Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Pokémon that are not part of an evolutionary line"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Is it important to add that in generation I there were 13 others who couldn't evolve?)
m (Is it important to add that in generation I there were 13 others who couldn't evolve?)
Line 5: Line 5:
   
 
? --[[User:BeeBwakka|<span style="color:#52D017">Bee § Bwakka♂</span>]] <small>''([[User talk:BeeBwakka|<span style="color:#157DEC">meh talk</span>]])''</small> 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 
? --[[User:BeeBwakka|<span style="color:#52D017">Bee § Bwakka♂</span>]] <small>''([[User talk:BeeBwakka|<span style="color:#157DEC">meh talk</span>]])''</small> 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  +
 
No, since they have gained evolutions since.[[User:Leafgreener in 2010|Leafgreener in 2010]] 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 
No, since they have gained evolutions since.[[User:Leafgreener in 2010|Leafgreener in 2010]] 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:35, 28 June 2011

Should this be moved to Pokémon not involved in evolution? The current title would allow fully evolved ones to be added to the list. It's Turtwig A! My talk or wiki edits 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved elsewhere. Similar, but elsewhere. —darklordtrom 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it important to add that in generation I there were 13 others who couldn't evolve?

? --Bee § Bwakka♂ (meh talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, since they have gained evolutions since.Leafgreener in 2010 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)