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

Talk:List of Pokémon by base stats (Generation VI-present)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Too big, I know, but dividing each atributte would make it bigger. I was thinking about dividing it into Baby, Basic, 2nd Evolution-middle, 2nd Evolution-end, 3rd Evolution and Legendary. What do you people think?01:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could use the {{p}} links. Are there ways to section off these kind of lists? And to get the {{pokelist}} template in there? Tom Temprotran 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This kind of list is not meant to be divided into sections. But I think we could add a totals/average column. - 振霖T 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Both, maybe? Tom Temprotran 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone knows how the images should be named to change the crosses? Gambler 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could we have an image, and maybe their type, put into the with the Pokémon? Just a thought ...Tesh 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Also it is hard to follow the same line when reading horizontally, has anyone got any ideas on how we could fix that? Tesh 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We could have alternating colours on every-other line... Hmmm... TESHTALKSAND 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is Speed not the last stat in the list like it is in the video games? It would make it much easier to remember which column holds which stat after the headings scroll off the screen if they were presented in the same order as they are in the games. --Kitsunegami 03:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also: how hard would it be to add a "Total" column? --Kitsunegami 06:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article name

I came to this page expecting a list of Pokemon organized in order of their base stats, but all I found was a list of Pokemon with their base stats. I don't have the time to do something on such a large scale as this, but perhaps someone should reorganize the list so its from highest to lowest (or vice versa)? If not that, perhaps simply change the title to just "List of base stats" or something to that affect. // SzayelAporro 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I was expecting lowest to highest.486PokeManiac102492 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Either way is fine, personally. I just think it should be organized in some way. // SzayelAporro 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a sortable list. Just click the symbol at the top of the column you want to sort by. Zurqoxn 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Shedinja's HP stat is actually infinite (∞), not 1. Therefore it shouldn't be counted in it's stat average. No Pokémon get weaker upon evolution, that's just unheard of. Who else agrees? TESHIGIGAS 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Infinite? That's funny; his article says one. // SzayelAporroGranz 21:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but if Shedinja's HP is always 1, then the stat is incalculable, therefore regarding it as ∞. Meaning that it shouldn't be incuded in the stat average. TESHIGIGAS 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's 1/0. OH SHI-- TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also. Scyther's Speed base stat hits the toilet when it evolves. And besides, what's the difference between 1 and 0? ...well, one. So all you'd do is take away 1/6 from the average. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"No Pokémon gets weaker upon evolution"? There are quite a few Pokémon who get slower when they evolve, and there's one case where the Pokémon's ATTACK stat goes down (Trapinch evolving into Vibrava). Diachronos 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that statement is wrong. But if a stat is a constant then you can't work out it's base. TESHIGIGAS 20:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that whatever method people are using to back-calculate stats, that if you are using division in the formula, for a Pokémon who's stat value never changes if there were such a division, you'd be dividing zero by zero - that is to say, you'd end up with no answer at all because the variable you are seeking is no longer actually part of the equation. If y=m+0*x, *any* value of x will work, infinity or zero or anything in between ... so saying that the base stat is infinite is silly.Iliekmudkips 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unified Special Stat?

In Red/Blue/Yellow, there was only one Special stat; in later games, they would split it and change either Sp. Attack or Sp. Defense. Anyway, this article doesn't have ANY information about a Pokémon's Special base stat in R/B/Y (from this chart, it's impossible to tell whether S.A. or S.D. was its Special stat in R/B/Y). Should a separate column be made, or highlight them in another color or something?- unsigned comment from Blaziken257 (talkcontribs)

Well it's true though, special splitting into special attack, special defense.486PokeManiac102492 16:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, though it might confuse people, since that wouldn't be considered in the stat average. TTEchidnaFire echyGSDS! 04:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not have a page per Generation? TESHIGIGAS 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Why nt just bold the stat that was the special stat? The Placebo Effect 13:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Make another page just for the first generation. The base stats are technically different there. --Raijinili 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Started doing it but can't alter the columns in the template, i have re-written teh template for gen 1 but have no idea how to add it to the wiki's templates SPACKlick 8:08, 19 december 2009 (UTC)

