Talk:Monster in My Pocket

older comments
'''This article has vastly improved since I last looked in on it. Congrats to all who helped to set it up!''' SKC 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

there were much greater point values than the jabberwocky at 30 points... Magic Pickle 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * and there are smaller values than 10 points, namely 5 points - and the mentioned Witch (among others) has 5 points (at least in the version I have). --Abdull 10:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of taking the list of monsters and putting it into a separate article with a link from this page? With the list as it currently is the page is a bit long. King rich 08:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Either that or make it more like the tabulated list further down the article. Monster numbers and point values could also be added to this list. Oznightshade 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does it really need a separate article? Has Kinnikuman been split?  It seems much longer.  --Scottandrewhutchins 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

keshi
not keshis? this picture is a typical keshi. the keshi doesn't need to be japanese or japanese characters themed to be categorized as keshi. this is toy genre created in japan and spred up worldwide in the '80s but continuated in the '90s and Bandai america has just released M.U.S.C.L.E.'s follow up in America only in 2003, even though the series started in 1983 in japan. the are named erasers only because there were made of gum, it doesn't mean they were used as eraser in class... some were even sold hand painted, so the Monster in my pocket are actually keshi! and yes they were from the '80s/'90s and are part of the most famous keshis along with the M.U.S.C.L.E. line which was japanese but sold in America (Bandai could have sued them). i had monsters in my pocket myself as a kid, i know they are keshi. they are several kind of keshi, chibi keshi (small), deka keshi (big), the M.U.S.C.L.E. size is only one kind. EnthusiastFR 05:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

not keshi
They're made of soft plastic, not gum. I know the type of material you're talking about and have many such figures--Monster in My Pocket were made of a soft plastic that is significantly sturdier than gum. The figures were not released until late 1990, almost 1991. Therefore, they are not toys of the 1980s. Uou seem to be conflating them with M.U.S.C.L.E. which were Japanese and debuted in the U.S. around 1985. Scottandrewhutchins 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * like i said before the production year nor country is not a criteria for keshi or not. i perfectly know what M.U.S.C.L.E. are (check my Kinkeshi article), and i had Monsters in my pocket myself. please look at this painted keshi 1, matte gum 2. how would you call this? well, now just look at these packages (front pack.) (back pack.) how would you call them? these four pictures are all the same, M.U.S.C.L.E. series sequel marketed by BANDAI AMERICA (so they are not japanese toy - not keshi in your sense), and they were all manufactured in 2003 (no more the '80s, so the M.U.S.C.L.E. are no more M.U.S.C.L.E. nor keshi in your sense). but you are mistaking. the reason why the new series is not marketed as M.U.S.C.L.E. is the M.U.S.C.L.E. were lincensed by Bandai (japanese company) to Mattel (american company) but the 2nd series -only released in the US- is now directly marketed by Bandai (US branch) itself. M.U.S.C.L.E.'s trademarked by Mattel, so Bandai used another name. easy to understand. Monsters in my Pocket is a an American ripoff M.U.S.C.L.E. (known as "Kinkeshi" in Japan). what's the real difference between MIMP and MUSCLE? EnthusiastFR 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Monster in My Pocket are monsters from myth. Monster Wrestlers in My Pocket are a rip-off of M.U.S.C.L.E., I grant you. Other than that, there is minimal similarity beyond saying that all action figures are rip-offs of G.I. Joe for example. The fact that they were not introduced until late 1990 excludes them from "Toys of the 1980s", and the fact that they are not gum rubber excludes them from being keshi. Look at the keshi page. It's a Japanese culture stub. It is irrelevant. Scottandrewhutchins 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * please look again at the updated keshi article, you could be surprised dude...

EnthusiastFR 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're still not responding to my specific refutations of your claims. Scottandrewhutchins 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you just don't know what you're talking about, but here we go:


 * "The fact that they were not introduced until late 1990 excludes them from "Toys of the 1980s""
 * OF COURSE!! but it has nothing to do with the Keshi category. Keshi are toys of 1970s, 1990s and 2000s as repeated one hundred times and demonstrated in the keshi JUST READ!
 * "and the fact that they are not gum rubber excludes them from being keshi."

