island dex keeps the overall Alola Dex numbering - even specifically pointing out that Pikipek is #10 even when it's the first in the dex. This definitely is the case when I check in-game.
But this (and the counterpart page for the USUM Alola dex) doesn't actually do that. It lists Pikipek as #1 for Akala, Ula'Ula, and Poni, and so on. As far as I can tell, this renumbering can only be found on Serebii and here and isn't official; should it be changed?--Gou (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. For simplicity's sake, I think we ought to use ✓s for the island dexes instead of numbers. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/2715611. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But if that's staying, then text saying that Pikipek is #10 in every Pokedex should be removed (because it's not), and replaced with something explaining that the numbering isn't seen in-game.--Gou (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Tiddlywinks. I had remembered us having used the ✓s in the past but combed the page history and couldn't find it so I assumed I'd been imagining it. I didn't consider it was part of a called template. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- I also lend my support, as the one who originally posted that the general Pokédex number remain the same in the separate listings after I confirmed that information back then, I agree the ✓s need to be restored this is clearly official game confirmed data and not fan speculation that is being dealt with here. On a related note it was because of that format that made my work in the number disambiguation pages so much easier when I was assisting with the Pokédex numbers -Tyler53841 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Tiddlywinks. I had remembered us having used the ✓s in the past but combed the page history and couldn't find it so I assumed I'd been imagining it. I didn't consider it was part of a called template. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But if that's staying, then text saying that Pikipek is #10 in every Pokedex should be removed (because it's not), and replaced with something explaining that the numbering isn't seen in-game.--Gou (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/2715611. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)