They do have plans for updating the app, but they are a very small development team - you can't expect them to be updating it constantly when they have three sites to keep running smoothly - and are also working on updates & new features for the sites themselves.
" @Rallier: Yeah, so? You're searching for Thread Titles, if you want to search for posts you just have to select posts before searching. "
The point is that if you're looking for a thread, you know part of the thread title, and you know what board it is in, it makes finding the thread harder than it should be. It should at the very least display the board titles in the same way it does on the newest topics feed, and preferably allow you to search by board.
" The more info the better. Obviously the key/important facts should be early on in the article, and the super detailed stuff that 99.99% of people don't care about should be later on - but a wiki article can never have too much info. "
Here's an example of a Pokemon article on Bulbapedia. I realise where you're coming from in making Giant Bomb the best games wiki on the web and in some cases I feel the same way, but at times you have to look at some of this and wonder how much information is actually worth the time for each of these articles. Giant Bomb omits a lot of the strategy or technical stuff present on Pokemon sites outside of the wikis, so if users need that information they'll visit Bulbapedia, Smogon, Serebii etc. Giant Bomb doesn't specialise in Pokemon, it covers everything, so trying to maintain every Pokemon article to the highest level and cover all information possible might be a little too much work. Perhaps later on, when all of the articles for the existing Pokemon are fleshed out to a particular level, but I'm not sure if the technical info should be encouraged at this stage. "
It's completely up to you how much detail you feel is worth the effort of including. No-one expects you to bring the Pokemon pages up to the standard of Bulbapedia pages, but if at some point in the future we were to get the pages were to get to that standard, it would be awesome. It's entirely up to you how much info you want to add at the moment, but we shouldn't be placing limits on how much info can be included in the pages.
@Zenaxzd: Yeah, it seems like concept pages for the types of Pokemon (e.g. Grass Pokemon, or Fire Pokemon) would be good additions to the database, so those pages can include general info about weaknesses and strengths of these types, rather than repeating information on all the individual Pokemon pages.
EDIT: Also, just a note, if/when you do create these pages - please make sure you say "Pokémon" in the names, not "Pokemon" (i.e. with an é rather than an e). We cannot currently rename concepts, so it's important that they are named correctly.
The more info the better. Obviously the key/important facts should be early on in the article, and the super detailed stuff that 99.99% of people don't care about should be later on - but a wiki article can never have too much info.
It's a close call between March and August. March has St. Patricks day (cheap Guinness - WoooHooo). But August has the Great British Beer Festival (over 700 different beers in one room - WoooHooo). I honestly don't know which one to pick.