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.

Talk:List of Pokémon with unique base stat totals

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

VERY random question

Is there a Pokémon with a base stat total of 666?--Jachi 12:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Kyurem comes closest, though, with 660. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talkcontribs) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually Kyogre, Groudon, Slaking and Regigigas all come closer, with 670, four points more, while Kyurem has six less. Marked +-+-+ 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion.

Well, I hate the category, but like the list. I think the category should be deleted. Mewo 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? The category serves the purpose much better than the list. --SnorlaxMonster 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The category will not be deleted as it also shows up on the species pages. The question is whether this list, which is basically the category with a different layout, except it doesn't auto-update, should be kept in addition or deleted. Werdnae (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

Since this still hasn't been deleted, I'm voicing my opinion. If you look at the category, they are listed in alphabetical order. Base stat totals are numbers. I disagree with deletion of this page. --Abcboy (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of these arguments against deletion and believe it should be considered that we have arrived at a consensus. Kanjo (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it.

I like it because you can sort it by Pokedex number, alphabetical order (and reversed), and total stats lowest to highest and vice versa. I don't really think it should be deleted. It's not hurting anyone.

 EmpoleonMan (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I like having this page because it is in order, with everything shown right there. I also agree with you, EmpoleonMan, in that this list can be sorted and no one is being harmed by this. Leafeon007 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)