Talk:List of generation VIII Pokémon

Pokedex number for Grookey, Scorbunny, and Sobble
Wouldn't Grookey be Pokedex number 810 because it goes right after Melmetal? And if that's true, then shouldn't we know the Pokedex numbers for Scorbunny and Sobble, too? Porygon-Z (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not technically confirmed yet. L ke (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But if Melmetals Pokedex number is 809 and it's the last Pokemon of the Alola region and Grookey is a starter, wouldn't it make sense for Grookey to be 810? And plus don't you think its probably assumed by now? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For all we know there may be Pokémon like Victini which was placed before the starters in Gen V. Best not to assume.  red sparta  •••  talk to me  23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true, Victini was the only time Game Freak did that and didn't we know ahead of time? Besides they're starters and like the rest of the generations they came first. Everyone assumes but Game Freak always surprises us. So what's up with that? Porygon-Z (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Meltan and Melmetal are already introduced. Is it time for an update on the Pokedex? Porygon-Z (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No information has changed for the order of the Gen VIII additions so we can't add Dex numbers. Once the games are out we'll be able to make a full update. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can't we add other info like the gym specialists or Team Yell or even the Galarian Klink people are talking about? Shouldn't that be on there? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What does Team Yell or the Gym Leaders have to do with the "List of Pokémon" pages? General information would be best suited for the game’s page, if it is reliably sourced. As for Galarian Klink, if it is currently just a rumor, we do not report on rumors. redsparta  talk 04:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair points. There are a lot of rumors about a lot of things, so how do we know if it is true like grookey being number 809 or the order of the Galar pokedex? Porygon-Z (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If it shows up in official Pokémon marketing material or comes directly from Game Freak or Nintendo, then it's safe to assume it’s real. If it’s reported on by a reliable source like Polygon, IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot, etc. then it’s fair game. Once the games are released we'll know for sure about a lot of these things. FWIW, last I checked the Gen VIII starters still don’t even have Pokédex numbers listed on Serebii. redsparta  talk 05:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also the possibility they won't get official National Dex numbers until the release of Pokémon Home in 2020 as the national dex doesn't exist in Sword/Shield. We can safely guess the numbers once we know the order of the Galar Dex, but whether or not that borders on WP:OR is up for debate. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But we have a National Dex. It's just not in any of the games. Plus like generation 2, there were pokemon that looked different than we know now. Maybe that could happen?Porygon-Z (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, could the possibility of a national pokedex be in the games? I mean, Pokemon Go is already starting it, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have TCG images of the starters with the numbers. Shouldn't they be added, or is there any reason why we choose to delay adding them despite appearing in official merchandise (TCG)? -119.74.220.3 (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely forgot that TCG has the dex numbers on them. I've gone ahead and added them for the starters, thank you! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought some source would have pokedex numbers for the starters. Now what about the rest of the Galar Pokemon? I know Zacian and Zamazentas "V" cards are out. Porygon-Z (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The V cards don't appear to have dex numbers on them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well what about other pokemon like polteageist or wooloo? Do they have cards? Porygon-Z (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, now we know what type Zacian and Zamazenta are because of the cards, right? Porygon-Z (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No cards yet for other Pokémon, and the V cards are either typeless or are being kept hidden until release. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we at least have evolutions or any other info for other Pokemon? Also, you think theres a new type added or no? Porygon-Z (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, Game Freak is purposely keeping information limited this time around so there are actually surprises, unlike with Sun/Moon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aww I cant wait.......Wait have you checked Pokemon.com? I learned they have pokedex entries. Porygon-Z (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Best place to see if any new information has come out is Serebii. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not working. Any other ideas? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well its working no new info though. We need to discover something big. How about Gigantamaxing the Kanto Pokemon?Porygon-Z (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Galarian Rapidash?
Just because Rapidashs cry was heard, doesn't mean its canon yet. Can you explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed it accordingly. We have no confirmation whether or not Rapidash is in the game. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Thank you. Porygon-Z (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well now it's out, and I have questions...
1. So first, is Arroskewda the fish that Cramorant counterattacks with? 2. Plus what's with the Galarian forms? Are they separate pokemon that have the same evolution or what? 3. What's the difference between Dynamaxing and Gigantamaxing? Which one changes form and does it change their type? 4. Does Galarian Weezing evolve from regular Koffing or is it even an evolution at all? 5. In every Pokemon generation, there has been a small mythical Pokemon. Where's Galars?

If you could answer those or clarify, please do so! It is kinda confusing so if you could help answer these that'd be great. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (First, nice username!) Here's some really quick answers (I'm coming back to #3):
 * 1. Yes, Arrokuda (which evolves into Barraskewda) is the fish that Cramorant sometimes attacks with.
