Talk:Pokémon ability

Untitled

Pokemon ability is rather an attribute like Pokemon stats and types, instead of real "ability" like its moves. Frosty 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actual effects

Should the actual effects of a Pokémon ability be shown, instead of what's seen in the game? I happen to have the guide, which shows other effects of abilities as well... Nsider 15:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks Messy

I think that listing what Pokémon have what abilities makes the article looks a bit messy and cumbersome to navigate through. Does anyone have any ideas about what can be done to simplify the list or otherwise neaten things up a bit? --Brandon Dilbeck 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are types of pokemon, maybe it could say "Common amoung electric pokemon" instead of listing all of them. Kappa 04:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, and it would generalize the article a bit more. Some people are a bit sour about the big lists. The problem is that for some of the abilities, such as Inner Focus or Oblivious, it might be hard to put all the Pokémon into one category. In any case, since I posted that first complaint about it being messy, the article's been cleaned up quite a bit. See this edit. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Emerald Version secondary effects

What about the secondary field effects that were introduced in Emerald version? I have already included them, but i'm just wondering whether anyone agrees in putting them up. If the initial ability effects are there, wouldn't it make sense to add the secondary effects as well? 0-172 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

References

In the references section, why wasn't the Nintendo Power Emerald version guide include as a resource? I used that guide to input the secondary effects. 0-172 15:27, 25 August (UTC)

Then you should add it! You should be able to just follow the formatting of the other book in the References section. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization proposal

It seems that many people don't seem to like how every Pokemon is listed in the article. What if, instead of listing the Pokemon here, we add each of those Pokemon articles to categories. For example, Bulbasaur article would be added to a Growth category, and the Manectric article could be added to both the Lightningrod and Static categories. That way, it would be possible to group those Pokemon together that way. It would be a real pain to do, but it may be worth it in the end. From this article, we could maybe link to each of those categories, too. It would certainly clean up the article, and seems just as appropriate as categorizing Pokemon by type. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and would put the Catagories into a Deletion review, personally. There is no reason for it. The articles on the characters are enough. There is no need to catagorize them or even have a 'list' like this. Remove the list, leave the top paragraph but reference the hell out of it. Why do we need a list when it is easy enough for people to look directly at each characters' page and/or get a free game guide/FAQ online? --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And in some cases (Groudon, Kyogre) they're the only ones with that ability. Plus DP is coming out in Japan next month and Serebii will go wild. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 16:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The top paragraph already has references--four have been added since the VfD argument began. And like you say, the new Diamond and Pearl games are coming out next month, so there will be more new Pokémon to add to these categories. And the difficulty with forcing readers who want to find a Pokémon ability to look at each individual's Pokémon's page is that readers will actually have to browse through every Pokémon article to find the exact ability they're looking for. We don't want readers to have to hunt through every page to find information. The reason for the categories would be to replace the ugly list while still maintaining a way to organize the Pokémon by their abilites. It would get out of people's way--links to categories are small and neatly tucked away at the bottom of an article, and you only have to read the category's items if you want by clicking on the category's link. And the Pokémon articles are categorized by type, and nobody seems to have complained about any of those yet. Pokémon abilities are an important game aspect like Pokémon types. I just wanted to see what others had to say about this idea--I wasn't just about to make these categories yet. --Brandon Dilbeck 16:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, I see. This seems a tad impractical, and for those abilities that apply to only one Pokémon, it'd be especially impractical.

New Ability Mistake

I have noticed that Frivolous and Meticulous have been listed as abilities, but that is a mistake. They are new natures, not new abilities. Aldo, theres nothing in the name to suggest an ability 0-172 17:30, 31 August (UTC)

List of abilities isn't appropriate for article

When the article was nominated for deletion, the list of abilities was removed from the page because it was deemed too Crufty, that the list made the article a game guide, which isn't allowed. So sorry about having to remove the list, but making it a table was a clever idea. I wish I had thought of that when I was cleaning the article in the past. --Brandon Dilbeck 06:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)