Template talk:Pokémon

Problems with new template
This new template sucks! It's way way way too big and it's impossible to find anything because there's too much info in it. I think that it should be reverted to the old layout because it's too hard to find what you're looking for when there's tons of links.--67.174.128.249 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mess
The template is a mess, overflowing with links. Wouldn't it be wiser to have a seperate Anime template rather than sharing it with the game series, then merge the Pokemon and Spin-off templates? DancingCyberman (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion here about it. Feel free to revive it if you need to. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New template?
OLD

NEW

Then we could revive Template:Pokemon media with this.

Who thinks we should swich? =D --Blake (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. The current template still needs some cleanup (and I'm not entirely sure that all of the current articles aren't potential merge fodder, but that's just me), but splitting the media stuff back out into a separate navbox is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. See for example Dragon Ball, which lists many more film and VG articles than this one does (and has 80-something soundtrack articles that aren't listed, because most of them will eventually be merged and I didn't feel like bloating the box with so many links to unnotable soundtracks). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The people here say otherwise. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon. They agree and like the way I split it. --Blake (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've commented there as well, and no one yet has addressed my concerns. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Pokemon directory
Template:Pokemon directory has been nominated for merging with Template:Pokémon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon species.
Why is there a links of Pokémon species when there is a navbox already for it. And this navbox isn't even placed in those articles for good navigation. Jhenderson 7 7 7  16:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because species are relevant to the other articles, but other articles aren't relevant to species. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You do realize you can do what you did with the spinoffs. Place the template as the link. And if the species are going to be on the template they must have the navbox on the articles itself. My main problem is the redundancy though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why it happened exactly. I think it was mainly because there used to only be like 5 articles split. Bulbasaur, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Mewtwo, and Mew. Since there weren't many, they were just listed there. When more and more articles got split, the trend stuck, and they kept being added here. If you want, bring up the issue at WT:POKE. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as I am not too much of an interference. It's not too much of a problem I know but I might eventually. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Counterpoint to IP user's reversion of my edit
Whoever the IP user was that said I'm wrong and my points are invalid does not have a valid argument either, especially since all you did was simply disregard my points (which was heavily abridged to fit the edit summary character limit) just so you can keep My Pokémon Ranch on the main console series games list where it doesn't belong. Just because Ranch is compatible with some of the main handheld games for its generation does not make it a console series title; Pokémon Box: Ruby & Sapphire (which is not even in the "Console series" list) was also compatible with the main handheld games (specifically, the main Generation III games on the GBA), but it is not a main series title either. Box was a utility for storing large amounts of Pokémon in PC boxes and for playing Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire on a TV via emulation, but you could not battle Pokémon outside of the emulator (which required someone to plug in a Game Boy Advance with Ruby or Sapphire in it). Granted, Ranch is similar to Box and the main Pokémon console games in that it can connect to a main handheld title (in this case, Diamond, Pearl, or in Japan only, Platinum; all for DS), but it is somewhat different from Box and greatly different other console titles on how it works and plays as a game.

This leads me to my argument about gameplay (and, although admittedly it's not a great way to make video game-related arguments, graphics). The one thing that all the main console games (the Stadium games, Colosseum, XD, and Battle Revolution) have in common is that they all allow players to play a full-fledged Pokémon battle like in the main handheld games, but on a big television screen via a console with fully-animated, well-shaped, semi-realistic, three-dimensional Pokémon models in various grand enviroments, with or without any handheld games connected; not even for a one-time party transfer. Ranch may have Pokémon attacking one another from time to time, and players do get to see their Pokémon on TV via console with sort-of animated 3-D Pokémon models, but there is no real battle system in Ranch at all; players cannot hold a Pokémon battle, players cannot tell Pokémon to use moves against another Pokémon, there are no stats involved, and any "battles" in the game are simply animations that may happen when wandering Pokémon interact with one another in the ranch. The graphics in Ranch are also stylized and toned-down where the Pokémon look like origami sculptures hopping around in a pop-up book-styled, petting zoo with Miis walking around. These low-polygon models (and Mii avatars) are used to save data space for the Wii's low-capacity internal flash drive of 512 MB. (A GameCube disc can go up to 1.4 GB, almost three times that of internal storage for Wii.)

