• Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Physiology sections

Do we seriously need them? They're sort of meaningless because the Sugimori art is like right next to them. Besides, we don't do sprite trivia/descriptions... so why give obvious descriptions of the artwork?

The other biology sections are fine, but I think the physiology section is pretty useless. It causes sooo many extra edits and talk page squabbles T_T just saying.
 
I've always thought that they were kind of useless. Maybe if they were just limited to information about the Pokemon's body that isn't especially obvious by looking at the art work? For instance, the fact that the spots on the Pichu line's cheeks are actually sacs or glands that produce the electricity that they use for their attacks?

While we're on the subject of useless sections though, I think the Diet section is just retarded. Is there a single one that actually has any real information, or do they all just have a link to the Pokemon Food article?
 
While we're on the subject of useless sections though, I think the Diet section is just retarded. Is there a single one that actually has any real information, or do they all just have a link to the Pokemon Food article?

Yes. Some of them mention Berries. Some of them reference Pokédex entries.
 
Most of the non-game data on Pokémon species pages are a carryover from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day.
 
They're also full of stuff with no apparent source. I randomly picked Charmeleon's article and got the following: Charmeleon when in the wild will hunt solitary much unlike Charmander who hunt in packs. Their diet consists that of the average omnivorous Pokémon diet. Where was any of this established? It's not in the dex.

I'd suggest collapsing some of the existing sections into a single section on (for want of a better word) the biology of the species. If the diet is notable and we have info on it (such as with, say, Aron), then that can be added there. As it is right now, the articles are too cluttered with sections that are mostly saying nothing.
 
They're also full of stuff with no apparent source. I randomly picked Charmeleon's article and got the following: Charmeleon when in the wild will hunt solitary much unlike Charmander who hunt in packs. Their diet consists that of the average omnivorous Pokémon diet. Where was any of this established? It's not in the dex.

I'd suggest collapsing some of the existing sections into a single section on (for want of a better word) the biology of the species. If the diet is notable and we have info on it (such as with, say, Aron), then that can be added there. As it is right now, the articles are too cluttered with sections that are mostly saying nothing.
I like this idea. Then any interesting, relevant information about biology, habitat, diet etc can be kept in one section (like how Ekans eats the eggs of Spearow and Pidgey).

Also, I know some of the weirder information might come from stuff like The Official Pokemon Pocket Guide and the Official Pokemon Handbook, though I have no idea what's legit and what came from nowhere.
 
Yeah, I've always thought the Physiology sections were sort of a waste of space and time. :x

I mean, if they describe aspects of the Pokémon that can only be seen in TCG cards or anime episodes, fine, but most of them are like "this Pokémon is blue and spherical in shape, and resembles a..." True, many people can't see the pictures, but it's not like our descriptions in any way compensate for someone's inability to see a picture. A picture is worth one thousand words, and our Physiology sections generally aren't even close to one thousand words.

I think probably the best thing the Physiology sections are good for is providing a space for that one fucking hilarious vandal from a couple years back... the one who replaced every Pokémon's physiology entry with National Geographic paragraphs describing the real-world counterpart of the Pokémon. Anyone remember that? No? Only remotely funny vandal ever.
 
They're also full of stuff with no apparent source. I randomly picked Charmeleon's article and got the following: Charmeleon when in the wild will hunt solitary much unlike Charmander who hunt in packs. Their diet consists that of the average omnivorous Pokémon diet. Where was any of this established? It's not in the dex.

I'd suggest collapsing some of the existing sections into a single section on (for want of a better word) the biology of the species. If the diet is notable and we have info on it (such as with, say, Aron), then that can be added there. As it is right now, the articles are too cluttered with sections that are mostly saying nothing.
Well put. That would also hopefully stop people changing the Special Abilities to just repeat their abilities from the infobox, as opposed to having other things they can do which don't fit elsewhere.
 
I might have a go at making a streamlined version of a page in my userspace later, if I get the time.

Also, as an aside, I don't think the text description of a Pokemon's appearance is necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, we have the Sugimori art there too, but there may be circumstances where users can't view images. If an encyclopedia's discussing an animal, there'll always be a description of what it looks like.

Something else I'd also mention is that the games, anime and manga aren't always consistent in their portrayals of Pokemon. If, for example, the anime establishes something about a given species, but the other media don't cover this, I'd put it in the anime section.
 
Please note: The thread is from 14 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom