Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon by stage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SOMEWHAT SPEEDY KEEP (without prejudice against merging). We may not need a half-dozen lists, but it seems the best plan may be to merge or to resubmit a single problematic list for individual review. Nothing's getting deleted here, that much is obvious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by stage

Very crufty. I'm fine with having one list of Pokemon, but do we really need six? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also nominating:

List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number
List of Pokémon by Johto Pokédex number
List of Pokémon by Hoenn Pokédex number
List of Pokémon by Shin'ou Pokédex number

In fact, the only major difference between most of these lists is that the pokemon are organized differently. --TBCTaLk?!? 09:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some or reorganize, the articles themselves are worthwhile, I think we should merge all of them Pokédex ones, to list each Pokémon and all their dex numbers into one, while List of Pokémon by stage to kept as it is, since it's the only thing that shows all the evolutionary lines of the Pokémon, something none of the other articles do. H ig hway ^Daytrippers 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - lots of redundant information here. MER-C 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be the table from hell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AMIB, merging sounds unreasonable as it would make the merged list really, really large. Deletion seems to be a better option.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mu. These are terrible "articles," but I don't know what, if anything, to do with them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mu? Please clarify.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means...mu. I don't know what, if anything to do to clean up this mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL - Plau 10:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pokemon by stage, ~~each one is a list that shows the pokemon in each pokedex. Some aren't on certain lists. At least, Definitly keep National pokedex number, it's a flagship list for sure.~~ Merge Pokedex numbers together as suggested.--A c1983fan^{(yell at me)} 11:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Partly) - The National Dex one has to stay, even if its the only one that does. But personally I feel List of Pokemon by stage should stay, it is different enough. As it clearly shows pokemon evolutions all on the same page. National dex order, with the new evolutions of old pokemon, wouldn't do this. But the other three could probably go. They are just technically repeating, even though they have different pokemon/numbers. Gran2 14:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the articles exist, I see nothing wrong with having multiple lists to organise them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But six lists?--TBCΦtalk? 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to cover the several Pokedexes, as it's perfectly reasonable to assume that users could look articles up using any of them. I can't see a convenient way to merge them into one big list, either. As long as it's reasonable that people are using these to find the information they're looking for, I see no reason not to keep them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we have to organize the pokemon in so many different ways? Why can't we just have one list and one method of organization, instead of six different articles that deal with basically the same content?--TBCΦtalk? 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Wikipedia's fault there are several Pokedexes. The reason the "regional" Poxedexes exist is since the collection mechanic is integral to the games, but not every Pokemon will fit in every game (especially the original Game Boy ones). By having regional Pokedexes, gamers can feel like they "caught them all" even though they only collected the ones in their particular game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Also, I count 4 lists there, not 6. JQF 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are five nominated, but I decided to exclude List of Pokémon by name, since at least one list should be kept.--TBCΦtalk? 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. As noted on its talk page, I'm against the idea of using the card game's terminology on the page. The page itself I'm fine with. --HeroicJay 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aly333 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The different classifications are useful. For example, if someone is only interested in the first generation, there will be no mention of Munchlax or Smoochum and so on. The one by stage is useful too. And by name is quite useful as well, because people are more likely to know the names rather than the numbers. The ones by individual pokedex could be put on the same page. Michaelritchie200 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I think something some people don't realize is that these aren't just the same lists with all the Pokémon rearranged. The lists contain different sets of Pokémon that can only reasonably be sorted into separate lists. Also, we wouldn't want to merge these lists because then somebody would come along saying that the page is too big and full of unattractive lists. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They regional number lists do have the same content. The only difference is that each have different ways of numbering the pokemon.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, some of the lists have species of Pokémon that others don't. The issue with merging them all into one list is that you can't choose to view Pokémon from only one set. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (partly): I suggest we should keep the Names and National list, and then simply include columns for the regional numbers. For example, Zubat's would look like this:

№	EN Name	JP Name	Romanization	Trademarked Rōmaji	Johto №	Hoenn №	Shinou №
041	Zubat	ズバット	Zubatto	Zubat	37	63	28

The by Stage list is being discussed on its talk page as not making a whole lot of sense due to lack of sources. DanPMK 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal on merging the lists, though perhaps the Names and National lists could be merged into the table as well.--TBCΦtalk? 21:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the numerical lists along the lines proposed by DanPMK above. The numerous lists are cumbersome, and, since not all pokemon appear on all lists, having multiple lists actually makes things harder to use: those unfamiliar with the series will assume that each list contains all pokemon, and will consequently be confused when they find a given species missing from a list.
Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia aimed at non-specialists, not a specialist reference work aimed at pokemon experts! We should present things in the format that is most generally useful, and in this case I believe that will involve consolidating the information so that people need only look in one place to get all the details. — Haeleth Talk 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The Hybrid 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Haeleth. -Jeske (SHOUT!) 00:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sort of pointless to merge them like DanPMK proposed. The number of N/As or blank spaces would look pretty messy. I would say to delete all of them except for national because people can just look at the sigle pages or just keep all of them. Nemu 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Wikipedian06 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all.
The first one is the very basis of the entire numbering system.
The second through fourth are regional Pokedexes.
The name list needs to be kept, as if that goes, then PCP falls apart.
The stage one is related to evolutions.
Half of them relate to a PKMN game that has just been released, Diamond and Pearl.
Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The previous comment is exactly what I was going to say. -Saturn Yoshi ^{THE VOICES} 01:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per everyone else.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DanPMK. Joiz. A. Shmo 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per all others Michaelritchie200 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pokedex articles (national/johto/hoenn, shinou), delete the others. --Philo 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are all needed. They can't be merged as they are too long. Aslo they are not the same list they are the lists based on each generation. National is the only one that is compleate becuse it is the only one that has them all. NOTHING SHOULD CHANGE!!! (Translation KEEP!) Also, unless you are very versed on pokemon (AKA played more than one game) You should not be voteing as you don't know what you are talking about Lego3400: The Sage of Time 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stage article, Merge Number and Name articles per DanPMK; I would suggest merging them into an article with a title like "List of Pokémon by number" or into the National article. Also, I would like to comment that I was the one who separated these lists in the first place. The reason was that with all these lists - listed seperately, mind you, with a section for National and a section for Jhoto and so forth - made a gigantic and rather cumbersome article. Putting everything on a table and arranging them by either National number or alphabetically would solve that problem rather nicely. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addemendum: In my haste to explain myself, I forgot my rationale for keeping the Stage list. Well, while the various number lists just present the Pokemon reordered by whatever strange whims the designers had in the different generations (and Jhoto doesn't even have numbers, per se), Stage presents an entirely different set of information, and personally I like seeing the different evolutionary families arranged in an easy-to-see manner. I wouldn't be crushed if the final decision was to add a 'Stage' column to DanPMK's table, but I'd prefer the Stage list to stand on its own. --Sparky Lurkdragon 10:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible merge, if not completely Delete I urge the closing administrator to seriously take into account WP:NOT and enact measures to merge of this stuff into one, or at most, two lists hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are six different ways to organise Pokémon into a list; six different lists is precisely the right way to do that until such time when technical measures make it possible to dynamically generate lists of this nature by way of metadata. I too strongly encourage the closing adminstrator to take into account WP:NOT, specifically noting how not one person has demonstrated in any reasonable way how these lists are anything but beneficial.--SB | T 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lists on any subject can be organized in hundreds of different ways, but that doesn't mean we should have hundreds of seperate lists because of it. After all, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DanPMK. This person's got the right idea. The pokemon would come, most importantly, in National Dex number, while still keeping their other dex numbers. Alphabetical order is completely useless; that was the one that should have been nominated, not National Dex order. The only list left is the by stage. That can be merged onto the Pokémon evolution page, possibly. It can replace the external links on that page (both of which are already obsolete). It is, after all, a chart relating directly to Pokémon evolution. You Can't See Me! 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on what I wrote, it doesn't seem very clear. What I mean is to merge the Dex-ordered articles together in DanPMK's neat little table, merge the Stage list with Pokémon evolution, and delete the Names list altogether, even though List of Pokémon by name was not nominated for deletion (I still don't see why National Dex, the most commonly used pokemon order, was nominated, but not alphabetical order, which is rarely used with pokemon). Hopefully that was less vague. You Can't See Me! 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: I didn't mean to strikethrough that... You Can't See Me! 05:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress on the table: Johto and Hoenn numbers done: User:DanPMK/dex DanPMK 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't seem that useful. It seems much too jumbled and the numbers by themselves are pretty pointless. I think it would just be better to leave the other numbers out of the National Dex, and just delete the other Dex pages. If someone wants a number, they can just look at the single Pokémon articles.Nemu 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can still be useful. Just because it will end up ordered only one way doesn't mean that one should ignore the other ways it can be ordered. You Can't See Me! 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it'll just cause clutter to me. Take a look at DanPMK's test page. It looks really squished and untidy. If the other pages are deleted, the information just ends up being pointless. If we're going to keep the numbers, we might as well add the types or something.

Indeed, it looks rather clumsy and confusing. The internal Hoenn numbers are there so there won't be blank spaces, but if we add Shinou numbers, there WILL be blanks, since it doesn't have internal Shinou numbers past 151. Adding the types would mean we would have to keep the page one vertical column, or else it would be too wide. This would make it far too long. As of now, the page is very large. DanPMK 06:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adding the types comment was to show how pointless the numbers are. Alone, they really aren't that important, so if we're going to remove those lists, I think the numbers should just be on the single pages. And just think how ugly it'll look with all of the blank spaces. Nemu 10:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, failing that, Keep. Listing Pokémon in order they're listed in various games is a reasonable excuse to set up a list in my opinion. Not sure if they warrant their own articles even if it means there'll be a huge article. But I prefer the huge article, or even keeping them as separate articles, to no article at all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.