I've made a generation I page at List of Pokémon by base stats (Generation I) Jecowa 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Character Pictures

We should have the Pokémon's pictures that you see when you view your party next to the Pokémon in the list, for easier reference. I saw this on another website and it was very well laid out. I forgot the site now though. TeePee-20.7 16:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is large enough already. Adding images will make it too big. TESHIGIGAS 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Want to weed out Pokemon which can evolve

Asking for too much? --Raijinili 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Have an "Evolves from" and an "Evolves into" with the images of the Pokémon that fit each category, as links to those pages. Eevee will have five images in the second column, but it will be easy and quick to see which Pokémon are in final forms. --Raijinili 01:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stat Total

You have the average, now how about thier base stats all added up. --Fxblaster 03:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just the average times 6. Actually, I think the total should be in the table, rather than the average. --Raijinili 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
But when comparing Pokemon, talking about the average is more accurate than the stat total, so having an average is neccessary. Also, I think the stat total should be added too. TESHIGIGAS 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
More accurate? Each one can be derived from the other. Having the average is not necessary in any way. --Raijinili 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mew has a base stat total of 600 (all of theyre stats add up to this), but an average base stat of 100 (each stat is around about this number). So the average tells us what each stat should be around in a way. Either way, whether we have an average stat or not, this table isn't going to change much. I mean, add a Total cloumn to the table if you want to, but leave the average column. TESHIGIGAS 09:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure, you realize that avg=total/6, right? And that to calculate average, you calculate the total first? (Well, you don't HAVE to, but it's the easiest way.) --Raijinili 05:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how to calculate averages. Like I said, add a total column if you want to. TESHIGIGAS 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We could always use a median value rather than average right? I think showing a median value (middle value) would be more useful than average as it would show where each stat would be around --Nothinhappened 00:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional Classification

I think one should be able to view base stats of pokemon by "Type" and "generation".This way , players can compare pokemon by type and generation availability to be able to choose their team.Twistedpokefan.

I also think that it would be important to feature the type as it is a great way to see what pokémon is the best for each type (and thus fighting style) and it would help a lot the trainers build their parties.manelinho.

Deoxys form error

Can someone clean up the format error caused by putting Deoxys under one number? When you try to sort by average it creates a whole mess of problems!

New format

Hey, I did my part. Using magic. Mortal 13:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added all the pokémon. Each forme is seperate. Hootington 13:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Stats by index number?

I did some more snooping around in the ROM and found out that the eggs have a placeholder base stat value of 10. Is that noteworthy to include anywhere, let alone this article? Ztobor 22:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Forms' National number designations

In an impressive edit, Ztobor recently added the base stats for all Generation V Pokémon kinds. However, he introduced a somewhat new designation for Pokémon alternate forms, a single-letter suffix for "secondary" forms such as "648S". This is fine by me, but because the alternate forms of previous generations were not changed, the table's formatting is now self-inconsistent.

Are there any objections to tweaking the previous generations' rows to match this format, e.g. "487O"? Redletterday 05:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For posterity, Umeko himself has removed the letters. Joy upon joys, the table is consistent again, restoring sanity to a thousand-and-two neurosis-stricken people. Redletterday 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


I think it would be useful to be able to remove legendaries from the list. (We could also create a new page containing only non-legendaries.)- unsigned comment from Tk3141 (talkcontribs)

That'd be kind of pointless... since they all fit here and no size restrictions are being broken. --Spriteit 10:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


I think this article should get a shortcut for easier access, as I assume it is accessed quite a lot. Yvnr (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This fine base stat chart is located on one of the most popular Pokémon information sites, but making it as difficult to access as it is, we are practically asking people to bookmark it or use another site for this information. I'd appreciate if someone could tell me why this article should not get a shortcut, such as bsdex, to ease access. I mean, we've even got Rdex. Yvnr (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Conquest

There should be a list for pokemon conquest stats aswell. - unsigned comment from Pastamasta (talkcontribs)

Stat spreadsheet

Is there any way to create a spreadsheet out of the stats listed here other than manually creating it? Like, can whatever is in place to list them in a chart be converted to a spreadsheet that I can use to make a graph out of? Jabberwockxeno (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mega Pokémon in the list?