Which leads me to my last argument on media distribution and data content. All the main console games (again, the Stadiums, the GameCube RPGs, and Battle Revolution) were originally released at retail stores at full or near-full prices (around US$40 - US$50) for games that were released for their consoles and they contained tons of data. (For their times; the Stadium games and their now-considered low data sizes could be re-released on Virtual Console, but it wouldn't make sense without a re-release of the main Game Boy games.) The GameCube RPGs used well more data on disc than what the Wii has for available flash storage space. Ranch was designed with the WiiWare service in mind, limitations and all. It was released exclusively on WiiWare for just US$10, well below the original $40s and $50s for the retail titles, and the rigidly strict file size limit for WiiWare is just 40 MB. (It's this size limit that's what prevented downloadable games like Super Meat Boy and the re-release of Sonic CD from being released on Wii.)

So, mysterious IP user. With all these arguments I've made, you should stop insisting that your "main handheld game compatibility" argument is the end-all to any discussion about whether My Pokémon Ranch is a main game or a spin-off game and accept that the game should be in the spin-off games template. (By the way, the Pokémon spin-offs template is found on the My Pokémon Ranch article itself instead of the main Pokémon template!) WPA 04:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting some Pokémon back into their place
I think that now that the honeymoon is over, we should decide which articles actually stand out as notable characters in fiction rather than notable Pokémon. So I'm proposing that we figure out which articles cut the mustard. Here's which ones I think do...


 * 1) MissingNo.
 * 2) Charizard
 * 3) Caterpie, Metapod, and Butterfree (iffy)
 * 4) Pikachu
 * 5) Jigglypuff
 * 6) Meowth
 * 7) Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam
 * 8) Grimer and Muk (iffy)
 * 9) Haunter
 * 10) Drowzee (iffy)
 * 11) Koffing and Weezing
 * 12) Mr. Mime
 * 13) Jynx
 * 14) Magikarp
 * 15) Gyarados (iffy)
 * 16) Lapras (iffy)
 * 17) Aerodactyl (iffy)
 * 18) Zapdos
 * 19) Moltres
 * 20) Mewtwo
 * 21) Mew
 * 22) Togepi
 * 23) Unown
 * 24) Entei (iffy)
 * 25) Lugia
 * 26) Celebi
 * 27) Mudkip (iffy)
 * 28) Latias and Latios
 * 29) Oshawott by itself (iffy)

Any unlisted are not necessarily ones I think should be merged, but I'm just not sure what I think of them at the moment. Any comments on what's up and what isn't? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We could make a table with "/vote" and "comment" parameters to make this a little cleaner. Although, I would propose just boldly(example) merging the weakest ones first. I sort of like the idea of going faster and just saying what should stay, but it doesn't feel right. Some of the middle-ranking articles could get wrongly merged through this way. The weakest ones should be thrown away first and then we can independently argue each article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummm...so I guess this is a failed proposal? Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 01:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a proposal that didn't go anywhere due to lack of effort. It is hard to come up with a good reason to merge these articles that have good sources but "cover it in the wrong way". If you see some that are plainly not notable enough, then feel free to throw a merge proposal on the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposing that redirect games be added to template
Okay, I see people adding the other games that are redirect articles (e.g. Pokémon Emerald) before being reverted, so I've decided to propose it here. I think we should add the other games to these template. Here's why. Its confusing. Although navboxes link valid content pages with each other, people would think that it lists valid Pokemon games. This would just confuse them as it does not state the entire number of games in the Pokémon franchise. Why couldn't it be something like this: Emerald Its clearer and it shows all the games.

Also, there are problems with this template if the games aren't added, but are there any problems if the games are?. I don't see any. Basically: there are no real negative effects with adding the games. ("Clogging the template" isn't really a problem here...) So yeah, just my idea. Cyan  Gardevoir  06:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IP's being confused about policy is no reason to go against it. Templates like this link together articles of interest. I am not sure where or what the policy is that says it, but only articles should be on the template, not redirects to sections of articles. It happens all over the wiki with different subjects, this isn't any different. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, since even if they are only sections within articles, that does not justify excluding them from the template. In fact, it makes it even more confusing that certain main games are excluded, most notably the upcoming Black 2 and White 2.


 * However, I do see that sections should not be included in the template as if they appear as articles, (e.g. Gold, Sliver and Crystal), but rather in a sort of deemphasized form (e.g. Gold and Sliver (Crystal) ) to reduce conflicts over how prominent they should be.


