Talk:List of Pokémon by index number (Generation I)
Hey, just letting you guys know that you have the wrong sprite up for gastly. :D ~HFS
Generation IV minisprites for glitch Pokémon
Why do we even have them? Although many glitches are hybrids of other Pokémon this does not make them in that sense "a Glitchy Charizard" because they stand alone with their own index numbers. This makes them alone distinguishable from the actual Pokémon in many ways. I remember when somebody submitted a 'Glitchy Hitmonchan', but that was simply somebody messing around with a hex editor, it would still have Hitmonchan's index number. Glitchy Charizard on the other hand (or rather 'M - index number 255) is embedded in the coding itself, thus it is just a pure glitch Pokémon.
Secondly, this sounds rather simple but they are not canon. Nintendo have never considered such a thing, it would be more appropriate to leave this as the placeholder "?" sprite for now. Besides, if you trade Charizard 'M onto Generation II it appears as a ????? (index 255) with no traces of a Charizard at all. --Chickasaurus 18:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, we'll remove those MS other than 000 used for glitch Pokémon (even for Glitchy Charizard and Nidorino which I think should be moved to the "nameless" naming convention). However, this list doesn't show what is cannon, it shows what is there. The glitch Pokémon will stay, like the placeholder items in the items list. --SnorlaxMonster 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- It confirms that Missingno. are just deleted Pokémon, but that uses this as a source, so we would be using Bulbapedia as a source for itself. I would recommend trivia here and on Missingno.'s page. And I think that there may be a few problems with the non-Missingno. glitch Pokémon in Generation II—I don't think it is quite accurate; someone should check it. --SnorlaxMonster 10:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Plus, for reasons pointed out by me and others in that very topic, the parts of that theory that refer to this page are probably false (except that there are 39 Missingnos.) --HeroicJay 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Split glitch Pokemon columns for RB versus Y?
A list of Glitch Pokémon and their 'safety'?
I've been thinking for some time now that it'd be useful if there was a list of Glitch Pokémon somewhere that had signs somewhere after the Pokémon names to signal the following attribute(s) (in order of importance in my opinion):
- Front sprite freezes the game (you encounter it = you crash)
- Knows Super Glitch and/or learns it one or more times by level 100
- Modifies your items (eg. Missingno. and 6th item slot)
- Back sprite freezes the game (you can't use it in battle; this is quite rare)
Would a list with (some of) this information be justified on this site? I know it would definitely be useful to have a quick reference for which Glitch Pokémon you can encounter safely (and how safely), without clicking into every article separately. Selvah (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is kinda important. Why are the MissingNo.s associated with those Gen II Pokémon? I mean, why these specifically? Is there anything pointing to them?
EDIT: Yea, through the history I found that was TTEchidna's edit. I wonder why the trivia explaining it was removed though.
In the manga (Shogakukan-han Gakushū Manga Special Pokémon o Tsukutta Otoko Tajiri Satoshi) the numbers of all of the beta pokémon point to them being some of the MissingNo.s.
In the image we can see that the pokémon with numeration next to their names (left page) all match with the index numbers in-game. This is could be really important to fill some of these holes in the list. ExLight (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your question: "Why are the MissingNo.s associated with those Gen II Pokémon?"
- On the page: "When connected to a Generation II game, many of the glitch Pokémon, including each of the 39 copies of MissingNo., will appear to the other side to be a Generation II Pokémon and are occasionally tradeable."
- I don't know what I might be missing, but your question seems to be already answered... Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is that this bulbapedia article links to Smogon Forums as a source and the specified page on Smogon Forums links back to this article... Neither page is a valid source and therefore hte information about their being originally 190 in Red/Blue should not be included unless a valid source can be found. It even says on the link Smogon Forums page that it's speculation based on the thoughts of the original poster on that forum. That means its not verified information and should be removed until a verified source can be found.DarienLeonhart (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)