Talk:Pokémon

Right, first of all, why was that little paragraph about Chris rejecting the pokemon games as cannon for Sonichu's sake deleted? Because it seemed to be relevant information. Just asking. Also, Chris has given lists of pokemon used by people such as Naitsirhc on CWCipedia articles. I'm not quite sure, but I think that these Trainers teams warrant a little subsection of some kind. Also he mentioned that Naitsirhc had a Mewtwo, which may or may not be the same one that 'raised' Magi-Chan. Thats definitely getting a mention. --Edward 04:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It implied that he tossed all of Gen IV into discontinuity out of spite. The new Rosechu page implies that her father was a Luxray(Which makes sense, it's in the same Egg group as Raichu).--MoarLurk 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. So why was that paragraph removed? Thats what i'm asking. It seemed like it was relevant information, but some editor deleted it, and I want to know why. --Edward 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

He added a Luxray into his cannon. Luxray are generation IV. The paragraph was nothing more than blind speculation that was disproved by this addition. But go on ahead and add the trainer lists, that would work.--MoarLurk 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for seeming like such an idiot, but I wasn't aware of that thing about Luxray. I'm not too familiar with generation 4. As far as pokemon goes I've only played generation 1 so far. And i'll add in the bit about the Trainer pokemon later on then. --Edward 22:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the outgoing links to the wikipedia articles have no pictures or anything interesting. By constract, there is at least one Pokemon wiki out there that not only includes pictures but more information than one could possibly ask for. Now, I haven't played or cared about Pokemon since early High School but if I were to click on one of those links out of curiosity, I would at least like to see a picture so I knew exactly what I'm supposed to see (instead of a short, one-paragraph summary on Wikipedia that has no visual aids or more information if I was bored and wanted to read something for the heck of it). Would anyone mind if I changed the links from Wikipedia entries to entries from the Bulbapedia, which has an exhaustive 17,589 articles? I realize this is a lot of work, which is why I'm volunteering my time to this task if it pleases the higher-ups on the CWCiki. I just thought I'll ask since it makes sense to me that, if you're going to post an out-going link, it should be as informative as possible and have visual guides if available. Wikipedia is great if there are no better options but there are in this case.--Bailoroc 03:46, 29 September 2010 (PDT)