Talk:List of Pokémon - Misplaced Pages

List of Pokémon is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 9, 2017.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 16, 2017	Featured list candidate	Promoted

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated FL-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games: Nintendo / Characters High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Lisette Titre-Montgomery (1 participant)
Party royale game (2 participants)
List of Minecraft characters (5 participants)
Carlton Wilborn (5 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted)
Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted)
TheoTown (12 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

Sun Haven

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Pokémon Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

July 10 to 16, 2016 (17th)

On 9 October 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of Pokémon species. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

MacDonald, Mark; Brokaw, Brian; Arnold, J. Douglass; Elies, Mark (1999). Pokémon Trainer's Guide. Lahaina, Hawaii: Sandwich Islands Publishing Co., Ltd. pp. 75–153. ISBN 1-884364-25-X. OCLC 1036821585.

Discussion of Notes Columns' Contents in the Teahouse

There is currently a discussion ongoing in the Teahouse regarding the content in the Notes columns of the various Pokemon lists. If anyone wishes to join in the discussion, here is the link. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry About Using Color In Tables

(moved from User talk:Beland)

I notice that Koraidon and Miraidon are both Legendary Pokémon and Paradox Pokémon on the page wikipedia.org/List_of_Pokémon. How should the color be used here? Master106 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Master106: You could either apply both colors by striping, or make up a new color that indicates membership of both categories (and add the new color to the legend). I'd probably put both § and ♭ as accessibility symbols, for consistency. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should just pick legendary color coding. While they are Paradox Pokemon, it's also true that this is not a detail that is immediately evident. Just having the symbol attached should be fine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think striping would be best since it would easily show they are in both categories at first glance. I'll go make the edit. Master106 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I really do not think we need to be striping. The colors in and of themselves are pushing it a bit, but what I proposed should be perfectly adequate, especially since there is a symbol indicating it's a Paradox Pokemon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The symbols are there, but you wouldn't get that information on first glance. Master106 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you would, and I would argue that having a color scheme that only functions for two Pokemon would be harder to glean from a glance. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I already have it in the edit on preview and it doesn't look that bad at all honestly. I also thought of the same problem, but looking at it. It doesn't look bad at all. Master106 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe we should just not overcomplicate it. I'm of the opinion that coloring in general is not necessary since the symbols are already used, so doubling up on colors is a bridge too far for me. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the edit, if you still have a problem with it, we can go with no colors at all I guess. Master106 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Plus, the info-box says the cells would be specific colors. Master106 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd just go with legendary coloring myself, and include both symbols. Follow the Keep it Simple principle.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with above. Striping seems largely unnecessary given that the symbols suffice just fine. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was this added to the paradox beasts and paradox swords however? They've never been indicated as legendaries in any form of official media, as far as we know they're just paradox pokemon. NachoWindham2012 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it was added, but it seems to be inaccurate, as they've only ever been referred to as Paradox Pokemon, not Legendary Pokemon. I don't know how to use table colors, but I'd switch them back to normal Paradox colors as soon as possible. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

it seems they've been changed a few minutes ago. hold on a second, i'll be reverting that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to bring up that if this treatment is being given to Koraidon and Miraidon, similar treatment should be given to Cosmog, Cosmoem, Sogaleo, Lunala, and Necrozma as they are both legendaries and ultra beasts according to the anime and trading card game. NachoWindham2012 (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

a little iffy on that at the current time

the lore is terrible at deciding what they actually are, but gameplay-wise, the cosmog line are standard pokémon and necrozma is a meanie with a really high catch rate (in usum only). the most concrete thing pointing to either side is the fact that none of them get boosted catch rates with beast balls cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Internally and in most promo, those four are only Legendaries, and most sources corroborate that, so I'd leave it as is. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Did not see the other two comments. Sorry. What do you all think of the edit? If you all still have a problem with it. Would you be okay if there are no colors? I personally like it, but if others have a problem. I'd be fine with that change. Master106 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a fuddy duddy about the colors, I just think that striped colors is a bit much. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel the stripes ironically make the text harder to read. I feel it'd be better to just remove the stripes and leave it with the primary Legendary colors. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

But if we do that then we'd have the same problem s before. Koraidon and Miraidon are not just Legendary Pokemon they are both Legendary and Paradox Pokemon. Like what if this happens again? How do we know which category takes priority. If we don't do stripes, I think we should do away with colors altogether. Master106 (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They have both symbols next to them. I think it's fine enough to indicate their dual status. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Split the main table?

