Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pokémon

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 17 April 2007 (→Future Focus Articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:44, 17 April 2007 by Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk | contribs) (→Future Focus Articles)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15 page.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2005 – April 2006
  2. 1 May 2006 – 15 May 2006
  3. 15 May 2006 – 28 June 2006
  4. 28 June 2006 – 12 July 2006
  5. 13 July 2006 – 18 August 2006
  6. 18 August 2006 – 26 September 2006
  7. 26 September 2006 – 14 October 2006
  8. 15 October 2006 – 13 November 2006
  9. 13 November 2006 – 18 November 2006
  10. 18 November 2006 – 3 December 2006
  11. 3 December 2006 – 31 December 2006
  12. 1 January 2007 – 14 February 2007
  13. 15 February 2007 – 9 March 2007
  14. 10 March 2007 – 5 April 2007

Other archives

  1. FFA archive 1
Shortcut
  • ]

Future Focus Articles

Next Pokémon Creature Article

Did an update of all the noted articles, so people can fix what's wrong without having to ask what's wrong. If you complete something, just strike it out. Highway 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Venonat - implement {{Pokestart}}, expand on Koga's (or his assisstant's) Venonant, and expand greatly on Tracey's. Again, check the manga for Venonat, and rewrite the TCG section. Remove original research from Biology, and add better descriptions of Venonat locations. Highway 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rapidash - Rewrite name def, cleanup citing there D: Cleanup whole of intro, per Ivysaur. Rewrite and properly cite Pokédex section, per Torchic. Cleanup video games per Cloyster, mention Pokémon Snap, and borrow the book cite from Bulbasaur. If you feel like digging, you can note that Rapidash is the only other Fire family in the Shin'ou dex, there's a Bulbanews article detailing this for "fan clarification". Implement, {{Pokeanime}}, and format the wash of text, per Ivysaur. Check Serebii for the manga, someone must have a Rapidash, look at Eevee, it's got the cite about the Electric Pikachu Boogaloo manga volume with the novelised version of the race. Format the TCG like Ivysaur, and prose it. *dies* Highway 09:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Next Miscellaneous Article

Cleaned out to gut old discussions. Archived FFAs. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Pokémon evolution We should add levels of Evolution to ever pokemon under the picture for convenience and so that the information isn't scattered throughout the article. Also, in many cases it doesn't even say what level it evolves at! Surskit being the first to come to mind.

preciate]]|Laugh At) 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A combination proposal

Currently there are two proposals.

Merge Pokémon into lists of 20 or some other arbitrary number, worthwhile Pokémon have links to main articles
Each Pokémon gets fair treatment in this manner, but usability is potentially sacrificed and we should try to avoid arbitrary measures.
Merge Pokémon by evolution line or implied connections
Some Pokémon will be leftover, either being grouped with Pokémon they really have nothing in common with, or remaining in lone articles. Additionally, great care will need to be taken to avoid subjective grouping and layout.

My idea is that we kind of do both. Let's have these massive list articles but then only include the most basic information. Each section would then have a main article which is the evo-line article, the redirects would then be pointing to these main articles. For pokemon that don't have these evo-line articles their info can remain in the list with just a larger section, the redirects pointing to the list. we still need to really concentrate on firm style guidelines so we can have consistency. UCantCMe! had made some suggestions on my talk page. I actually propose that we create a complementary page to WP:PCP/S with agreed upon guidelines to refer people to when they ask why things are one way rather than the other (one example is to possibly order the pokemon by dex# rather than evolution; this can help give a visual history of that line's development and would allow things like Pikachu to be discussed first, rather than after Pichu). Also considering this topic's length of discussion it might be best to have a devoted talk page. Should i just plain move this discussion there or should it be archived and then linked to from the other page? -ΖαππερΝαππερ Alexandria 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. My original concern with the evo-line merging was that single-evo non-notable Pokemon like Mawile and Spiritomb would be unaffected, but this blend of two camps making such Pokemon enlarged sections on the Lists would square that away effectively. Maybe the discussion of that should be put on the List of Pokemon (1-20) talk page, because by your compromise proposal that page would remain in use. Erik Jensen 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I started the relevant discussion about this proposal at the List of Pokemon (1-20)'s talk page. Hopefully something will come out of this this time. Erik Jensen 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Departure of our secret agent

