Talk:List of generation I Pokémon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Is there a reason that "generation" isn't capitalized on these pages?

If there is, please inform me. Paintspot (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Paintspot: Asking the same question on seven different pages isn't particularly efficient ^_^; As for the capitalization, I don't know why it would be capitalized. It isn't an actual title, is it? Console generations aren't capitalized either. Wikipedia only capitalizes words in titles if they are proper nouns. ~Mable (chat) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Japanese names

Shouldn't the Japanese names for each Pokemon be included in this list? Lord Seth (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good idea. I've seen some talking about removing the "first appeared" column, so that should free up some space for the actual original names of these critters. Good catch. ~Mable (chat) 11:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed the size of a couple columns a bit and will be working on moving over the Japanese name data.85.167.27.57 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit unnecessary to single out the Japanese names when they have names for multiple languages. The English ones are most appropriate for the English Wikipedia, and if people are curious about the other names they can simple look to other wikis for a full listing of them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm mostly on the fence on this topic. It seems rather meaningful information, seeing as these are the names of the characters in the original source material. Most "list of X" articles would list both the original name as the English-translated name, in my experience. If anything, it seems a useful column to add to the tables if "Original appearance" does get removed. ~Mable (chat) 21:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Pokemon is a Japanese media franchise, the Japanese names are being singled out because they are the original names for these characters. This is Wikipedia convention and can be seen in any article on a subject where the native name differs from the local one. It's not something that's really up for debate as far as these individual articles are concerned. 85.167.27.57 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I have now moved the column over in its entirety and included it in all 7 lists. 85.167.27.57 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Seeing how several articles give the IPA pronunciations for Pokémon names, I think we should do something similar here. The way I see it, we would implement them using Template:Abbr, just like the article already does for kanji and rōmaji. For example, Caterpie would give /ˈkætərpiː/. And as it happens, I have made such pronunciation keys for every Pokémon except for Generation VII, which I hoped to implement before the page received a complete overhaul to its current format. The downside to this is that this is already a breach of use for this particular markup, better detailed on the template page. Still, I think it'd be a useful addition, assuming the page isn't big enough as it is. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there even officially endorsed pronunciations for specific Pokémon? I'd love to know where you got those, because I was under the impression that the wasn't that much thought put into pronunciation between the Pokémon company, teams of game translaters, and the anime dubbing studio. Hence, the "Pokeymon" situation. ~Mable (chat) 07:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I derived these pronunciations from the anime's "Who's That Pokémon" and "Trainer's Choice" segments, samples of in-show dialogue, and sound clips from official games with voice acting provided by the Pokémon Company, such as Pokémon Battle Revolution and Pokédex 3D Pro. And while there were some differences between the 4Kids and Pokémon Company ("Mantine" being a key example), they were at least consistent within their respective works. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems a bit original research-ish in my opinion... If this information does get included, I'd recommend putting it in the "English name" column under the name itself, so that it doesn't take up any more horizontal space. But I'd like to hear some more opinions on it first. I'm personally not fond of the idea, as I don't think there really is an official pronunciation. ~Mable (chat) 19:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I see your point on original research and fan cruft, and it does make it questionable whether other Pokémon articles such as Meowth and Rayquaza should have these pronunciations without the proper sourcing. However, I've seen other articles on real-world subjects like Texas, Tyrannosaurus and Lady Gaga that provide IPA keys without sourcing. What, then, would be the appropriate use of IPA for fictional names if we reject primary sources?
As for the placement of these pronunciations, the reason I suggested Template:Abbr (or Template:Tooltip as these articles call it) is because doing so would avoid the same horizontal space problem the kana and rōmaji would cause if they were to stop using the template. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Mable is right that there doesn't actually seem to BE any officially endorsed pronunciations. There are several official English-language products that say the name out loud, including the anime, the Pokedex Pro and various video games, but they're not terribly consistent, and it honestly comes across as if the people pronouncing the names in these products are just given written scripts and go by gut feeling. 85.167.193.196 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of generation I Pokémon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of generation I Pokémon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mega Evolutions

Should the Mega Evolutions not be in a tableb of their own, like the Alolan Forms? After all, the table clearly states that these Pokémon were introduced in Generation I, 1996, though Mega Evolutions have only been around since 2013. Wtrmln124 (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No because Mega Evolution is part of the Pokemon while Alolan forms are a separate Pokemon. Porygon-Z (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Porygon and evolutions

I think Porygon and its evolutions should get their own page too. They have a lot to talk about and I'll help too but I don't know how to code so I'll need help. Can someone help me? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In order to write an article about some subject, it needs to meet the general notability guidelines. A useful rule-of-thumb in my experience is to write an article using solely third-party reliable sources. We have had an article on Porygon before, though it wasn't particularly great: [1]. I don't think it's a particularly good idea to write this article, but if you do, write it as a draft first! I'll be able to help you out with some stuff :) – Lastly, we already have an article on Dennō Senshi Porygon, so it's not particularly useful to duplicate the information already present there. Another reason not to write this article, I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I can merge the Dennō Senshi Porygon article with the Porygon page. Porygon-Z (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't we put Categories for Pokemon as well. If we have the Japanese name surely we can put the categories in as well, right?Porygon-Z (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Meltan and Melmetal