Should we include Mega Pokémon in this list, because I think it would be very helpful for those who want to compare their stats to other Pokémon, and alternate forms are in this list as well? He's here! The one and only...Uncle Edit! (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It'd be great for Megas to be included, I say. --Wynd Fox 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. It'd be nice for someone to check in case I screwed up. EnosShayremTalk 22:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ampharos' Defense

So I changed the table to reflect that Ampharos' Defense was changed from 75 to 85 in Gen VI, but I couldn't figure out how to make a note that it's different between generations without screwing up the template: if I put one in the Defense box itself, the BST and average formulas bring up an error, and if I put it next to Ampharos' name, it messes up the link template. There definitely should be a note there so that people don't come looking for Ampharos' Defense in Gen II-IV and see the wrong number, so how should it be done? EnosShayremTalk 22:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I figured out a solution. EnosShayremTalk 22:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Unable to save changes to Pikachu

Pikachu's base stats have been modified in Generation 6. They are now 35/55/40/50/50/90 (Def +10, SpD +10). I have tried to update this directly on the page, but for some reason the changes fail to save. Can someone else make the change instead? Thanks in advance. pikalax 15:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change to improve trivia sections

Does anyone else think the "highest base X stat of all Y-type Pokemon" trivia on individual Pokémon pages are really space-wasting and uninteresting? This article is almost enough to make all of them redundant; I think we should just add a (non-sortable, if possible) column for type on it so we don't need to have all these silly trivia. (Even if we don't add a column, I think we should at least centralize those trivia off individual articles and onto either this page or their types' pages, based on the precedent set with Eeveelutions.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to either adding a type row to this article or moving the type trivia to their respective type articles, I also have another potential solution: I've drafted a table that could work as its own article, which removes the need to have any of this kind of trivia at all. Thoughts? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks like it could be added as an article. Though, the trivia points might just end up linking to the article. --Super goku (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if the trivia points end up continuing to exist and link to that, wouldn't they be better on this page or the types' pages? I feel strongly that if they must exist, it's better to have them spread across 18 pages than across about 120 pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Because one of the Mega Evolved Pokémon doesn't seem to have an icon, could someone remove this redlink? Same for the other one. --Cinday123 (Talk) 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The redlink in this case is a way of pointing out that the image should be uploaded. So having a broken file link for a short period of time until the image does get uploaded isn't a huge problem. Schiffy (瀬藤健二) (Talk Contribs) 00:11, 5/24/2014 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my request, and removing the red links I made! So I must be more careful until someone uploads it. --Cinday123 (Talk) 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not removing the redlinks. I'm putting them back. The redlink will lead right to an upload page so as soon as someone who has the ability to do so uploads the remaining Mega Evolution sprites (I don't have any form of sprite rips, myself), the page will be updated with it right away, rather than someone having to go back and change it once the files are uploaded. Schiffy (瀬藤健二) (Talk Contribs) 01:52, 5/24/2014 (UTC)
Okay, how about you do the fully-evolved Pokémon by base stats and edit it, right? --Cinday123 (Talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
.... You're making zero sense. All I'm talking about is the sprites. This page is complete in terms of the base stats for megas, last I checked... Schiffy (瀬藤健二) (Talk Contribs) 03:58, 5/24/2014 (UTC)

don't want the Mega's in the list?

if you, for whatever reason, don't want to see the Mega's in the list, run this javascript

(function(){var all=document.querySelectorAll("tbody>tr"),i;for(i=0;i<all.length;++i){if(all[i].textContent.match("Mega")){all[i].parentNode.removeChild(all[i])}}})();

Hanshenrik (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sort by Evolutionary Status?

