Curious, why are there a bunch of Pokemon under concepts?

shouldn't they be under characters?

Only if it's a unique character such as Pikachu in Pokémon Yellow. Otherwise they are species, which for now are being classified as concepts.

The Giant Bomb FAQ Describes characters as "The stars of the games you play, characters must be specifically named, and must display unique personality within either the gameplay or the story of the game to merit a page."

And it descries concepts as "Concepts are the most loosely defined data type, serving as kind of a catch-all for pages and associations that don't currently fit into one of the other data types, such as a race of creatures, a specific in-game event, character abilities, and gameplay characteristics."

By those definitions, Pokemon are most definitely concepts, and not characters.

ok.. but there should allow for more classification of their data (e.g. a place to put in pokedex number, rarity, etc.)

That can be placed in their articles, but I imagine that information is probably already in most of them.

It's the same reason the FFTA and FFTA2 classes are listed as concepts. Even if it does seem sort of ridiculous.

"That can be placed in their articles, but I imagine that information is probably already in most of them."

"It's the same reason the FFTA and FFTA2 classes are listed as concepts. Even if it does seem sort of ridiculous."

"That can be placed in their articles, but I imagine that information is probably already in most of them."

"It's the same reason the FFTA and FFTA2 classes are listed as concepts. Even if it does seem sort of ridiculous."

"MasterOfPenguins_Zell said:

"It's the same reason the FFTA and FFTA2 classes are listed as concepts. Even if it does seem sort of ridiculous."

the only thing is when you have two concepts spelt the same way standing for 2 completely different things (e.g. Soldier and SOLDIER)"