According to Bulbapedia, in Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, the Kanto regional Pokédex was expanded to include Meltan and Melmetal (#152 and #153 Kanto; #808 and #809 national). Should we add them to this page? Pianostar9 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pianostar9: they're still generation VII Pokémon, the regional dexes include cross-generational Pokémon and none of the other lists revolve around those. The Alolan Forms are included here as they don't have a new national dex number and they're specific to generation I despite being introduced in generation VII. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cyclonebiskit: Sounds good! Pianostar9 (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Category

Should we include the Pokemon's category (Like Pikachu as the Mouse Pokemon)? That would be quite accurate and plus people are curious, don't you think? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's meaningless to most people outside fans. Tidbits like that are best kept to sites such as Bulbapedia and Serebii. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Although most people think it is meaningless, people become fans by looking at this kind of stuff. Besides serbii and bulbapedia aren't exactly available to everyone, so maybe wikipedia could be the way simpler version of bulbapedia and serbii? Lots of people are fans as well so theres that. Porygon-Z (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not our place to be a one-stop shop for this kind of info. Serebii and Bulbapedia are as accessible as Wikipedia, we even link to Bulbapedia on the main Pokémon list. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Its not as accessible as you would think I can't get onto bulbapedia or serbii so I don't know what to do, do you? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a single secondary reliable source that has ever even documented these to any degree? I think it is too niche. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the pokedex is a secondary reliable source seeing as how it's from Game Freak themselves and we can get information out of it that was technically documented by research professors. At least I think that would be secondary info. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong I don't know. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The Pokédex is a primary source as it's directly from the producer/developer. The classifications have no real in-game importance, the only thing we can glean from them is sometimes what a Pokémon's design is based on. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
It's better than nothing because if we put it in there, not only can we get an idea of what it looks like (like you said but not always) but we can also learn about what it can do. For example, Porygon is the Virtual Pokemon not because it looks like it (which wouldn't make sense) but because its made of data which backs the Pokedex up even if we don't have any info on it. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC):
It could be true, right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Shall we add something about genwunners?

Genwunners are people that like only the first generation of Pokemon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.239.240.43 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List every glitch pokémon in a different section

We can list each glitch pokémon in a different section, as there is other notable glitch pokémon, like Charizard 'M/Q, and 44HY. 74.193.157.120 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Fairy?

Fairy was only introduced in pokemon X&Y, where may pokemon like clarfairy got changed from normal to fairy. As a note in my opinion is kinda not conveys the info in the best way, so should make a fairy/normal colour or do we remove it? The Dino-Pi (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Pokemon fire red and leaf green

Is not apart of this list 95.151.255.109 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Generation"

I think generation should be uncapitalized throughout these articles, as it's not a proper noun and it would be more consistent with the titles of the articles. Landfish7 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ivysaur article?

Do you think that an article about Ivysaur, Bulbasaur's evolved form, should be created here? RMXY (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No I don't think Ivysaur is at all particularly noteworthy, as it would be hard to find any sources on it specifically. I've always been in favor of grouping multiple Pokémon in one article (à la "Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur", for example), so that might work, but Ivysaur does not have independent notability. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
No - it does not seem notable. I don't even think Venusaur is notable and I am surprised it is a page. I'm going to start a separate discussion to MERGE Venusaur to the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the reliable source search engine, I can tell you that Ivysaur is not notable. There are just no good sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article fails to satisfy the criteria for WP:GNG, and doesn't have standalone notability. The sources are all trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  • As mentioned above, I would appreciate articles like "Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur", but I know that idea hasn't been very popular. Venusaur is indeed weak, but I think the sources are there for it and prefer to stay neutral in this discussion. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    I don't really see the point of combining them, as it would turn into a WP:COATRACK. If they were individually notable that would make more sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 05:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    You worry that the connection between the three subjects is too abstract for an article about them as a grouping to stay focused on the grouping, and would rather turn into a list of three distinct creatures? I do think the three are basically three growth-stages of the same creature, but you might be right that it would risk coatrack a bit simply because most of our sources tend to talk about a specific phase at a time... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom. Reception mostly contains, nothing but listicles. GlatorNator () 10:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom, also agreeing that an evolution line article would be a bad idea. They just always end up feeling like a mess...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support The reception section is filled with trivial mentions, and Venusaur is overall non-notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Support. I'm not opposed to Venusaur being an article, and I think the notability could be there, but I haven't found evidence. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support§ Concept and creation is missing a lot of sourcing, most of it can be summarized in the 1–2 paragraphs present in the Pokémon list articles; § Appearances is filled with trivia like In the first few hours of the gameplay tests in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, Venusaur was the last Pokémon available to be captured, and the rest is basically just a list of media that Venusaur appears in, which, given the nature of Pokémon, is a lot, and, given the nature of Pokémon articles, lacks proper sources. § Reception just feels like listicles, and very important and nuanced criticism like Steven Hansen felt that Venusaur's Mega Evolution looked "stupid.". I'm not necessarily opposed to merging the article with Bulbasaur rather than List of generation I Pokémon, though. DecafPotato (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.