 * 2. Galarian Forms are like the Alolan Forms from Sun and Moon. They're essentially just alternate forms/versions of existing Pokémon with different appearances (and sometimes types, etc.).
 * 3. (about to respond)
 * 4. Galarian Weezing evolves from regular Koffing.
 * 5. We don't know if there is one yet.
 * Glad I could possibly help! Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry I didn't get to you right away, but that makes so much sense. But with number 2, Alolan forms didn't have new separate evolutions unlike Galar. An example, Mr. Mime, has a pre-evolution, Mime Jr., which it evolves from. However, now Mr. Mime has a Galarian form which now evolves into Mr. Rime. How are they connected? It doesn't make sense..... If you can help me, that'd be great! UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. Mime jr. evolves into G. Mr. Mime. UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi I just want to say this choud yous some spites. 2600:1702:EE0:C4A0:8EE2:DAFF:FEBD:7FFF (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppps I think I broack the page.2600:1702:EE0:C4A0:A855:6E9F:87EB:4861 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, youre fine! UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Pokemon
What is going on with the new Pokemon? If it's not confirmed by Nintendo, don't put it in am I wrong? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Galar vs Hisui Pokémon
So right now the main list of Pokémon is under the heading "List of Pokémon species introduced in Generation VIII (2019; 2022)". Would it be more helpful for this to be split into two lists under the headings of "List of Pokémon species introduced in Generation VIII (2019)" and "List of Pokémon species introduced in Generation VIII (2022)" or something similar? Just as it's ambiguous on whether or not Meltan and Melmetal are part of Generation VII or if they exist on their own, and the Hisui region is an unprecedented event.
 * the latter list would be far too short. theyre fine on here.Muur (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Wooloo into List of generation VIII Pokémon
I believe this article does not indicate enough "importance/impact" to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While deletion is not merited, merging certainly is merited as it goes against WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not sure how INDISCRIMINATE came into this, but it certainly does not apply. As for the rest of the nominator's argument, the character has a good number of sources about them specifically, so a notability argument is invalid. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works". This article's reception largely states "it looks cute" in so many ways, but not much more than that. Simply saying a character is "cute" is not a sensible claim of its significance. It could be argued Pikachu also got popular due to its appearance, but it became a worldwide phenomenon and is clearly an extenuating circumstance in comparison. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is other reception present. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The only "other" reception besides "cute" is a single statement from PETA, which is unrelated to Nintendo's actual depiction or use of Wooloo. The article doesn't show how the character made any impact beyond surface level appearances. I'm sure that articles saying almost every cutesy Pokemon is cute can be dredged up, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is some significant coverage of Twilight Wings, which highlights Wooloo specifically. There are also sources relating to memes and Tumblr being forced to make a Pokemon category solely because of it. Combined with the "cute" reception, there definitely is some significant secondary coverage of the Pokemon here. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The meme and PETA bit are the only real world significance. Both can be covered in 2-4 sentences in the list article.  TarkusAB talk / contrib 21:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Listicles do not constitute significant coverage. Everything noteworthy on this character from reliable, secondary sources can be said succintly in the Notes column of this table. czar  04:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nominator's rationale for a merge is that the article does not show enough importance and impact to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Noted, but not accepted. I agree with QuicoleJR's opinion that the rationale is an misinterpretation of the relevant guideline. Date presented in the current article is clearly put in context with all explanations referenced to independent sources. Haleth (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the importance/impact of the character then? The reception consists of 2 paragraphs of the character being called "cute" in different ways, all trivial mentions. There was also a short lived PETA controversy which has nothing to do with the character's depiction in Pokemon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does the thirst hype surrounding Lady Dimitrescu have anything to do how she is actually depicted in Resident Evil: Village? Similarly, what about Prince Sidon in Breath of the Wild and its sequel? I think you are missing the point about the PETA controversy. PETA engineered it in response to the fact that the character's design is almost indistinguishable from an actual real world animal (sheep), which is referenced by some of the sources, albeit with the cute factor cranked up. More tellingly PETA's outburst got some traction from the cited sources, because Wooloo at that point in time was a hugely popular addition to the Pokemon franchise. Haleth (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The sourcing state of the article is honestly pretty good all things considered. While some of the sources could be better, there's enough notable coverage to constitute SIGCOV and the memes, among other things, definitely indicate that it passes GNG. I feel that WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't really apply here, as the article isn't really discussing statistics in any way, and this article is definitely not just plot summary. This article, in its current state, should definitely be kept. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'm on the fence. The original generation has about twenty unique articles of Pokémon, and this is the only article from its respective generation. Most of these articles follow the same format of drawing heavily from primary sources to describe their characteristics, appearance in the game and media, and a laundry list of secondary sources that make passing remarks about how the Pokémon is cool, or cute, or whatever. I'm sure with enough effort, words could be drafted on most Pokémon. So what makes a Pokémon notable enough for inclusion in an article? The issue with this article is it falls a little short of finding secondary sources that do not relate to the reception, such as the context of its design . It also has weaker and more trivial sources generally, that tend to rely more on the listicle format, with some unreliable sources thrown in for padding. This definitely could be trimmed. I would not be confident in calling this coverage as self-evidently significant. But then, the article is not remarkably less well-sourced than its counterparts, and it illustrates enough mention in secondary sources to suggest a general cultural impact. It demonstrates notability, I think. It may be that the current approach to these sort of articles by nature has a fairly shallow tenor that needs to be re-evaluated. Take a look at the Bulbasaur article, for instance. Looks like the same list of trivial descriptions of it being "a favorite" and "cute" to me. Vrxces (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO this is an issue of the Bulbasaur article being equally lacking in reception coverage, but whereas Bulbasaur actually has sources going beyond that which could be integrated into it, Wooloo does not. Bulbasaur needs improvement, but there appears to be something to improve it from, as cited in its AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I understand I don't have as mature a view on the threshold for notability, but agree generally that there is something a bit off about the rationale for sort of articles that could prompt better guidance. Vrxces (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the listicles are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs because they really just highlight a few aspects of the game, not unlike a review. We'd want to see this gain separate notability outside of the game. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But it does demonstrate separate notability outside of the game? There's several sources there that display significant impact. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which sources? TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 7, 17, 24, the several Twilight Wings sources, and 29. While a lot of the other sources are debatable, these definitely qualify as significant coverage outside of the games themselves. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would contend that the Twilight Wings sources aren't a show of Wooloo's notability for the most part, but rather, a show of Twilight Wings' notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They display Wooloo's notability as a result of Twilight Wings. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources like this and this don't give much besides a basic plot recap of the episode. The titles make it seem like they have a ton of analysis of Wooloo but really, they don't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think what's there is adequately strong. There's a couple okay sources, but nothing strong. Reception has been improved enough to make it notable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I feel like with additional sources I've found across it does have at least something being *said* about it. I'm really on the fence with it and want to say if it does get merged, it may be worth considering reviving if the sources get re-arranged and re-examined and some meat can be made from it. Per redesigned reception section--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. I feel like the cited sources, including this one should be enough.   Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 10:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , the current "Reception" section draws out asides from listicles with long quotes that would be easily paraphased as "critics thought the character was cute" and fit within the existing list's notes section. Comments like "I don’t know if there’s such a thing as a perfect Pokémon but this might be it" and "perfect in every way" are obviously exaggeration and not actually criticism or reception. "Everyone loves Wooloo, the perfect new Pokémon", subtitled "Don’t roll away, you know it’s true", is clearly tongue-in-cheek and is not a serious analysis of the subject nevertheless significant coverage, but in line with the Kotaku non-articles that we throw out as non-encyclopedic. The idea that a topic would be independently notable by stringing these sources together beggars belief. czar  11:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the characterization of the article premise original research, as having a tongue-in-cheek comment is not by any means adequate to say that the article itself is tongue in cheek. The article delves into the fan response, and the evidence shows that the premise isn't tongue in cheek. The fan response was big enough to be acknowledged by the development staff. The next paragraph does use "listicles," but what's more important than "is this article in list format?" but "is what they're saying about Wooloo in the list significant?" And then there's the Fanbyte article, which goes into significant detail on its design. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect Czar I strongly disagree with your assessment: you can have an article that lightly jokes about a subject and still offer commentary on it. And there's a vast difference between a list that fires off fire-and-forget "listicle" entries and one that actually says something that can be cited alongside other statements. In addition we have large articles discussing the character's design in comparison to previous titles but also in the scope of the franchise itself, and the reaction to it had a slight real-world impact on sites such as tumblr and solicited a reaction from the developers who, much like you, didn't think much of the thing. So yes, I do feel it meet encyclopedic merit and the "reception" section is adequate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

primal pokémon with a different name
just to be sure before i inevitably get here (and while i work on redirects for alternate forms), should origin dialga and phimosis palkia be included as separate forms here or in the list of gen 4 pokémon, or are they forgettable enough to be not be mentioned?  cogsan (give me attention)  (see my deeds) 13:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)