Could we add a column to the page for the evolutionary status of each Pokemon? To sort by Unevolved, Evolved Once, Evolved Twice, Non-Evolving and Legendary? I reckon that'd be really useful for some people who are trying to look at the stat of a specific category of Pokemon, who would otherwise have to skim through the entire list and pick out the Pokemon that fit the category they're looking for, potentially even missing some Pokemon. UltraX7 (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty niche use, I think. As it is, this page is really pretty much the bare essentials for the topic: identification (number/sprite/name) and stats. I'd say anything else really isn't necessary or worth the bother. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but why not include it anyway? It can't hurt -- anyone who doesn't need it won't use it, and anyone who does need it will use it. The inclusion of Mega Evolutions was a moderately niche inclusion too, given that Mega Evolutions aren't actual, separate Pokemon, and yet they were added -- someone even made a Javascript script with which to exclude them from the page, for those who really didn't want them there. Perhaps, for those who really didn't want this feature, the same could be done for them. UltraX7 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Mega Evolutions are hardly a "niche" inclusion—they're included because their base stats actually change, just like earlier form changes (Deoxys, Giratina, Shaymin, etc.). But in this case I hardly see why having to skim is so bad—it's easy to just disregard Pokémon that don't fit the criteria you're looking for. So long as you can order the list in the order of whichever stat you're interested in, I don't see why adding additional methods of narrowing the information down would be all that necessary. —AndyPKMN (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
True, their stats change, but not everyone wants to know about Mega Evolutions' stats -- some people only want to compare stats of species' default base stats. And if having to skim - having to ignore something not in your interest - isn't so bad, then why is simply overlooking an extra column that is not in your interest so bad? I see the extra method of further narrowing info just as necessary or unnecessary as the ability to sort by stats -- it's convenient, but can be overlooked if you don't need it. UltraX7 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Why not" is not a reason. It does "hurt": it distracts from the actual purpose of this page. If I came to this page for the first time and I saw a column for evolutionary stage, I'm pretty sure I'd be very confused about why there was such a column, what does it have to do with base stats? (And Javascript is not a solution.) It's not needed. If you want it, you're welcome to make a user page and keep it up to date. (Though you may need to find ways to contribute to the wiki at large before you're able to create a user page yourself.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say 'why not' was a reason -- I was legitimately asking. And whether you'd be confused by it is only as valid an argument as me saying I wouldn't be confused. Your personal confusion contributes nothing to your argument. Granted, neither does my personal appreciation for it. There would be both people who do and people who don't appreciate its presence. There would be people who say "I dunno why that's there," and then probably move on. There would also be people who say "Hey, that's convenient," and then proceed to utilise it. True, it's not necessarily needed, but it's not necessarily unneeded either. UltraX7 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You're playing word games. It is unneeded. Being useful to some people is not the same as being "needed" (or "not unneeded"...). It has nothing to do with the topic.
And confusion is a valid argument; confusion should be avoided. Your lack of confusion is merely a counterpoint. How the balance between your point and mine lies is for each reader to decide for themselves, but you cannot just sweep it aside as inherently invalid. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does something have to be completely and totally needed on all levels to be allowed on the page? It doesn't hurt. This confusion that you're saying might occur is not even a confusion worth worrying about. It's a subjective confusion, not a confusion of disorientation. If someone comes to the page and sees that column, they're not going to be unable to use the page at all. They might possibly say "Why is that there? It doesn't need to be," but it's not going to harm their experience on the page. They can simply look past it. And who's to say the people that don't see the need for it will be the majority? It's quite possible that most people who visit the page will actually use that column, even if only because it's there.
And I'm not sweeping your argument aside; I'm merely pointing out that it holds no more weight than my counter-argument to it, and they suspended in a metaphorical clash of equal force. They are indeed available for others to take stances on. Neither I nor you can sweep the other argument aside based on whether we'd individually be confused or appreciative by the addition.
When it comes down to it, you're treating something that may or may not be helpful in the big picture as something that will almost definitely not be helpful, even to the extent of being unhelpful. Why couldn't we put it on the page, leave it there for a while and see what people think? If people complain, then okay, take it back off. If people say nothing or even display an appreciation for it, then we could leave it! How about that? - unsigned comment from UltraX7 (talkcontribs)
