Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times. Check and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.
Talk:List of Pokémon by weight
Should MissingNo. be included here?
- It has a Pokédex number (000)
- It has a weight
- It is a Glitch Pokémon
Flawless logic if ever I heard it. Missingno. Master 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a Pokémon. :/ It's a glitch. We removed it from the list on Normal... Tina δ♫ 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The "glitch" moniker takes precedence over the "Pokémon" moniker. Besides, I don't go around saying "put Teru-sama in the list of items". It's a GLITCH before it is anything else, the "Pokémon" part merely indicates the type of glitch. TTEchidnaGSDS! 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...the way you're throwing around this incredibly stupid arguement, it sounds like you do think Missinga$$ is a Pokémon, just not any reasons for it.
- It's a glitch, it's a glitch Pokémon, whatever you call it, it's just not a Pokémon like say, our good buddy Bulbasaur is. Missingno's 'data' in the 'dex is nothing but garbage, or 'borrowed' from another Pookémon. Tina δ♫ 01:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well. That was all unnecessary. TTEchidnaGSDS! 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If I could just input my opinion here...
First off, I wholeheartedly agree with Pokemaniac, for saying that all Glitch Pokémon are Pokémon. I've taken that stand myself for as long as I can remember. I mean, it makes sense. Missingno. has a catch rate, a dex entry, a sprite, attacks, types, a cry, and base stats. Far as I'm concerned, that's what constitutes a Pokémon.
Secondly, I think glitch Pokémon should be included in these sorts of articles, but under a special category. Say, for instance, the page Normal (type). We have categories for pure normals, normals with a secondary type, and other types with normal as a secondary type. I'm thinking a fourth category: Glitch Pokémon with a Normal type. This would include any and all glitch Pokémon with Normal as their only, first, second, or both types (And yes, there is a glitch Pokémon that's Normal/Normal). Just my idea. Feel free to shoot it down at your leisure. Missingno. Master 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to include glitches on every single page that's made up of the 'regular' Pokémon, like the Normal (type) page. Look through the history - I think at one point Missingno was on there, but got taken off. See? :p Tina δ♫ 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- 'regular' ? Such Segregation (said in an overly dramatic way)Pokemaniac102 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think dividing the Pokémon into weight classes based on Low Kick/Grass Knot power would make it easier to tell how much damage those moves would do. --Wild Eep 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
So, gee, guys, it's great and all that we have these divisions sets out for what affects what, but I was kinda thinking it might be a good idea to point out whether the ranges for the different effects are inclusive or exclusive. For example: "Pokémon weighing between 677.3 lbs and 903.0 lbs have a +30 catch rate when using a Heavy Ball" This doesn't say whether it is between 677.3 lbs and 903.0 lbs and does not include the actual numbers, or whether it does include the numbers.
Basically, I'm trying figure out whether it is "greater than or equal to" or just "greater than". You get what I'm saying? Norle 01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The headings used to divide groups of Pokémon by weight are extremely inconsistent. Some of the division headings use the actual weights of their lightest and heaviest Pokémon, while others seem to use entirely arbitrary weights in their divisions. (Example: the last section of heavyweights is supposed to include "903.0 lbs to 1041.0 lbs" but there aren't Pokémon with either of those weights. However, the second section includes "11.5 lbs to 22.0 lbs" and the first and last Pokémon in that section have those exact weights.) Either we need to change all the headings to list exact first and last weights, or make none of them exact weights. PhantomJunkie 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's going to have to be redone for Generation V. I suggest someone starts on a brightly colored template.
- For the divisions, I'd suggest only dividing into subsections when the game effects change - or would that make some of them too big? —darklordtrom 07:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree there. Which would mean we would have the following divisions:
- 0.2 lbs to 21.9 lbs
- 22.0 lbs to 44.0 lbs
- 44.1 lbs to 54.9 lbs
- 55.0 lbs to 109.9 lbs
- 110.0 lbs to 218.0 lbs
- 218.1 lbs to 219.9 lbs
- 220.0 lbs to 439.9 lbs
- 440.0 lbs to 451.4 lbs
- 451.5 lbs to 677.2 lbs
- 677.3 lbs to 902.9 lbs
- 903.0 lbs to 2094.4 lbs —SnorlaxMonster 08:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- What do people thnk of this? (link removed) The bulba colours are kind of just a placeholder, and I'm not particularly keen on the descriptors, but it's a start. Also, it currently has six Pokémon to a row. Does it look cramped on non-widescreen or smaller resolutions? Werdnae (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that looks pretty good. Only problem is Shaymin, the form tag makes it bigger than the rest. However, that could be completely ignored and it would still be much better than the current one. Otherwise it looks great. --SnorlaxMonster 12:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that...
The game developers used weight in kilograms for all the cutoffs, etc.
If you look at it:
The cutoffs for Low Kick and Grass Knot are shown as follows in the article:
- 20 - 22.0 lb = 9.97 kg
- 40 - 55.0 lb = 24.95 kg
- 60 - 110.0 lb = 49.90 kg
- 80 - 220.0 lb = 99.79 kg
- 100 - 440.0 lb = 199.58 kg
I'm pretty sure those should be 10.0 kg, 25.0 kg, 50.0 kg, etc. exactly, which make much more sense than 22, 55, 110, etc. pounds.
This means that the values are going to have to be adjusted a bit:
- 20 - 10.0 kg = 22.0 lb
- 40 - 25.0 kg = 55.1 lb
- 60 - 50.0 kg = 110.2 lb
- 80 - 100.0 kg = 220.4 lb
- 100 - 200.0 kg = 440.9 lb
What do you think? Ztobor 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Dust created by heavy Pokemon
I hadn't noticed this until Generation V, but it seems Pokemon create screen shakes and/or dust clouds billow based on their weight. Anyone know the cutoffs for say (these are just example names):
- No shake?
- Slight shake?
- Heavy shake?
- Heavy shake and dust?
- Galvantula (31.5 lbs/14.3 kg) and Lilligant (35.9 lbs/16.3 kg) both shake the screen slightly.
- Archeops (70.5 lbs/32.0 kg) does not shake the screen. (I assume any Pokemon whose sprite does not physically touch the ground are exempt from this weight check.)
- Krookodile (212.3 lbs/96.3 kg) shakes the screen heavily but does not produce dust.
- Emboar (330.7 lbs/150 kg) and Scolipede (442 lbs/ 200.5 kg) both shake the screen and produce dust.
I assume they threw this in so that people using Low Kick/Grass Knot could tell immediately a general idea of the power of the move on the current Pokemon, so if anyone knows this information, that'd be awesome. Crassus 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that one as well... but Giratina, who has two forms, does different:
- Altered Forme does shake the screen and produces dust,
- Origin Forme, though lighter than the other forme, does not touch the ground, ergo there's no shake. Palkia38 12:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the cutoff for the Heavy Shake is at about 330 lbs or 150 kg. Bastiodon (329.6 lbs/149.5 kg) did not cause the dust to form but Emboar (330.7 lbs/150 kg) did. Swampert ManSwampert is Awesome! 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know this is a relatively old discussion, but it is interesting and I think it is of value and that some research could go into this. --Wowy 03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's not missing, and as far as I can tell it wasn't missing when you posted this. Use CTRL+F to find it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- The change was made soon after he made this section.--ForceFire 06:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't realize until now that the page history diffs go by the viewer's local time zone, while talk page signatures go by UTC. I was under the impression that the most recent edit to the page was about four hours before this user's comment. Sorry about that. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)