NOT GUM RUBBER? what are they made of? wood?! they are made just like all keshi toys! THERE ARE KESHI LINES INCLUDING TRANSPARENT PLASTIC PARTS! did you knew that?! the "BeastFormer" aka "Battle Beast" ARE KESHI!! [http://www.mandarake.co.jp/information/2006/05/27/nkn15/p1.jpg WHAT CAN YOU READ ON THIS FLYER?? "SOUL KESHI GUM" IS MADE OF "GUM"???? NO!!! did you knew that?!
 * "It's a Japanese culture stub. It is irrelevant"

IT IS YOU WHO IS IRRELEVANT! keshi toys started in Japan but are used all over the world. THERE ARE KESHI MANUFACTURED IN GREECE, IN TAIWAN, IN CHINA!! what does these countries have to do with Japan? NOTHING! but they are KESHI! M.U.S.C.L.E. (Kinkeshi since '91) were manufactured in CHINA!! Monster in my pocket are a complete copy of the Kinkeshi which were sold in the US as M.U.S.C.L.E. without the MUSCLE they would NEVER HAD Monster in my pocket!! so yes they are not japanese but they are directly related to Japan. how can you dare claiming they have nothing to do with the Japanese culture. who made the video game? KONAMI a japanese company! japanese considered them as part of their culture, just like you, just like me! Monster in my pocket are not American culture only related, they features many Scandinavian, Hebrew, Greek mythologies!! are the KRAKEN, the HYDRA, the TROLL, the GOBLIN, the MEDUSA, the VAMPIRE, the MUMMY, etc from the American mythology?! hell no! America did had even a name these mythic creatures were known in all Eurasia, almost all Monster in my pocket figure hae nothing to do with american culture and that's probably why they failed in the US!! the M.U.S.C.L.E. were huge in US and Canada probably because they are wrestlers, a sport popular nowhere like in NorthAmerica! 80s toys are a strong evidence of the globalization and uniformization of a worldwide mass culture. all 80s kids from Asia, North America and Europe played with the same toys in the same time so they shared a common culture! you're "it's not related to japanese culture" is the biggest stupidity in the history. MONSTER IN MY POCKET ARE SOLD IN JAPAN as KESHI GUM "米のモンスター 消しゴム" MICRO MUSCLE WRESTLER: AND THEY ARE KESHI! the keshi article is not a "japanese culture", nor a "1980s toys" article, it is a "toy" article and a WORLDWIDE "popular culture" article. actually it doesn't even has a category!! so please, don't make me waste my time anymore with your stubborn kid attitude. when you don't know what you're talking about, PLEASE just shut the fuck up!! EnthusiastFR 07:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) STARTED IN 2003: THEY ARE NOT 1980s TOYS!!
 * 2) MADE BY BANDAI OF AMERICA (ohh this an american brand!)
 * 3) SOLD ONLY IN THE USA!!!!!! (it has nothing to do with Japanese culture so!)

