Talk:List of Pokémon

Problems with table colors and visibility

I think some of the colors on the species table should be changed per MOS:COLOR. Some of the colors, namely for the Legendary Pokémon (particularly Koraidon and Miraidon) are challenging to read even from someone who isn't colorblind. They should definitely be swapped with clearer colors. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there supposed to be a generation X listed?

I noticed on the list Pokemon with names such as Grifikid appear under generation X. I can find no other mention of these Pokemon names online anywhere, let alone from an official source. Should that be removed?

I apologise if i have formatted this wrong, I have never edited Wikipedia and i did not want to make a mess for someone else to clean. ~2025-35653-84 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, good catch, this was helpful! Someone recently added those new Pokémon, but no clue where they came from. I undid their edit. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

for the love of giratina, it's like the 3nd time someone tries to add a fake gen 10 here. this might actually warrant an rpp at this point... consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Colors

Honestly, I feel like the list is going super overboard on colors. Ultra Beasts and Paradox forms are definitely not so important that they need to be marked like that; Fossils and Baby Pokemon are just barely more worthwhile IMO. If you ask me, the most I think we should have are Legendary and Mythical. What if next generation there's a new category of Pokemon? And then Gen 11 adds a new one? It's just going to create a really garish color scheme, more so than we already got. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vestrian24Bio 08:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

---

• List of generation I Pokémon → List of Generation I PokémonList of Generation I Pokémon
• List of generation II Pokémon → List of Generation II PokémonList of Generation II Pokémon
• List of generation III Pokémon → List of Generation III PokémonList of Generation III Pokémon
• List of generation IV Pokémon → List of Generation IV PokémonList of Generation IV Pokémon
• List of generation V Pokémon → List of Generation V PokémonList of Generation V Pokémon
• List of generation VI Pokémon → List of Generation VI PokémonList of Generation VI Pokémon
• List of generation VII Pokémon → List of Generation VII PokémonList of Generation VII Pokémon
• List of generation VIII Pokémon → List of Generation VIII PokémonList of Generation VIII Pokémon
• List of generation IX Pokémon → List of Generation IX PokémonList of Generation IX Pokémon

– Doing this at the central list because I feel like that would be the most realistic place to discuss all of its sublists. Anyway, the thing about Pokémon generations is that when they receive passing mentions themselves, they are usually just referred to as "Pokémon generation(s)" without capitalizing the G. The same can be said about if referred to as "first generation", etc. That, however, does not apply to when they are referred to by Roman numeral generations, which is what the titles of these articles use; most sources I found used "Generation/Gen I/II/III/etc." (or "1/2/3/etc.") rather than "generation/gen I/II/III/etc.". I noticed that the articles on the later generation lists are also starting to uppercase the terms, and I think we should just execute it on all of these lists to make things consistent before edit wars break out. LoTrWiki (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit: Was opposed for not sourcing (because we would be here all day if I were to list every source I found), so... just reading through the articles' sources and some others I found: Game Rant, ScreenRant, TheGamer, Kotaku, Nintendo World Report, VG247, Polygon, Nintendo Life, USA Today, The Michigan Daily, IGN, Fanbyte, Inverse, GameSpot, GamesRadar+, and it goes on. In other words, I highly disagree with the arguments that it is "trivial" or "unnecessary"; it is simply the common name. LoTrWiki (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose No sourcing is backing up this move and the usage of the capital seems to be a minority from how it's described. Moving just seems unnecessary without specific evidence it's more consistently used this way. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems trivial. Unless there is a real issue with the first letter being capitalised rather than not, I don't think this is an issue. 11WB (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment I'm leaning towards this being unnecessary. I agree with Pokelego999 that this would need consistent evidence. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Needs a deep analysis – Of the sources listed by LoTrWiki above:

• Game Rant doesn't include the word but it's lower-case in the "Related" box;
• Screen Rant does lower-case in text;
• TheGamer does upper-case;
• Kotaku does not mention the word; why is it here?;
• Nintendo World Report has mixed upper-case and lower-case;
• VG247 says "Gen" (upper-case), but hard to really make a claim with that;
• Polygon upper-case;
• Nintendo Life has the upper-case "Gen I" but again, I wouldn't make a claim with that;
• USA Today thoroughly lower-case;
• Michigan Daily upper-case;
• IGN upper-case;
• Fanbyte Very inconsistent mix;
• Inverse Upper-case;
• Gamespot Lower-case;
• Gamesradar Another "Gen 6" situation.

