Talk:List of generation I Pokémon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MissingNo[edit]

The description of MissingNo says this: "An error handler species, "Missing Number" was created to handle attempts at accessing nonexistent Pokémon species". I don't think MissingNo was created to prevent the game from crashing, but is simply rather just the game reading garbage data and producing something based on that (garbage in garbage out). Do the sources actually say that MissingNo was specifically created to handle attempts at accessing Pokemon #152+ or do they just say that it's a glitch? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is MissingNo included? It isn't an intended pokémon, doesn't appear in the National Dex, and the only reason for inclusion in the game is because many pokémon IDs happen to line up with Dex ID #0, with the Dex ID determining the type, name, and sprite of the pokémon. If its inclusion as a glitch pokémon is important, then what about all the other glitch pokémon in the game? If it's simply because of fame, then why would a non-real, unintended pokémon be on the normal, intended pokémon list, and not simply a note at the bottom?
Billnyethefrenchfry (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree that it shouldn't be part of the main table, but rather a short section at the bottom. Perhaps a direct copy of what I wrote at List of Pokémon#Glitch species would be appropriate. I do think it's an appropriate inclusion in this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it also has a featured article
so it kinda has the notability required to get shoved here cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it shouldn't be in the list, at the least seperate it from the 151 in a list below maybe, as it was never officially recognized and wasn't meant to exist in the first place ( because it's a glitch after all). MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, in the games, missingno. as far as I can remember, can evolve into Kangaskhan, which is not mentioned as it is stated to just not evolve MystiiFlareon2 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's 'm, not missingno
'm can also evolve into clefairy cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would approve of splitting MissingNo. onto a separate section. Personally I would also like to note the existence of 104 other glitch species, which would be even more appropriate in this list than in List of Pokémon#Glitch species (I would use that section as a model). However, I do like the current setup as well and have no strong opinions whatsoever. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: I don't think mentioning the other 104 glitch species is plausible as I highly doubt there are many reliable sources for them, especially since MissingNo is the most well known out of all of them. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
time for the piping hot political take of the century
missingno being in this list is completely fine, because it's more notable than most of the generation's actual pokémon, and even has the aforementioned featured article
the other glitch pokémon, pretty much inherently living in missingno's shadow, don't really have much of a chance unless the rby glitch hunting scene somehow gets a sudden boost in news coverage
even if that were to happen, i think only 'm and 8f could maybe probably have a chance at start class articles, and even then 8f is an item cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 13:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: I'm definitely not suggesting listing them one after the other, haha. Just to mimick what we got on List of Pokémon: a line that says there are 105 of them in total. A description of 'M would be cool, but yeah, sadly I have not been able to track down a source on it... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: Is there a reliable source that states this? Yes it's not a good idea to list all of them one after the other, however are there any sources besides Bulbapedia that state that there are 105 glitch pokemon in total? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 14:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you've looked at the section I'm referencing, you might've seen the 2017 Kotaku article cited there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of maybe mentioning that the games had multiple glitches, I don't feel any other than MissingNo. are worth noting.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cn tags[edit]

per this revision where i rant like a maniac, i decided to look for sources. here's what i found from going around google and bulbapedia

  • "male nidoran was the third pokémon designed for gen 1, after rhydon and kangashkan": no sources found. bulbapedia didn't have anything on it, and this interview mentioning that rhydon and nidoking (not male nidoran) being some of the first pokémon designed didn't mention anything about nidoran or kangaskhan. maybe add this to nidoking's section?

i'm not using roman numerals, ew

  • "zubat meme funny": no sources found. the meme is dead anyway, because it was spread between zubat, woobat, and noibat, and also because gf has been somewhat stingier with its caves. i suggest replacing it with actual info on zubat
  • "poliwag is satoshi's favorite pokémon": no sources found, though it's a thing i know to have been true at some point. bulbapedia had this interview (archived because the original link was marked as not secure, and i am NOT touching those), which doesn't actually mention poliwag or whatever pokémon satoshi considers to be his favorite at all. am i misreading something?
  • "victreebel was the last pokémon designed for gen 1": no sources found, and it's not something i remember ever hearing ever, so i can't verify it. no info on it as a pokémon either, what's that about?
  • "muk is based on the dorotabō": i mean... yeah. not sure why that cn tag was there. it's gone now lmao lol
  • "hypno inspired creepypastas": sources found. of fucking course sources were found. three of them, in fact. this would be an article in the making... if the sources weren't bad, the fact that the ones i found were mostly in portuguese doesn't matter aside from how much i hate the language, so i'll add them anyway, and why i think they're doodoo
  • "tangela was going to get an evolution in gen 2": sources found h*ck yeah
  • "kangaskhan was the second pokémon designed for gen 1": same case as male nidoran
  • "pinsir was going to get an evolution, which was probably reworked into heracross": one hopefully presentable source found, also in portuguese. look at it here, wow. it mentions exactly what the cn tag asks for
  • "gyarados was originally supposed to be named 'skullkraken, bloodslayer of deathbrimstone'": i found two sources, this is the more noteworthy one, but only mentions it in passing. this one only has a small section on that so it's probably even less usable as a source, and gets the gba's name wrong
  • "people speculate that ditto and mew might be related because they share that one move": ignoring how this logic would imply that blaziken and chimchar are related because they both get double kick and blaze kick, the only source that seems to mention that is paywalled, so i can't read it. if someone can help me read this, i would appreciate it
  • It's a Screenrant article, but a pretty in-depth one. I'm familiar with the fan-theory, it's a very old one. Whether it's worth including, I don't know. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto's take care of, condensed it down with sources from the standalone article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i found a literal single result, in vuvuzelan, that mentions gyarados' previous name (skulkraken is actually a neat way to go around the 10 character limit tbh) and design, even if it only mentions those traits in passing and doesn't even show an image to support the claim not being made up. does it work? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better citation from IGN. There's a Poster on Bulbapedia that also shows it was "Skullkra". I'll be honest though, a lot of Pokemon had beta names in localization, and I feel like this is just one of many. Even in the earliest design docs for Capsule Monsters, when its design was radically different, it was Gyarados.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think that ign article would not work for gyarados, since it only has one line dedicated to the old name
as for the poster and the article it's in, they're probably good enough proof that those early names were a thing and that someone thought "aquamar" was a passable name, but they can't be used because one is a promotional poster for a thing that was still in the process of being made, and one is a wiki
as is, unless an outlet decides to discuss those beta names in detail, they're probably best left out of this list for now cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would appreciate help with seeing if the handful of sources i found are usable, and if the claims they would or wouldn't support are even needed here cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to evolutions/baby versions of gen 1 Pokémon that were designed but cut, the sources in this deleted article might be of use: [1]. Great work cleaning this list up, the misinformation is a mess. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that looks usable
i'll see what i can do in the weekend, because the pc i use during weekdays can't handle editing this specific list for more than a few seconds
thanks cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 12:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion, but for articles with standalones we can condense them down to fewer details similar to other lists. The spinout can give further information on them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey wait a minute[edit]

what variation of english should this article be in? i assumed bri'ish and changed it to that because there were some englandian words here and there, but there might have actually been more murican ones

should it be kept british as it currently is, or impose my bias assume it's more notable in america and change it to burger english? cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 12:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has put any particular thought in it here. It's probably fine to just pick one now and stick with it, as part of the editing process. Possibly good if all of these lists are using the same spelling rules though? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'll have to check the other lists then. if they're mostly inconsistent or american, i'll go with american english on all of them. with the predictable exceptions of gens 5 and 8, that is cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 12:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, Pokémon games set in Britain-esque land... I guess inconsistency in spelling rules between lists is fine. Personally I would recommend to do what is easiest, but I don't have a ball in this game at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Horsea, Seadra, Kingra" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Horsea, Seadra, Kingra 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Horsea, Seadra, Kingra until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snorlax Merge Discussion[edit]