 * So what if templates focusing on other IPs don't properly follow a particular editing style or policy? They're not in dire straits over it. Besides, even if policy says that we "shouldn't" include section links in a template (which you have not proven due to a lack of evidence), doesn't mean we have to strictly follow it. There's always room for exceptions, provided that nothing's been broken, which it shouldn't be anyway whether or not anybody does this. We don't really need to conform to an "articles-only" style for this template. WPA 04:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought it up here. I think it could be acceptable, since more then 80% of the games we want to list are notable, but the other 20% aren't, so it wouldn't be like having the Pokémon directory template list all 649 species when only less then 20% of them are notable(arguably closer to 10%). Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Should the Ranger Series and Mystery Dungeon Series have their own parts in the template?
Well that explains what I'm asking. But anyway they both have more games than the remake section and Mystery Dungeon has more games than the console games section if you include the wiiware games-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 10:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I added them as mentions in the "other" section of the games. Should we expand them to their own sections? I dunno, the template seems kinda bulky as it is, but that's good information to have. I'd say to split it up into a section for the games and another for the other media, with stuff like the species list in both, similar to how did it up above (pinging him to add input if he feels necessary). Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They should not have their own sections in this template, as I believe that would give them too much weight, their place is mainly in Template:Pokémon spin-offs. I feel restructuring this template to have less whitespace would be nice. I may work on doing this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the template is just fine the way it is as if we made them their own templates they'd take up more article space and harder to navigate to the other Pokemon articles and like Blake said it'd give them too much weight. — Mythdon 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pointless split tag
I removed the split tag ("It has been suggested that this page be split into multiple pages accessible from a disambiguation page."), as there is no point in having navboxes as targets of a disambiguation page. This should not be confused with questions of whether to merge or split this template, a different matter entirely. --NSH002 (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Color of the template
What value does this bright and irritating yellow bring? It should violate WP:COLOR, and unless somebody has legit reasons for keeping it, I say we use the default template color. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  06:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the contrast requirements were met but honestly I don't care if we use the default. (Edit: yeah, I tweaked them back in August 2015 ).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if it did, was there a point to it? It was visually ugly and stood out in a bad way. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  12:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Split proposal
The template is already large and surely it will get bigger and bigger. Perhaps we should split it into four templates: one main template containing manga, characters, etc., another one for the anime, another one for films and another one for video games. Thoughts? -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  19:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No support as its fine the way it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow234 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: The game, television, and film groups should be split, with everything else being kept here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the controversy section
The backlash surround Pokemon Sword and Shield should warrant a spot, right? --SansUT (talk &#124; contributions) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger of Pokémon navboxes
In this edit, @DecafPotato merged all four Pokémon navboxes into a single one. In this same talk page there are several discussions regarding the problem with the handling of a single navbox for such a large topic. Even the "Media" subsection is large enough, with the articles being poorly distributed among the subsections (for example, the Music or Songs subsections are gone and the articles on such media are displayed after season articles or so).

The intention of this discussion is to determine whether the Pokémon topic should have this massive single navbox, or to retrieve the previous ones. The previous version had four navboxes: one for general topics including Universe, one for the video games, one for the anime seasons/episodes, and one for the films and shorts.

Thoughts? -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hidden Treasure of Area Zero?
I still think that the upcoming Scarlet/Violet DLC needs an article now that more has been recently revealed, especially the release date for the first part which is September 13. Visokor (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Pokémon Generations with Remakes Involved
I feel like the remakes should be listed with the generation they were created under. ie. Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen under Generation III. Partially because we list it under the proper order ourselves seen here. It is also stated in the game articles Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, and Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl. These definitions are used by USA Today and Bulbapedia. Due to this, I feel as if it will be most useful for navigation that they are listed under their proper generation, as new users could be easily confused if they were trying to look for the remakes, as I was multiple times during this research. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Real world chronology over in universe truth. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Harrison_Wells Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They should be listed under their generation (i.e. FRLG in Gen III) Redjedi23 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the real world FRLG was released during gen 3 therefore its listed under gen Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I support this. Redjedi23 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Characters
Should the characters be moved under the "Media section"? I mean, Ash, Misty, Brock, and the Team Rocket are known mainly because of the anime. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Ash just appeared as a cameo in like one or two spin-off video games of the '90s/early '00s. He shouldn't be in the "Video games" section, because no one would expect to find him in that section while there's a navbox child about the anime. Redjedi23 (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Universe section
@Kung Fu Man: In your revert of my re-addition of a separate "Universe" section in the navbox (characters, Pokémon, locations), you said it was because the "Universe" section was a royal mess. Could you elaborate on that? DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @DecafPotato I apologize, I should have elaborated more. The original structure gave little indication as to what "Generations" meant to the reader, but also had a massive problem where "Gen 1" completely dominates the list. The current structure is designed after the similar template Final Fantasy articles, where the characters are attributed to the games they first appeared in. People can open it, see which species were introduced in which games, and proceed from there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)