I think we're gonna need a much bigger dataset to really make a decision here. This is a hard one. Might be unnecessary because of how inconsistent sources are even internally. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "Generation" seems like a fanon term, it's not an official one used in the games as far as I know. So, it would not be a proper name. If it were up to me, I would use "List of Pokemon introduced in ____" for every list name to avoid giving people the idea that Pokemon are released like the latest Apple smartphone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Lists of Pokemon" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lists of Pokemon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § Lists of Pokemon until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Article split

I propose that the article be split into List of Pokémon (the non-prose section) and Pokémon (character) (the prose section). The fact that there is a full article about Shiny Pokémon shows that there is too much information about the characters themselves to solely be contained within a list page. The creation of a character page for Pokémon should allow Shiny Pokémon to be merged into it afterwards. Pokémon (fictional creature) is an alternate possibility for the disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

can't say i see the point of splitting what's here, or why other articles existing is relevant to that. if additional articles can be made or expanded, that can happen on its own, but for now, i don't think the prose here is so long that it would demand a split

also, they're species, not individual characters, nor is there a character named "pokémon", so the second title pluralized would be better if a split occurred consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 17:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

keeping the concept and creation aspects helps to avoid this being just a pure list of the various Pokémon which would violate NOTGAMEGUIDE. Masem (t) 17:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the idea Zx but I'm not on board with it. I do feel Shiny Pokemon are in an odd place, because I almost feel that needs some more real-world weight as is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Masem: @Kung Fu Man: If a pure list of Pokemon would violate WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, perhaps it's time for this article to ride off into the sunset and be redirected to Lists about Pokémon#Pokémon species, the more comprehensive list. Then the prose portions can be split off into a purely prose-centric article about Pokémon as fictional beings that also incorporates the Shiny Pokemon content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

what consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:06, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it is better to merge this list as a combination of a gameguide aspect (a pure list of Pokemon) and a notable aspect (description of Pokemon as fictional creatures), splitting off only the notable one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay... is there a reason keeping the list is better than having an article about Pokemon as a species? I'm willing to abandon the idea, but simply expressing your detest of the idea with no further elaboration is not really helpful. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I would argue the information of real world conception and description makes more sense to discuss here. Additionally, I feel as though Shiny Pokemon being discussed here, even with the list split off, would be UNDUE given how much of it discusses the community impact of specifically them, in comparison to discussion on the species as a whole. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – I am very fond of this article, as to me it feels like a perfect example of a comprehensive coverage of a singular specific subject. This article describes really well what "a Pokémon" is, and what "Pokémon" are. As for the WP:Gameguide concerns, I don't think this list could be a violation of that before the more specific generation lists are. There is no strategy guide here and it does not instruct. There is no technical information at all. This is practically a numbered list of creative works (imagining each Pokémon as such), with some very minor categorization. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:02, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pokelego999. This article describes what a "pokemon" is and are really well, and there isn't any need to split it off.

Monathephantom (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can understand this proposal, and I should note that the Polish Wikipedia already does this: pl:Pokémony is about the species, pl:Lista pokémonów is the 'list of'. In the past, there was a lot deletionist/inclusionist discussion on the English Wikipedia regarding Pokémon lists, and in particular individual Pokémon articles (e.g. the "Pokémon test"), with many believing that lists of Pokémon names and in-universe fancruft is not encyclopedic content. I tend to agree with that position. We have Bulbapedia for that, e.g. bulba:Pokémon (species). If someone ever creates a high-quality Draft:Pokémon (fictional species), then yes, we could trim down Shiny Pokémon and merge it into that. But I don't see anyone writing such an article. - Manifestation (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)