Alright... so how is this going to affect the PCP? I'm mainly concerned that the semi-pros in place are going to be revoked. -Jeske 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Try to get him to - pardon the insensitivity - get over it. Really, what he was blocked for was something he should have been blocked for. He left because he didn't like getting blocked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am SHOCKED, I tell you! But I think he had problems at home as well as on WP. Well, since he had supported my Lists of Pokemon concepts, I'll keep on trying to make them in his memory, then.
If he's effectively no longer a member of WP:PCP, then as registered member #2 that means I will end up the controversial president who does nothing but warring after all. (See here and here for the in-joke.) Erik Jensen 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
King, Queen, Elder and the Preacher. You fit in the latter category, Mr. Failing Appreciator. :< - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I was never a big fan of him, and it didn't help that he seemed to give out somewhat of a weightier voice than the rest of us. Unless it's obviously garbage, I really don't like it when people prefer deleting things over keeping them. Regardless, I hate when people cruft-hunt. It disgusts me. I don't believe in "cruft" at all. Maybe some new things can finally get added on now? I'm trying to see this in a positive way.Toastypk 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Now now, we're not here to comment on people's faults, are we? - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I had to at least get that off my chest. I'm still trying to be civil. Toastypk 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
We have to talk nice because he might come by and read stuff. I mean, it's not like he's dead. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Given that he just reverted his talk page back to the lone "Go Away", I think he's lost all interest in Misplaced Pages. -Jeske 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, even though I'm not quite up to AMIB's level, I AM a cruft fighter and I HAVE eliminated a lot of cruft from the Pokémon selection of articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Toasty, read this for thw Misplaced Pages definition of cruft. I myself fight off cruft, but as I already have an allegiance with a Project, I'm reluctant to join the PCP. -Jeske 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You can join more than one project! All it means is that you'll have twice as much work... --Brandon Dilbeck 02:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You are just sly, you know that Dilbeck? ;-) - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 02:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Dil, as I make custom D&D material using the information here, I am afraid it would be a conflict-of-interest to join. -Jeske 04:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I think I understand. --Dil 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) AMIB's opinion wasn't given more weight, it was just that a lot of us usually agreed with it (A Link to the Past, Erik the Appreciator, Amarkov, me). Hbdragon88 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't know... erik's even said things like, "even though i understand your position i think i'm going to side with AMIB on this one as he's usually right about these things." (paraphrase) So i can see where toasty is coming from, of course that is really the only blatant exmaple i can think of from anyone. Despite how it may look, i was a little disheartened when i read through the histories, we may not agree on everything (or even anything) but i hate seeing anyone get so angry. i agree he needed to blocked, his high incidence of revert warring could alienate new editors, but at the same time this is an example of an intrinsic flaw within wikipedia so i'm a little sympathetic to both sides. additonally, WP:CRUFT is an essay that get thrown around too much. if anything the essay should discourage use of the word because it is a blanket argument that superficially provides no actual reasoning behind it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ Alexandria 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I was always sure that I knew my own opinions as my own, and I was always sure that it was coincidence that my thoughts about Misplaced Pages content and its policies matched many of AMIB's. If I ever said anything that implied "I'll go with AMIB over anyone else's opinions because I assume he's always right and others aren't quite as right", then I'll retract that with full apologies because that wasn't my honest vantage point. I will in fact admit that from time to time I was legitimately irritated by Black's conduct, such as when he first piped up back in November about how none of the Pokemon species are notable enough by reliable secondary sources to each get their own pages; when I had to look at the Wiki-policies behind his reasoning, however, it started dawning on me that I had to agree with him that some sort of merging for the sake of improving the project per Misplaced Pages policy. My attempts at convincing a mega-merge were a result.
The main reason why I believed and practically insisted on doing a mega-merge of Pokemon species into various list pages, however, was based on what I see about what Misplaced Pages and the various Wikis are apparently meant to be: Misplaced Pages is not meant to be the ultimate reference for everything, but rather the best general reference for everything, because it is meant to appeal to a wide range of readers of a wide range of casual interests, and the many subject-specific wikis such as Bulbapedia are what are meant to be ultimate references for fans of those subjects. I believe creating Lists of Pokemon would present the many hundreds of species in a non-bloated and practical way that would appeal to more of Misplaced Pages's general demographic. I was just lucky that both AMIB and Hbdragon thought it was a good way to improve the situation with the Pokemon species articles.
The aspect about AMIB's legacy that I want to personally question rhetorically is as follows: Is it truly, absolutely imperative that all Misplaced Pages content policy be followed down to the last period for every article on the site? He thought so and tried putting that into effect for articles on games, so that they would be in ideal shape as per the vision of articles by Jimbo Wales - an admirable goal, sure, but one that generates a lot of controversy, and perhaps there was too much controversy generated for both his own good and for the good of the project. I think it'd be a far more meaningful goal to structure articles' contents so that they practically conform to all those policies perfectly, because it may be far too difficult a goal to go all the way through for every Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps we can ease up a tiny bit on policy constraints to encourage a more efficient process of creating very good articles in general (rather than perfect articles), though that's just my (newish) opinion. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a taxing environment after all.
Since I seriously do not want to antagonize anybody online with my on-wiki hijinks, I'll try to be more open for collaboration among other users and pay more attention to the actions of the other admins around here. When I say that Misplaced Pages won't seem quite the same without AMIB, I mean that in both negative and some positive senses. Erik Jensen 22:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
erik i apologize, i think you misunderstood me, or at least misunderstood what i was referring to. i was talking about an old discussion that showed an explicit example. anything else that has been construed as "following the leader" is purely up to other readers. but comments like the one in that discussion and ones like it are ones that have occasionally perpetuated an air of ownership. I hope i didn't offend your character though as i value your input and contibutions to the project. -ΖαππερΝαππερ Alexandria 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh geez, there's really no need to worry about offending me on anything; I'm not quite sure what would offend me online at this point. The situations in the past were a bit confusing, however. I would suggest we just now focus on discussing and deciding whether to merge Pokemon by national Pokedex order or to check You Can't See Me's merge-by-evo-line concept above. Erik Jensen 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues at Glitches article