And why should I have to look past something wholly tangential to the real purpose of a page? If everyone could add anything that might be useful to a few people, then we'd surely end up with a mess sooner or later. Therefore, there should be a compelling (or perhaps agreeable) need or purpose for what's on a page.
"Why can't we just put it on the page?" you ask? For one thing, right now, the count is already two people speaking against it and only one for it. The fact that you're the first person to ask for something like this also says a little something (at least a little) about how desired it is.
For another, this is a wiki, and I have at least as much power as you to edit any page here. If it's added and I feel strongly that it doesn't belong (and I do), I'm well within my "rights" to remove it as soon as I see it. I can always be wrong, but that's part of the risk that, on the one hand, I take, and on the other hand, that any wiki runs. For that sort of reason, if you want it here, (at this point) you should probably achieve some general (and favorable) consensus first. Or, again: you can always just make a user page. At this point, it would probably be a better use of your time to work towards that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
But it's not tangential -- the purpose of this page is for people to easily access various Pokemon's base stats, no? Surely it's intended to be easy... Otherwise, this wiki may as well not exist -- anyone with the will to can learn how to open up a Pokemon game and locate the base stats for themself. And I know that adding just anything to the page would eventually bloat it, and that's why we're having this discussion rather than me just going and putting what I want on there and you ignoring it. That's also why I'm pursuing this -- I feel that this is not just another small thing that doesn't need to be there. I feel this is definitely a useful addition to the page.
As for that count of yours; one of your two people has not expressed opposition yet. He simply prompted me for more information as to why it would be necessary. He has not yet responded to my response to either agree or disagree. And just because I'm the first one to request it, doesn't mean I'm the first, only or last person to think of and want it. Few people bother to check these discussion pages; the majority of wiki users forget that there are even communities behind the wikis discussing, modifying and moderating the pages they read.
I know this is a wiki, and I know you have as much power as I -- hence, again, we are having a discussion about it rather than me just going and doing what I would and you not being able to stop me. You say that in opposing my addition to the page, you run the risk of being in the wrong... Then why do you so vehemently oppose it? Why aren't you at all willing to leave it there, at least for a while, and to see how people react, if at all? Why do you assume an almost authoritative position, completely and utterly rejecting my proposal and silently vowing to vigilantly undo my changes, should I make an attempt to apply them? UltraX7 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of this page is to show Pokemon's base stats. But that's all.
It's weird...I was actually the exact opposite of "silent" in my "vow" above to undo such a change. When I said I run the risk of being wrong, I meant that other people (with actual authority; or perhaps people in a later consensus) may judge me so, not that I personally believe I am or substantially might be. I meant that such is always a possibility; yet if I think the chance small, I will certainly not let that stop me from taking action. In short, I believe myself and my reasons (much) more than I believe you/yours right now. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
And who are you to say that that is the page's sole purpose? Why should the page not also strive for ease of access? The ability to sort by stats is technically not necessary either -- without it, all the stats would still be there and users could still go through and pick out the stats they want. But it's there because it makes life easier for some people.
And you didn't outright state that you were, with all certainty, going to undo my work -- even if it was fairly obviously implied. And even if you believe the chances of your being wrong to be either small or non-existent, shouldn't you take the course of action that takes heed of the off (in your opinion) chance of you actually being wrong? Shouldn't you be open to try something out, rather than just stubbornly assuming that the page should not be changed? Just in case? Just to be fair? Because you don't seem to be acting in the interests of the community. You're acting in your own interests; you want the page to remain the way you like it. If you were acting in everyone's interests, you'd have a better reason for not being open to trying something new than "I believe myself and my reasons." UltraX7 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I think I'm getting a "TL;DR" feeling here. But in all seriousness, for this page, I don't see a point in adding it. I think it is pretty obvious in the title of the actual page that listing Pokémon by their stats is it's sole purpose. Something like this might be better for its own page or something. Either way, it would be unwise to edit this page in such a way, seeing that it would probably led to "edit wars". At least until the right folks are convinced or something, I'm not really sure myself. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge that an editing war would result is the reason I haven't gone and done it yet. As for the title... Is title really the be-all and end-all of the page's purpose? What if the reason the page is named as such is simply because it's impractical to have a page named "List of Pokemon and their base stats that can be sorted for easy access"? Just because the page is named the way it is, doesn't mean that no other aspect is appropriate for the page. UltraX7 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Everyone "believes", when you get right down to it. A "better" reason would be one that sways you, UltraX7, but all I can say is that I don't know one. That doesn't at all mean I am or should be wrong, just that we see things differently. That we believe differently.