Snorlax recently survived an AfD, per sourcing that showed notability, but I'm not seeing much showing Snorlax really being capable of having a standalone article. The bulk of sources I can find are promotion, and though some of it is interesting, most barely holds weight. The sources that do discuss it also don't particularly say much of substance, either. Snorlax is a clearly well-known subject, but there's nothing being said about this character that can't easily be summarized in the list right now. The article doesn't really have a clear focus, and trust me, as someone who just added what I could to the article, it's impossible to gain one with the stuff that exists out there. All that needs to be merged is a tidbit on Nishino's influence on the design, some promotion bits, and a couple of Reception sources, and it can be easily covered here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I love Snorlax as a design...but yeah what's here is next to nothing on discussion sadly. It doesn't work in the "death by 1000 cuts" approach because there's not enough discussion to support that end. Snorlax is iconic...but not talked about.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. Nothing about the AfD result mentioned that it was keep conditional to a merge, just keep period, end of story. As far as I'm concerned, further discussion is a nonstarter until a significantly later date. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, the AfD was in August of last year, 8 months ago by me, not the person opening the merge discussion. AfD's are also not a safeguard against a discussion after sources have been more closely scrutinized. Given Pokelego999 has gone through some extensive effort to improve the quality of the Pokemon articles as of late, I feel their opinion and discussion both have merit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: This is an extremely bad faith and baseless accusation against the nominator. Are you claiming that a user who !voted keep in the Snorlax AfD is trying to do an end run around consensus? It seems to me like a user who had a change of heart, as you did with Lapras from one AfD to the next. This is also clearly not a "speedy close" rationale. What guideline or policy suggests eight months is an insufficient amount of time to open a new discussion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how it's "extremely bad faith" to cite the literal result of an AfD and that this discussion runs in the face of the consensus reached in the AfD. And to be clear bringing up Lapras is both baseless and a mischaracterization of what I did, I clearly had a weak keep the first time around, changed from outright redirect, and was not shouting from the rooftops that it should be kept.
    A user who wanted to keep the article can certainly change their mind and try to go against consensus. That isn't unprecedented at all, but it is still ignoring consensus. They are not the only person who participated in the discussion, it's not up to their whim to try to overrule it. Otherwise it becomes shopping for the right people to get the desired outcome. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As pointed out, you're assuming some really bad faith here, and you're doing it again. Please, stop. If this was directly after I could see an argument, but this is over half a year later. Surely if you feel the consensus is so absolute, it should survive a discussion after closer scrutiny, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because accusing a user of trying to do an end run around consensus with literally zero basis for doing so is a bad-faith action. You shouldn't need to have this explained to you. "It runs in the face of the consensus" what is the relevance of this to claiming that the user is trying to shop around for a better consensus or do an "end run"? I also brought up Pokelego's !vote in the Snorlax AfD because !voting Keep is evidence against your baseless claim.
    As far as this goes, opening a second discussion is not trying to overrule consensus. I know you must have read WP:CCC, so why are you ignoring it? The consensus policy says nothing about waiting a certain amount of time. Sure, if there was reasonable evidence that Pokelego was shopping for an ideal consensus, you could raise that point, but without basis, it's just a bad-faith accusation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If "over half a year" is an incredibly long time to you to attempt to delete an article a second time, then I guess we both have different definitions of long. But since you are dead set on making me repent from this so-called accusation, then I will simply say Keep - the notability of the article has not changed at all since the AfD - and leave it at that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, if you can't participate in discussions without making nonsensical bad-faith accusations against other users, that's your problem, not mine. It's also wild to see you reframe what you said as a "so-called accusation." This is blatantly trying to do an end run around the settled consensus. This is unambiguously accusing another user of unacceptable editing practices, and it's honestly incredible that you think people don't recognize this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I change my mind on things by just sleeping on it till the next day. If we're talking about me from over half a year, I am just a completely different person in my own perception of things. People and opinions can change on a short term basis. That's just human nature. CaptainGalaxy 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate not making accusations like that. In any case, per above comments from other editors, it has been quite a bit since the last AfD (Eight months? Time really flies) and there's nothing about time limits for mergers after AfDs. AfDs also do not need to close as "keep with no prejudice to merge" or something similar for a merger to happen. Many articles in the past have been merged following AfDs, often times because it's the best way to properly cover the information presented.
In any case, I nominate this as someone who has been trying to improve the state of the Pokémon character articles as of late. I personally see it best as being covered by a merger, per the reasons in my nomination, and I opened a discussion to determine consensus as a result. There's nothing there about me attempting to "overturn consensus" or something similar. If I BLAR'd it or something I could see an argument, but this is an open discussion for anyone to talk in. You're free to disagree with the above proposition, but I'd appreciate not making hasty, bad-faith assumptions about my rationales for opening it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. "Consensus can change" is one of the basics. As is holding a merge discussion on an article talk page. I'm indifferent on merging, but the assertion that it's wrong to even discuss it is absurd. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is next to nothing to talk about Snorlax outside of Pokémon topic aside from being "sleepy-head but cute" comments. Even in Pokémon topic, it's only notable for being a path-blocker and as the mascot for recently Pokémon Sleep. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge This article has so much sourced information, it's unquestionably notable as proved at the AfD. How can you say there's nothing to say about Snorlax, the article is full of information, there's no way it could all be summarized in a list. There have even been scientific papers written about it! PseudoGhost97 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's notable means it warrants a standalone page. The information in this article is more than coverable at the target article, as when random bits of fluff are removed, it basically boils down to "Snorlax was highly promoted and Snorlax is pretty popular." The two sciency bits can likely get some extra room, but it shouldn't be an issue to merge it. If you would like, I can create a version of Snorlax's section of the list with the merged information in order to better convey what I'm saying. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make a comment about process, and I'm neutral on the merge outcome. Consensus can change, and I see this discussion started in good faith by a different editor. (I might feel differently if the same editor kept pushing the same discussion over and over.) This article might be borderline as far as WP:NOPAGE, but I have no opinion on the actual merger discussion for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon&oldid=1220781817"