Suggestion: split the main table into two table, one above the other, so that they both fit on the computer screen without needing to scroll horizontally. I recommend splitting it right after Gen V because five tends to be viewed as a natural grouping. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been inevitable for a long time. I think the table still works now, depending on screensize (is there a guideline of table width limits we could refer to?), but it should almost certainly be split in some way once gen 10 happens. I just hope it will look alright... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

how bad of an idea would having one really really long table be?

I don't like the idea of making the page ridiculously long, especially because we shouldn't add any more details to the individual species here. That's what the generation articles are for. I think we should use the width of a computer screen. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would split once gen 10 hits, but doing it after FA revoke would be ok. Toketaa 13:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You think splitting the table in twain will affect the FL-status? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Kinda, maybe not for the gen 1-5 but certainly the 6-9 will not be FL Toketaa 14:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I've been interpreting the word "split" completely differently! I was thinking simply having two separate tables on the same page. This is SilverTiger12's suggestion, after all. I don't think splitting the lists into two separate articles is a good idea at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess you could do it now then. Toketaa 14:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

because considering how painfully long the lists of gen 1 and 5 pokémon are, i don't think it would be very 252+ spa choice specs beads of ruin tera fire helping hand overheat in sun cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this should be done, probably sometime either before or during the next Generation, as otherwise the list will become borderline unreadable as the Generations progress. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Should Pikachu and Eevee Be Indicated As Starters In The Table

I saw that Pikachu and Eevee were removed as starters by some IP awhile ago. So I added them again as starters, but an IP reverted my change. I believe they are starters due to Pikachu being a starter Pokemon in Let's Go Pikachu and in Pokemon Yellow while Eevee is a starter Pokemon in Let's Go Eevee all 3 games are mainline Pokemon video games. I want to see if there is an agreement. Master106 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I found this old source published around the Sun and Moon days which has Pikachu listed as a first partner Pokemon, so Pikachu is a definite. Which one to choose? Revisit first-partner Pokémon from past adventures with our feature news | News | Nintendo

The Let's Go site also seems to list them as such. Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Pokémon: Let's Go, Eevee! | Experience the World of Pokémon (pokemon.com)

I'd support adding them to the list as first partner mons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Pokemon Directory" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pokemon Directory has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17 § Pokemon Directory until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 09:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW/WP:RMEC (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 16:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Pokémon → List of Pokémon species – This is more specific. And consistent as non-species anime and video game characters are also carry parenthetical disambiguator (Pokémon) in their title (eg. Brock (Pokémon)). Web-julio (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Video games/Nintendo, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Pokémon, WikiProject Video games/Video game characters, and WikiProject Video games have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, there's now Lists about Pokémon. Web-julio (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I find the hatnote adequate, and do not believe people go to List of Pokémon mistakenly trying to find List of Pokémon characters or List of Pokémonx video games (as evidenced by the fact that the hatnote is very rarely visited). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, there are no sources to support such a movie. Journals don't publish a "top 10 Pokémon species" or "17 Pokemon species based on real-world mythology" They just talk about Pokémon, full-stop. No primary source has ever described them as "Pokémon species" as far as I'm aware, so that must be pretty rare. I'm not sure if our usage of the word "species" on individual Pokémon articles is even appropriate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose considering this list has been around for over two decades I don’t see potential confusion as an issue.--67.70.103.133 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. They are Pokémon, and the use of the word "species" is borderline WP:OR per Maplestrip. Steel1943 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Pokemon are rarely ever referred to as "species", and the nominator certainly didn't provide proof of that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. — Jɑuмe 04:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose – The word "species" has never been described in the franchise. Svartner (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Just going to point out, the word "species" is indeed used several times by Game Freak and the Pokemon Company in reference to individual pokemon varieties. Pinging all involved editors that commented regarding that point: @User:Maplestrip @User:Steel1943 @User:Zxcvbnm @User:Svartner. I have no take either way on this, but did feel it was a point brewing that needed to be clarified.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

oppose. not "rarely" referred to as "species", but when they are, it's to disambiguate from "games" or whatever else in highly specific contexts where there's a chance of confusion. in every other case, the term "pokémon" by itself unambiguously refers to the species cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: