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)

• I've been on Bulbapedia quite a lot in my time, and I don't really see how those links are really any better than the ones that exist. They give more information, that's true, but the point of the article isn't to link to the base stats or egg moves of various pokemon, but rather to give a general idea to those who forgot/never had their childhood, and the Wikipedia articles do that well enough. If we were trying to educate people on EVERYTHING, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but this is really about how the various pokemon pertain to Chris, rather than the pokemon themselves. Freecell 08:17, 29 September 2010 (PDT)

• • Well, I'll repeat myself again; the Wikipedia entries doesn't have any pictures. I click on the link and get a boring text. If I take the time to go to the Bulapedia, I can actually see what said Pokemon looks like. Maybe I'm missing something (and if I am, feel free to explain it to me) but I think people would have a better idea about how various Pokemon relates to Christian if we can actually see said Pokemon; that's why I suggested replacing the text-only Wikipedia link with the more informative and imaged-filled Bulapedia links.--Bailoroc 14:37, 29 September 2010 (PDT)
    • Then, we should add sprite images of the pokemon appearing in the comics, but only those who are more remarcable and are actual pokemon. No sonichus's fan sprites.--Basgon 14:41, 29 September 2010 (PDT)
    • If you really think images are so important, add a couple to the article. We don't need to have excessively obfuscating links just because they include some pictures. --Freecell 10:32, 29 September 2010 (PDT)

Daisy/David Dragonite

The test Mentions that the cwcikipedia mentions the different name, and I found the reference:

http://archive.sonichu.com/cwcipedia/index.php?title=Sonichu#First_Encounter_with_Naitsirhc

Would it help to link it to this section? Also does anyone know how to link directly to the CWCipedia? Darkspecteranon 00:26, 19 November 2011 (PST)

This page is messy as fuck

Look at that formatting goddamn. It's good that it's more informative now, but damn if this thing isn't an eyesore. Can we clean this up a bit? --Old meme 08:05, 24 January 2012 (PST)

I was looking into a table of some kind, just to keep things uniform...but the example I made was still messy as fuck due to the fact that some of these pokemon have more use and abuse than others and in such, have more information. Unless we due two tables...one with the more used and abuse and one with the less...I can't imagine how to make this less of an eyesore, unless there's a format I'm missing. --4Macie 08:32, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Seeing that I'm the one who caused this mess I thought I should also be the one to fix it... I divided the Pokémons in this article into two section, those who actually appear in the comic (or are at least mentioned briefly in it) and those who do not appear in the comics but are mentioned by Chris to have taken a part in its plot. Rather than having a subsection for each negligible Pokémon, those who do not appear in the comics are only briefly listed. I hope the page looks more pleasing to the eye now. - NegaCWC 11:53, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Better links

Would it be better if we could link the Pokémon names to something more relevant, like their Bulbapedia articles? Since most of the Wikipedia pages provide very little information, not even having images of them for example.