Talk:List of generation I Pokémon/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)
 * 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4654/19870319.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100915004224/http://faqs.ign.com/articles/381/381054p1.html to http://faqs.ign.com/articles/381/381054p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106015646/http://www.screwattack.com/news/top-10-cutest-video-game-characters to http://www.screwattack.com/news/top-10-cutest-video-game-characters
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ds.ign.com/articles/933/933126p1.html

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

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102070422/http://ppg.canon.jp/pokemon/ to http://ppg.canon.jp/pokemon/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204194316/http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/01/30/the-greatest-video-game-horse-revealed-as-chosen-by-our-stunningly-high-profile-panel/ to http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/01/30/the-greatest-video-game-horse-revealed-as-chosen-by-our-stunningly-high-profile-panel/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128084138/http://pallettribune.com/2008/11/29/japan-eevee-merchandise/ to http://pallettribune.com/2008/11/29/japan-eevee-merchandise/

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

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: . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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?  RM X Y  (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 (ᴛ) 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)

Proposed merge of Venusaur into List of generation I Pokémon
Article fails to satisfy the criteria for WP:GNG, and doesn't have standalone notability. The sources are all trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 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 (ᴛ) 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  (ᴛ) 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)

hey wait a minute
what variation of english should this article be in? i assumed bri'ish and changed it to that because there were some englandian words here and there, but there might have actually been more murican ones

should it be kept british as it currently is, or impose my bias assume it's more notable in america and change it to burger english?  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 12:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has put any particular thought in it here. It's probably fine to just pick one now and stick with it, as part of the editing process. Possibly good if all of these lists are using the same spelling rules though? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * i'll have to check the other lists then. if they're mostly inconsistent or american, i'll go with american english on all of them. with the predictable exceptions of gens 5 and 8, that is  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 12:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, Pokémon games set in Britain-esque land... I guess inconsistency in spelling rules between lists is fine. Personally I would recommend to do what is easiest, but I don't have a ball in this game at all. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

cn tags
per this revision where i rant like a maniac, i decided to look for sources. here's what i found from going around google and bulbapedia


 * "male nidoran was the third pokémon designed for gen 1, after rhydon and kangashkan": no sources found. bulbapedia didn't have anything on it, and this interview mentioning that rhydon and nidoking (not male nidoran) being some of the first pokémon designed didn't mention anything about nidoran or kangaskhan. maybe add this to nidoking's section?

i'm not using roman numerals, ew


 * "zubat meme funny": no sources found. the meme is dead anyway, because it was spread between zubat, woobat, and noibat, and also because gf has been somewhat stingier with its caves. i suggest replacing it with actual info on zubat
 * "poliwag is satoshi's favorite pokémon": no sources found, though it's a thing i know to have been true at some point. bulbapedia had this interview (archived because the original link was marked as not secure, and i am NOT touching those), which doesn't actually mention poliwag or whatever pokémon satoshi considers to be his favorite at all. am i misreading something?
 * "victreebel was the last pokémon designed for gen 1": no sources found, and it's not something i remember ever hearing ever, so i can't verify it. no info on it as a pokémon either, what's that about?
 * "muk is based on the dorotabō": i mean... yeah. not sure why that cn tag was there. it's gone now lmao lol
 * "hypno inspired creepypastas": sources found. of fucking course sources were found. three of them, in fact. this would be an article in the making... if the sources weren't bad, the fact that the ones i found were mostly in portuguese doesn't matter aside from how much i hate the language, so i'll add them anyway, and why i think they're doodoo
 * "pokémon: hypno may be darker than you imagine": it specifically ends with "those spooky spaghettis are fanon, you stupids"
 * "the 10 most disturbing pokémon in the franchise": a top 10 list that is exactly what it sounds like. it doesn't mention creepypastas at all, thankfully. the list itself is a joke, as lopunny is #1 because people want to bang it, and yveltal and ultra necrozma are conveniently ignored
 * "the biggest pokémon creepypastas": hypno is #2. this would be a genuinely usable source. oh my god ...assuming that claim should go in this list in the first place
 * "tangela was going to get an evolution in gen 2": sources found h*ck yeah
 * "unreleased 2nd generation pokémon found in early copies of gold and silver": it mentions tangela's unused evolution and pre-evolution. i have no idea why, but this specific article keeps redirecting itself to its portuguese equivalent
 * "pokémon: 10 scrapped baby evolutions, ranked": it mentions tangela's evolution and pre-evolution. the fact that both of those are only mentioned in passing worries me, but this seems like it'd actually be worth replacing that tag with, and maybe even adding to the other pokémon's sections
 * "kangaskhan was the second pokémon designed for gen 1": same case as male nidoran
 * "pinsir was going to get an evolution, which was probably reworked into heracross": one hopefully presentable source found, also in portuguese. look at it here, wow. it mentions exactly what the cn tag asks for
 * "gyarados was originally supposed to be named 'skullkraken, bloodslayer of deathbrimstone'": i found two sources, this is the more noteworthy one, but only mentions it in passing. this one only has a small section on that so it's probably even less usable as a source, and gets the gba's name wrong
 * Wow this sounds very fake. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "people speculate that ditto and mew might be related because they share that one move": ignoring how this logic would imply that blaziken and chimchar are related because they both get double kick and blaze kick, the only source that seems to mention that is paywalled, so i can't read it. if someone can help me read this, i would appreciate it
 * It's a Screenrant article, but a pretty in-depth one. I'm familiar with the fan-theory, it's a very old one. Whether it's worth including, I don't know. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto's take care of, condensed it down with sources from the standalone article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * i found a literal single result, in vuvuzelan, that mentions gyarados' previous name (skulkraken is actually a neat way to go around the 10 character limit tbh) and design, even if it only mentions those traits in passing and doesn't even show an image to support the claim not being made up. does it work?  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a better citation from IGN. There's a Poster on Bulbapedia that also shows it was "Skullkra". I'll be honest though, a lot of Pokemon had beta names in localization, and I feel like this is just one of many. Even in the earliest design docs for Capsule Monsters, when its design was radically different, it was Gyarados.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * i think that ign article would not work for gyarados, since it only has one line dedicated to the old name
 * as for the poster and the article it's in, they're probably good enough proof that those early names were a thing and that someone thought "aquamar" was a passable name, but they can't be used because one is a promotional poster for a thing that was still in the process of being made, and one is a wiki
 * as is, unless an outlet decides to discuss those beta names in detail, they're probably best left out of this list for now  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 19:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

would appreciate help with seeing if the handful of sources i found are usable, and if the claims they would or wouldn't support are even needed here cogsan  •  (give me attention)  •  (see my deeds)  20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to evolutions/baby versions of gen 1 Pokémon that were designed but cut, the sources in this deleted article might be of use: . Great work cleaning this list up, the misinformation is a mess. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, that looks usable
 * i'll see what i can do in the weekend, because the pc i use during weekdays can't handle editing this specific list for more than a few seconds
 * thanks  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 12:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A suggestion, but for articles with standalones we can condense them down to fewer details similar to other lists. The spinout can give further information on them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)