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)

Mega Evolved Pokémon

Are we allowed to include any Mega Evolved Pokémon with unique BST trivia in their own pages or no? --Cinday123 (Talk) 10:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete: pointless

This page is nothing but trivia. It's pointless.

It's just not at all useful to know which Pokemon have unique base stat totals. There's nothing special, mechanically, about Charizard's 634 BST as opposed to 633 BST or whatever. Nothing at all. Knowing all of them is pointless.

But if you want to know which Pokemon have unique BSTs anyway, there's a whole category for you. There's nothing you could possibly do with a whole page like this that you can't do with that category that is at all valuable. Hell, if you really want, the List of Pokémon by base stats pages can do the exact same thing as this page if you just sort by BST and manually scan it.

This page is pointless. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not pointless. I was trying to find out what the pokemon with the highest BST was; without this page I would have had to check every page in the category manually, whereas with this page I was able to quickly learn that it is Arceus.Yinyang107 (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Was that just something you were curious about? (It's not too hard to think of some use; but that doesn't necessarily make it a worthwhile use.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Mostly curiosity, yes. Yinyang107 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
For future reference, you could've found it even more easily by going to List of Pokémon by base stats and sorting by 'Total'. In fact, it would show you that Arceus is not the Pokemon with the highest BST (including Megas/Primals). Instead, Mega Mewtwo and Mega Rayquaza are tied for the highest total currently. - unsigned comment from VioletPumpkin (talkcontribs)