Winged Panther, Catarenha, Jabalius
Though it does not seem encyclopedic to say so, these appear to be "made up" by MEG, but I certainly can't confirm it. It took me years to identify Bash Tchelik after seeing him identified in the centerspread of issue #3, as they used an unconventional but phonetic spelling that was used by Alan Garner in The Hamish Hamilton Book of Goblins. From there I was referred to Woislav Petrovitch's Hero Tales and Legends of the Serbians, found the more authentic spelling, and found many hits on the internet, so it turned out not to be so obscure after all. I thought I discovered what Grave Watcher was until Ankou proved to be a separate monster in the series. Creature from the closet seems to be similar in the same way to Boogeyman, but the bit on the insert suggested the latter is a specifically American ieration of the idea. Then there was a spot on Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction that told specifically of an incident of a monster in a closet, that it claimed was true, but as it was attributed to being from the collection of the generic "Robert Tralins", it means little or nothing. Astaroth never fit any descriptions until I found Jeff Rovin's The Fantasy Encyclopedia, and from there was later able to identify the likeness as being Baal. Even after years of research, I can't find anything on these three, though I've only known of Catarenha and Jabalius for three years, while knowing of Winged Panther for 16. Perhaps posting the brief descriptions might help someone else identify what could be another switcheroo like Maahes becoming Karnak, whcih I can't exactly prove, but there are only two lion deities in the Egyptian religious system, and only one is humanoid. --Scottandrewhutchins 02:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Winged panthers turn up in Etruscan art:
 * http://www.royalathena.com/pages/etruscatpages/Vases/GMH13.html
 * Aircraft insignia:
 * http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/flyinpanther.jpg
 * and, apparently, heraldry as well. None of these are conclusive, but I suppose they're all possible origins.
 * 90.240.170.52 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I learned today that Jabalius is the Argentine MIMP stickerbook's way of saying "Beast of Gévaudan." Sonric's MIMP in Mexico features the same illustration with the name "La Bestia de Gévaudan." Catarenha is "El Guardian de Oro": Guardian of the Gold. Still not sure what this could be. Perhaps Sphinx, though I don't think Sphinx was on the Russian steppes or that SPhinx guarded gold. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination comments
I won't make a determination on this particular nomination, but I have some comments to offer: it would help if more of the redlinks were replaced with stub articles. Also, although I don't know how hard it might be to reference some of this information, the citations here are pretty slim for a GA. Good effort so far, keep working. Durova 03:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing
This is still quite a way from GA, it's heavily POV and undereferenced

Unspecified source for Image:54549490462.gif
I found Image:54549490462.gif and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:54549490462.gif
Image:54549490462.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MonsterInMyPocket Doc.pdf
Image:MonsterInMyPocket Doc.pdf is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mimpvideo.jpg
Image:Mimpvideo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
This article certainly needs some picutes. I still have loads of these toys somewhere at my parents house. I will have to try and find them out and take pictures when I'm next there. I certainly have some from series 1 and 2 and some of the bugs too. I may have others - will have to have a look. Are there any preferences for what pictures should be like? Single figures? Group pictures? Are any specific monsters needed for illustration a specific point? Or just general ones needed to illustrate what they are like? Evil Eye (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding what was said about the gods being taken out: according to the website, a blue monster is called a sic armed sorceress, but is obviously Kali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.248.240 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reworking
Hi all.

I've started some reworking on this article, because as it stands it's woefully under the level of standards that such an iconic 90s toy line should be. I wanted to make this section here on the talk page to explain what changes I've made in case anyone wishes to dispute them.

1- I've cropped "The line proved controversial for various reasons and many changes were implemented that took it away from its original mythmaking focus, though it has since reemerged with the original idea intact" to remove the advertising lingo in the last sentence, and asked for citation for this.

2- Removed the 'aka pocket monsters' bit, it's not relevant.

3- I've put a citation requirement on which series is rarer, as this is unsourced.

4- I've removed references to season 3 being an exclusive-only, because it's just so poorly worded on the article and so full of POV that it adds nothing to the segment.

5- There's a chunk of text that discusses the toys in the 'board games' section that I've moved into the 'toys' section instead.

6- I've changed the bit about the line 'running into trouble in the UK' because of our 'large number of Hindu'' people, because that phrasing is ridiculous. Unless there is a citation to explain that the UK has a disproportionately large population of Hindu's, that the Hindus were spectacularly offended by these toys, and that the offense existed purely in the United Kingdom and no other country, then it's significantly better to just go with a more neutral statement. In fact, let's just use neutral statements if at all possible.

7- Removed mention of pogs, because the article doesn't explain why it's even mentioning pogs in the first place.

8- Removed the 'self defeating' comment about pokemon. It's self defeating to who, exactly? Neutral point of view, remember.

9- Removed the original research about X-Men characters in the comic book. Sorry, no original research. Also removed the reference to a mixed race couple as it adds nothing to the article at all, why bother with it? It's not noteable.

I'd love it if people can help contribute more to this and get the article into a really good shape, it does deserve it.Justin.Parallax (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)