You try to ply me with "the community". But your benefitted "community" is actually just a niche.
As NateVirus says, the page's title says what its sole purpose is: "List of Pokemon by base stats". Anything else is embroidery. If people agree on some embroidery, fine. Here? Not me. And as you did in trying to bring up the Megas, so you do now trying to bring up the sorting: sorting what's there by necessity (the stats) is a whole different beast from adding a wholly tangential column of data. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I know we have our separate beliefs; I just don't see why you're so opposed to it. Why can't it just be there for the people who will use it? Why would its presence bother you so much that you'd be driven to combat it?
The community I speak of is not a niche; it's everyone who uses Bulbapedia. The people who frequent it, and the people who are brought here for a short duration by Google whilst searching for something.
And I pose to you the same question that I posed to NateVirus: What if the page is named the way it is only because it's impractical to name it longer just because it has some extra bits present for their convenience? Just because the page has a name, doesn't mean you have to take that name as the literal definition of the page. The page isn't called 'List of Pokemon with their base stats beside them and links to their pages and the ability to sort them by each of their stats and an average of their stats,' because to list the aspects of the page in its name just isn't plausible. The name of the page adds nothing to the argument. And as for the embroidery, it's fine for you not to agree, but that doesn't mean you have to so desperately work against it. You could let it happen, and then if lots of people start getting together and saying they don't like it, then you can join them in undoing it. By why do you feel that your opinion, one person's opinion, means that I just blatantly can't make an addition to the page? And if you want to talk about a tangential column of data, why haven't you removed the 'Average' column? The average is not an actual stat that the Pokemon have. The average is not something that many people will use at all! It is a niche attribute of the page. Very few people need to know what the averages of each Pokemon's stats are, and if they really wanted to know, they could figure it out for themselves.
So how come that column gets to stay? I say it doesn't. Obviously this page has no room for non-essential attributes. Why, you said so yourself! Since your one opinion seems to mean so much, let's take it up! - unsigned comment from UltraX7 (talkcontribs)
As I said, I don't want to get sucked into this. I think you are reading too much into all this. And as long as someone disagrees with you, it is safe to leave the page be. Otherwise, as I said, there will be "edit wars" and you should know that is something to be avoided here. Anyway, I don't see how the fact that the pages' name means nothing to what I said. All I said was that as far as sole purposes go, the title answers that question. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to suck you in; you don't have to keep responding. The title means nothing because it does not completely describe the page -- it only sums it up. UltraX7 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's honestly getting a little annoying that you keep harping on me to just "let it happen". That's no argument, and it's never going to sway me. It'd be cool if you just left off that.
(Just in case:) If Average stays, that doesn't mean Evolutionary stage gets a free pass. You're free to argue against Average separately if you want, though. (And I would support it, though somewhat lukewarmly just due to its momentum.)
But I'm reaching a point where I feel this is really going nowhere. I think I'm just gonna wait for other comments. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to do this anymore, and it's clear you're not going to let up (even though it's not actually up to you), so I'm not going to bother anymore. I tried to remove Average, but it's built into the template and I don't know what to do about that -- I'll find a way to fix it up later. I'm aware that if Average were to be left alone, you still wouldn't be okay with the Evolution column being added, though I find that logic to be bad. UltraX7 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It still says enough as far as what one expects to see when arriving on it. I'd prefer it if you didn't respond to me specifically if you don't want to suck my in this then. Just continue to discuss this with Tiddlywinks and their posts, not mine. Sidenote: As the summary I put for this post/edit states, "Trust me, previewing your posts and taking the time to review them before posting saves us all a lot of trouble instead of rushing post after post".----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I know what you said about previewing posts; I am previewing them, it's just that I didn't process the problems with the last bit I edited (which I assume is the bit that prompted you to remind me of this). UltraX7 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)