Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout

For information regarding the discussions that took place to implement this proposal please review the following links.
 * Project discussions:
 * WT:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 8
 * WT:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 11
 * WT:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 11
 * WT:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 14
 * WT:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15
 * WT:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15
 * Related discussions:
 * Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20)
 * Talk:Pidgey evolutionary line
 * Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20)

Lists of Pokémon
All Pokémon, by default, are at least deserving of a few detailed paragraphs discussing their video game/anime/manga/TCG/other appearances, and the Pokémon in general. The template for inserting information relevant to all Pokémon is Pokeinfobox. The current arrangement is to list Pokémon in groups of 20, e.g. List of Pokémon (1-20). This is admittedly an arbitrary number. It is thought that this size is likely to be the most accessible to the greatest number of people. If it is later discovered that the list pages regularly exceed 32K, different numbers may be used.

Group articles
A group article is to be created whenever any Pokémon has an explicit, noteworthy connection to another Pokémon. The most common of these would be evolutionary connections. When these group articles are created, the Pokémon's entry in the list should be summarized as per WP:SS and pokeinfobox should be replaced with pokeinfoboxsmall. It is important to define what is meant by explicit and noteworthy.


 * Explicit connections
 * An explicit connection is one that has been directly referred to in a reliable source. The most common reliable sources for Pokémon articles are the games/anime/manga themselves.  A non-evolution example would be Zangoose and Seviper.  There happens to exist Pokédex info that directly mentions these species' animosity.  Additionally there has even been an episode devoted to the topic. This relation can even include the fact that they are version specific Pokémon. A bad example would be an article entitled Tauros and Miltank.  There exists no concrete discussion, outside of speculation by fans, that they exist as male/female counterparts.


 * Noteworthy connections
 * An unusual case may occur where a Pokémon has an explicit connection to more than one other Pokémon. Ideally they would be all grouped together under a defining title like Legendary Hoenn Pokémon or Eevee evolutionary line. However in cases like connections between Feebas and Magikarp, the more notable and more explicit connection to their evolutions is preferred. The simple reason is that it is nearly impossible to create an article that defines the subjects properly short of Magikarp & Gyarados and Feebas & Milotic. However, Milotic and Gyarados have no explicit connection and so would be violating the previous guideline. Instances where the different connections are believed to be equal in explictness and notability will be handled on a case by case basis as per discussion and consensus on that instance.

Naming conventions
It is important to agree upon naming conventions in addition to the Wikipedia guidelines. This reduces needless moves and edit wars. It also helps people understand why a change that they thought was helpful ended up being reverted.

Pokémon grouped by evolution
The titles for these types of group articles should be FOO evolutionary line. Where FOO is the name of the first Pokémon by National number (see List of Pokémon for a condensed listing in that order), or if National number ever becomes defunct, FOO is the first Pokémon ever introduced in that evolutionary line. This means that the article which talks about Pichu is found at Pikachu evolutionary line. It is done this way because it prevents page moves that would potentially occur whenever Nintendo introduced a new Pokémon to that evolutionary line. Also, for the sake of explanation, evolutionary is preferred to evolution because it is grammatically better to use an adjective form.

Pokémon grouped by legendary status
While many legendary Pokémon are related in smaller groups (e.g. Moltres, Articuno, and Zapdos), if they are only grouped in this way some Pokémon become stranded (Deoxys) because they do not belong to any other explicit group. Rather than leave a substandard article on its own it is preferred to primarily group all legendaries by region into a Legendary REGION Pokémon article. The minor groups can then be worked on until they are ready to be split off per WP:SS. The new articles would follow the conventions outlined in "other connections".

Pokémon grouped by other connections
Similar to the conventions for evolutionary lines, naming is determined by National number. For example, the article would be named Zangoose and Seviper or Plusle and Minun. Ampersands (&) are to be avoided. In the case that more than two Pokémon need to be listed in the title the preferred convention is Foo, bar, and baz, not Foo and bar and baz.

Section ordering
Like naming conventions, sections should be ordered by National Pokédex number. This means that after the lead, the section on Pikachu should come first in Pikachu evolutionary line, not Pichu because it's the earliest evolution. Besides the similar reasons listed above at Naming conventions, this also aids readers in understanding the "evolution" of the species as a whole, seeing how it was transformed over time by new releases.

In the case of larger group articles (Legendary Johto Pokémon), National number already groups them appropriately so there is no need to worry about keeping Entei near Suicune. In many cases it would be appropriate to create parent sections for smaller, relevant groups. The smaller sections should still follow the guidelines for explicitness and notability and be named following the naming conventions for "Pokémon grouped by other connections."

Raikou, Entei, and Suicune
LEAD

Lugia and Ho-Oh
LEAD

Celebi
All sections that are grouped like this should be able to have a lead. If you are having trouble coming up with a good lead, the perceived connection between the Pokémon may not be satisfying the criteria.

Individual species articles
Ideally, the situation will arise when there is enough verifiable, neutral, and well-written information contained in a section that it can be broken out into its own article per WP:SS. Before doing so, it is best to add a tag so that other editors can be aware and voice any comments or suggestions.

An example of an article that should remain a section would be this example of Pinsir. It adequately discusses the subject without disrupting the rest of the article. It still fits nicely as a section and should not be split out. However, a section that looked like this version of Bulbasaur would be cumbersome to read through in an article that still needs to discuss Ivysaur and Venusaur.