Talk:Pidgey evolutionary line

Why is this page necessary when there are three other seperate pages that are better? This article should be deleted because no other Pokemon chain has had this done to it, and probably never will, because it is unnecessary and can have more information if they are seperate. Oraclelink 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC) As for "no other Pokemon chain has had this done to it", this is a work-in-progress. We're beginning work on it, but we can't do over 200 pages overnight, you see. Precedent generally isn't a good reason to delete things. Feel free to discuss these things in more detail with others at Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) and WT:PCP. – mcy1008  ( talk ) 20:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that we don't have enough references and information for each and every one of the species articles for them all to have their own pages. Merging them together allows us to keep the good stuff (description about the fictional characters) while not going into game guide territory or stuff that only players of the series care about, such as "Pidgey is found on Route 1, Route 2, Viridian Forest, [blah blah blah]". If there's a lot of information (like Pikachu) that grows too large for the article, the section'll be split into its own article per WP:SS, but otherwise, they'll be merged as minor parts of a slightly more notable whole, per WP:FICT.
 * This is pretty much the result of some roller-coaster discussions over at WP:PCP that had been going on for nearly the past half year now, and it was about the lack of notability of Pokemon for them to each get their own page on Wikipedia. Seen here and below in its subsections, here, here, and here and below in its subsections, various editors piped up about how most species articles couldn't stand up to scrutiny as Wikipedia articles because they rely on game-guide and are sourced to fansites, both which are in violation to Wikipedia's content policies, and it became apparent to a lot of us that what we needed is a major tone-down of the number of Pokemon species articles on Wikipedia. Various administrators, in addition to A Man In Black before he left were admins like Amarkov and Hbdragon88, agreed with other users such as myself that each and every one of the 493 species articles, with notable excaptions like Pikachu, should be mega-merged to promote better coverage of Pokemon species on this encyclopedia, so that's pretty much what's happening here.


 * Basically, here is the merge-plan for the species that has had the most consensus behind it, and it basically states to merge the Pokemon by evo-line, and the left-over non-evolving Pokemon will be covered in detail on a series of list pages starting with List of Pokémon (1-20). This Pidgey page here is simply the first merged-by-evo-line page that was slapped together to start the merge effort off, and obviously it'll take a lot more work before this page can be considered complete enough to serve as a model for all the other merged pages to follow. But ideally in the future, most of the 493 species articles will be redirects to either merged evo-line pages or sections of List of Pokemon pages, so that the Pokemon can be presented in a way that can appeal to more Wikipedia's general demographic of readers that may not necessarily be Pokemon fans. The merge project of the species pages is only going slow right now because we know it'll be a huge amount of work, and a lot of users probably don't have all that much time to implement the merge quickly. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 20:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

what else to include???
ok... well what about TCG scans and anime images? oddly enough, there are no anime images (i may add the one of Pikachu riding on Pidgeotto when they were going to fight the giant Tentcruel), but each article has a TCG scan. Are we going to ultimately trash all the TCG images? I think it is important to depict the characters in formats outside of the typical anime/video game medium. But then again it seems kind of silly to only be including list type info. But is list information really all that bad (like here)? We should definitely be mentioning all medium that a character has appeared in, and we do that in the lead. but merely saying Pidgey is in the TCG seems to be falling short of obligations to at least give them a taste of how Pidgey is protrayed in the TCG. any other thoughts? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should only visually depict a species' card if that species is particularly outstanding among cards, examples being Ampharos being the first Stage-2 Electric card in existence, Jumpluff's attacks never require more than 1 Grass-type energy, and of course Charizard. Perhaps each merged evo page should have one of its species have a picture of a card on it. For anime shots, they may be needed in pretty much all the specie sections anyway. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hm... but aren't the Jumpluff and Charizard examples kind of subjective choices? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe... If that's going to be an issue, then we would need more opinions about that in order to decide. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
Why don't we just do this evolutionary line merging (and make sure you keep where their names come from in them, because some aren't so obvious, and you'd be surprised who actually cares about it) and leave the single guys on their own pages in case of added future evolutions/pre-evolutions. That way, we wouldn't have a huge amount of unnecessary lists of 20 Pokemon when the main articles are already in the evolutionary lines. We could also make a list of Pokemon with no Pre-evolutions/evolutions to make it easier to find those. And Legendaries probably should be grouped by generation. Oraclelink 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the concept first proposed by, and at this point it is starting to sound like a viable alternative, if a lot of users oppose the idea of the 25 descriptive list pages to back these evo-line pages up. We'll just have to wait and see... Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, because I don't like the sound of those back up lists. Oraclelink 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * glad you think grouping legendaries by generation is a good idea :D However i'd still like to try and sell you on the lists housing the no-evolution/no-connection pokemon like Ditto and Pinsir.  The thing is that if we decided to group all those pokemon together with fair-sized sections the page would be too large for dial-up users and browsers that can only support 32-75 kb when editing (dial-up users are the main concern). Even if we split them up by generation we have a bunch of group articles whose subjects really have nothing in common. Ditto has nothing to do with Pinsir, and neither of them have anything to do with Aerodactyl.  It would make more sense to put Aeroy in with Kabuto's and Omanyte's line. Plus we end up getting screwed if nintendo ever left one unevolved pokemon in a generation. we should take the steps now to future proof the articles in every conceivable way. Take a look at a guideline work in progress and an example of Pinsir in a section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)