There's some issues at the Glitches found in the Pokémon video games article. A lot of well meaning people are adding gobs of unsourced information to the article and I don't know how to best handle activity of this nature. The nature of the article makes it feel like a dumping ground for game-guide-like original research. An article like this, pointing out some of Nintendo's flaws, ought to have adequate sources (which probably don't exist) to back up these claims (similarly to policies in WP:BLP). --Brandon Dilbeck 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good article, IMO. I think sourcing is pretty good - official press releases and all that for the berry glitch and the saving glitch. But I'm leaning towards removing Glitch City, which doesn't have a lick of sourcing. Missingno. is bearable because Nintendo released an official statememnt, but the only thing on Mew we have is GameFAQs...not reliable enough. Hbdragon88 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the whole paradox I find here. These things absolutely exist. I'm sure I could find at least 20 sites talking about Glitch City, as well as possibly a video on youtube. It's just really aggrivating for me that wikipedia can't even talk about it just because we can't find it on Nintendo.com or Pokemon.com or anything because official sites would obviously try to hide it. Would something like 20 non-official sources warrant enough credibility? If it can be found on many sites, it's obviously carrying some weight. I'm-a go look real quick and see what I can find. Toastypk 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
20 sites and Youtube can be wrong. I bet I could find 20 sites saying that you can get Mew in RBY by moving the truck, but it's still wrong. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I've found some really good stuff. Including a whole Pokemon glitch website.
http://www.trsrockin.com/glitchcity.html
http://glitchcity.info
Specifically this - http://glitchcity.info/docs/regions/glitchcity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdGWYEuTyBs Toastypk 16:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

for things that have been confirmed within the community, if we have a youTube video of it, would it be enough to say that our source is the game itself and then just reference youTube as a means for quick online verification? -ΖαππερΝαππερ Alexandria 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

More Stuff from Serebii

Just letting you all know Serebi went and revealed every English possible --DSDark 20:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not going to be added, due to the content being exclusive to a fansite (and one that many people at this WikiProject do not trust). For all we know, it could even be an April Fools' joke. Ultraflame 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't get why Serebii isn't considered a reliable site, but I can see how it could be an April Fool's Joke. --DSDark 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's considered unreliable because it is run by one person, who thus is not accountable very much to their mistakes. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack/abilities

Lividore and I have reached a sort of compromise–I won't revert Serebii's names provided they're the ones that can be considered correct translations (i.e., Mitsuhoney's ability "Honey Collect" to "Honey Gather"). That alright with everyone?—ウルタプ 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There is no criteria for what is "more correct" than another. For example, who's to say that "Azelf" is incorrect while "Porygon-Z" is? For all we know, their names might be been "Agnom" and "1337Pory" respectively. You Can't See Me! 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno if this is significant, but Pokemon-games.com

...I got to Dialga and it won't even let me reveal Pokémon anymore. o-o Although I suppose it doesn't matter too much, since Nintendo Power revealed everything on that site anyway.—ウルタプ 02:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help at Booburn

Wiister2007 (talk · contribs) is ading Serebii info. I need some help, since I'm nearing the limit. -Jeske 21:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like TBM got it already. hbdragon88 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, no problem at all. It should be few days now til the Diamond and Pearl will be in the United States. So then we will be able to unlock the rest of the unconfirmed pokémon, including Booburn. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured List nomination of List of Pokémon RPGs.

I recently created List of Pokémon RPGs. I have now gotten it up to Featured List standards in my opinion. Because of this, I have nominated the list at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Pokémon RPGs. Funpika 22:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to copyedit it a little bit. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

New Template?

As I'm sure you all know most, if not all Pokémon articles contain the following text: "are one of the 493 fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise—a collection of video games, anime, manga, books, trading cards, and other media created by Satoshi Tajiri. The purpose of Arbok in the games, anime, and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon—untamed creatures that characters encounter while embarking on various adventures— and tamed Pokémon creatures owned by Pokémon trainers." with references shown at the bottom of the page. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to create a template that displays this text. I know that it wouldn't have very much use now, but if future RPGs were created with additional Pokémon, it could help very much.--Tempest115 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. They contain that text because there was a template, actually. It was deleted because templates are not supposed to be used to write article content, and introductions should not all be identical anyway. -Amarkov moo! 01:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this text is unnecessary. If people want to know information about the series, they'll look at the article. Character articles shouldn't describe what their series is about. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 28#Template:Pokestart. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Imakuni? at VfD

Imakuni? is currently being considered for deletion. I'm no expert, but (according to Japanese sources) he seems to be a somewhat notable Pokemon musician and promoter, and apparently he appears as a character in a Pokemon game as well. The main reason for deletion is the sad state the article is in at the moment, and the lack of English sources. I have cast a vote at the VfD to have the article deleted unless someone more knowledgable shows up and volonteers to clean up the messy article and make it sound more credulous. TomorrowTime 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible??

From Talk:Erlade (emphasis added):

Just pointing out, Chatot and Electivire, you said they were officially confirmed by the anime, just saying before that, Serebii did EXCLUSIVELY reveal the names, just like they did with the others, and if all the names prove to be right, I will be petitioning Jimmy to make serebii a verified source because it has never been wrong, and just causes arguments that it isn't a useable source. Myzou 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, is it possible to petition Jimbo (as he's saying he will) to make a source automatically reliable? -Jeske 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to wait til Diamond and Pearl will be released in the United States. Besides, it will come this month. After twelve days, or seven weeks and five days. We can wait, can't we? TheBlazikenMaster 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not the problem, Blaze. The problem is that IF everything from Serebii is confirmed to be on D/P, he's going to petition Jimbo Wales to have Serebii automatically become a reliable source, WP:RS's guidelines be damned. That's why I brought it up here. -Jeske 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Think about that. If Jimbo suddenly allowed this to happen, don't you think there'd be more of a precedent for a lot of OTHER articles and websites to try and get in too for this? Serebii.net isn't the only site on the internet to get their info uncited, anonymously and sometimes right, but when does anyone have the right to rally that site to be claimed a reliable source? The experienced of Misplaced Pages's editors would know what makes a cite reliable or not - you can't just change an entire view of many people. If Jimbo Wales is pushed for this, the guy might as well kill off the Reliable sources guideline. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind at all for serebii to become a source. God knows, it would help a LOT. What other freaking sites would you use that cover that stuff in depth? They try to correct everything too. Anything new that comes out they try say if it's credible or not. Toastypk 23:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's not just of what you, or we care about. It's what the experienced editors care about. A site that doesn't meet the requirements to be claimed reliable (even with all the fixes made, note that it's ALSO MAINTAINED BY ONE PERSON and NOT an editorial) shouldn't be cited. We'd have to run a lot of things through other editors before we'd even come close to declaring SPP reliable. I mark it as unreliable, and so would other editors around Misplaced Pages. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It has never been wrong...can you get any more blindsided? I think there were some Pokedex complaints, something that I haven't yet attested to. They also misleaded me on the Macho Brace once. But enough of that. Jimbo almost never intervenes in any situation unless it's a really big case, such as the wheel warring on the pedophilia userbox and the Daniel Brandt article. For instnace, on WP:ATT, he just removed the {{supersede}} template and told everybody to start discussing. He didn't automatically nullify ATT. I doubt he would intervene here. hbdragon88 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This is silly. The point of sourcing guidelines and policies is not to make Misplaced Pages more of a challenge, it's to make sure that material is correct. Jimbo might theoretically have the power to say "This source meets WP:RS", but he does not have the power to say "To hell with WP:RS, use whatever sources you need to make an article big!" -Amarkov moore cowbell! 00:15, 11 April 2007
Let's also not forget that Serebii has been fatally wrong before. Not to say a lot of it isn't reliable. The opposite, in fact: Serebii is the most reliable Pokemon fansite out there. However, fatal mistakes such as Feint/Anticipate, Mighty Guard, and Legendary Blaziken (or, more recently, legendary Lucario) do occur enough for it to be a problem. You Can't See Me! 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

History Merge

The history of since deleted page Misplaced Pages:WikiProject:pokemon has been merged in to this talk page, here in case anyone needs it. — xaosflux 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really get what you did. You care explaining? TheBlazikenMaster 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Club Masters

Can you guys help me do something about this?—ウルタプ 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. -Jeske 17:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. D:—ウルタプ 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Pokemonlover56

Could someone talk to Pokemonlover56? He just copy-and-pasted Mukuhawk over to Staraptor - and then reverted back to the c&p-moved version. -Jeske 18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntail looks awful.

Ok, it doesn't look that awful, but we still need a lot of references, so I was thinking that I could get help from Wikipedians who are also pokémon fans? References are important. After Mewtwo is finished, we should focus on this one. Any objections? TheBlazikenMaster 16:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on species article writing until the current issue is settled - merge or not merge? If merge, then there's no need to add more to the article. hbdragon88 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the merging is already going on. You Can't See Me! 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I highly disagree with the merging. Each spieces even in evolution line are different in some way. If merging would be finished, I personally find it ridicilous. For example, Torchic doesn't have much info about the fighting skills because it doesn't have it, Blaziken does. I personally think Biological characteristics is the most encylopedic section in the pokémon articles. I'm actually surpriced things like Family Guy episode doesn't have any merging plan. Pokémon might not be as notable as Family Guy or things like that, but it's still notable enough for each pokémon to have their own articles. In my opinion it would be awful if the pokémon would be merged. I'm aware of the fact this is NOT a game guide, but that still doesn't mean each pokémon can't have its own article. I still diagree. In fact, I wish I could stop it. TheBlazikenMaster 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
ironicaly, one could argue that family guy is MORE notable than family guy. I'd bet that worldwide more people know of even Pichu than Chris Griffin. And while i still value your opinion, i'd like to know where you were during the last discussion? that wasn't even the first time it had been brought up. By merging pokemon by evo line, we're not saying they're not different (they are still given their own sections) but instead showing one more way they are related while at the same time forcing contributors to be more judicial in the kind of information that is included. Most less notable pokemon have little information beyond their entymology, pokedex info, and anime/manga/tcg appearances. I'd actually like your help at Pidgey evolutionary line so that we can make sure vital information from the original articles is still preserved. -ΖαππερΝαππερ Alexandria 13:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)