Talk:List of Pokémon (281–300)

Why Is This Db-tagged?

These lists are clearly being merged from the individual Pokemon articles as decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. -WarthogDemon 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Useight 06:28, 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? Spigot Map 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if theres one thing I come to wikipedia for, it most certainly is a removal of information. it's lovely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.67.17 (talk) 01:13, 24 October 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. TheBlazikenMaster 17:56, 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 Think They Should Be Split Up Like This: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_National_Dex_number cal05000 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gardevoir & C.C.

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, Face 14:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it because it is completely nonnotable, and original research. Artichoker[talk] 14:12, 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]