Talk:Porygon evolutionary line

Un-Merge?

This page is not neaed Anubiz 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. See Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 14#Is there any reason why all Pokemon are necessarily notable?, Talk: List of Pokémon (1-20) and Talk:Pidgey evolutionary line.

The Pidgey evolutionary line does not transcend generations, this one does. So we should not have it. Anubiz 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of reasoning is that? You Can't See Me! 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I got it, consolidate all 493 articles into one master article. Would that make you all happy. Anubiz 12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen. The point is to merge related articles (this is about the evo-line merging which relates to this article) so the information can be presented more efficiently. It's almost like if there were two articles on hands: one on the left hand and one on the right hand. Obviously, they're different, and the right hand is most often used (like 8/9 of the time) as a person's primary... hand. So they're different. Why should they be discussed in the same article? Because they're related and much of the information could be best presented as common characteristics between the two, while any differences can also be discussed. – mcy1008 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that right haned people are better? Aneyway I find these articals ofancve. Puting less polure Pokémon in one article like a mass grave. Now you have Alakazam in one. Anubiz 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The popularity of each Pokémon is not under consideration. The primary factor of whether a Pokémon should get its own article is whether that Pokémon has enough reliable sources which can be cited in order to maintain a verifiable article; a side effect of this is that these Pokémon need to be notable outside of the fanbase, since non-notable things generally don't have very many reliable sources. – mcy1008 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pokénatzi they all have sources. Anubiz 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia. – mcy1008 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thay have Bulbapedia, and Serbeill.net Anubiz 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bulbapedia is not a reliable source because it is a wiki (Tell me: Do you know many people in real life who would consider Wikipedia's word to be final on all matters?). Serebii.net is not a reliable source because it lacks transparency and is basically put together and run by a single person with no process for editorial review. – mcy1008 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then way are the good enough for more poulere Pokémon like Snorlax, but not Porygon? Anubiz 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you followed the provided links, you'd find out that Snorlax, as well as everything other than Pikachu and Mewtwo, will get their own merges as well. You Can't See Me! 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Pleeeaaassee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This might be a little late to do this but the thing I valused most on Wikipedia was its seperate articles for Pokemon!! Please split it, if you don't I probably won't come here any more. After what you did to Digimon, the thing in my life I did never eever ever ever ever want to happen were Pokemon being merged. This is like my worst nightmare. Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 Coby 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuntely there is just too much that is hard to source, or is unsourcable. We would keep it if it was so easy to source without fansites, but it isn't, unfortuntely. We can't have an entire article that says "That pokémon has that one particular place in the games, and that one particular anime appearance. The end." that's not how the things work around here. That's why we had to merge. TheBlazikenMaster 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What I don't get is that apparently this is because the original pages didn't have enough sources, yet this page has none whatsoever. - C.Olimar788 05:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They did have enough sources, but fansites can't be reliable sources. Because fansites are made by fans, and the owners of the sites can put any kind of bullshit they want, that's the reason why Wikipedia doesn't accept fansites. TheBlazikenMaster 15:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find this much harder to get information.

And for all who say Serebii isn't "reliable enough as it is a fansite", it hasn't been wrong before in the past. I think it's safe to assume that if it becomes apparent that he made a mistake, we can fix it. It's not like we have a shortage of hands on here. :D

- Anonymous Contributor

What are you talking about? Of course it has been wrong sometime or another, I remember when I got wrong info from there. It's not true that Serebii.net has never been wrong. It has been wrong before in the past, so you're wrong. TheBlazikenMaster 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Who votes wee reconfigure this page back into three seperate ones? Ultim87 02:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually like it much better like this - pokemon of different evolutionary levels are essentially the same thing at different growth states, and since these are so intimately related (unlike Digimon or something like that, were any number of things can evolve into any number of other things). Basically - wouldn't it make sense for kittens, cats, and old cats to be discussed in the same article?KrytenKoro 03:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Siplh Co. didn't make Dubious Disk

If you look at the Item description in Pokémon Diamond/Pearl, it says "A transparent disc filled with dubious data. The creator is unknown" - so Silph Co. may not have created Porygon-Z. So the line that says "Silph Co. seem to have fixed this by the next generation" is incorrect and therefore should be removed. 84.13.120.104 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Mojanboss