Appendix talk:Fan terminology

Novelty Pokémon Page

I remember there used to be an entire article that listed off novelty or gimmick Pokémon in a table, and gave a reason for each one being there. It was quite the nice page, I'm wondering if anyone knows where it went and why it was gotten rid of for a simple definition? The page gave a definition, a list of thoughtfully included Pokémon, thorough reasoning, etc.,. Biodude94566 (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was deleted because it wasn't notable. Uploader (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Novelty Pokémon is not a specific group of Pokémon; it is a fan perception of Pokémon. Its a subjective grouping, so it is impossible to actually create a list of them. The page was deleted for that reason, and the definition was put here instead. --SnorlaxMonster 07:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

While it's a subjective grouping, I think most people can agree on them. There were very good reasons given for each Pokémon, and I'm sure the talk page could have been opened up to discuss why X Pokémon was or wasn't in the list. Biodude94566 (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been deleted, you can't see it any more, but the fact of the matter is that the talk page was enormous and was almost entirely a battleground over whether or not various Pokemon should or should not have been on the list. There were virtually no criteria on which everyone could agree. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Merged content from Talk:Electric rodents

Why should it be deleted? Electric Rodents is not only part of the fandom (and it is part, just search deviantart, tumblre, forums etc to see for yourself), but also a "Formula" that the pokemon creators used from the 1st generation onwards. U can't deny the similarity of these pokemon(Not only in appearance but in their "place" in the pokemon universe), even if the don't share an evolution line with each other. Mr. Bell (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a formula in-game. Look at their base stat totals (which is probably the most significant way of comparing unrelated Pokemon) and most of their other numerical values. They're just plain not all the same in almost any category. There is a recurring design motif, but that's an opinionated statement (no matter how obvious it is), so it doesn't belong in the mainspace of a fact-based encyclopedia like Bulbapedia. If you want to expand the entry on Appendix:Fan terminology*, that's your prerogative, but I really don't think this has enough factual information to support a full article. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And in response to Glik's edit summary, "It's a popular fan term for a group of related Pokémon that have no explicitly stated relation in-game but whose relation fans widely agree upon. Nowhere in the article does it say that it's a canonical group." I wouldn't call this "widely agreed upon"; anyone who's been around since Gen 2 will tell you that Marill was promoted as if it were the Pikachu counterpart in those games before Gen 3 retooled "Pikachu counterparts" to require the Electric type. As for the last part of your statement, the mainspace is for canonical content only. Like I said above, the Appendix namespace is fine for this topic, but it simply cannot go in the mainspace at all; it doesn't matter whether there's a "fan term" disclaimer at the top. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this group is more or less canon, they might not have the same BST, but their designs (and cheeks!!) and the fact that they are owned by a main character in the anime just can´t be ignored. The pseudolegendaries get less similarities every gen while the electric rodents get more. --Nico649 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Plusle and Minun were never owned by a main character.

I would consider the early bird Pokemon for each Generation (Pidgey, Hoothoot, Taillow, Starly, Pidove, Fletchling) to be more similar than I would consider these "Electric Rodents" to be. I mean, at least you're not skipping a Generation there (Pichu is explicitly Pikachu's baby form, so it hardly "counts"). And Pachirisu and Emolga don't fit so well with all the others IMO. (That's "IMO", as in, anyone else's opinion will not sway me in the slightest, it's simply my feeling.)

The thing is, you could just as well make a page for those early bird Pokemon. Probably with better cause, even. Ash has had every single one of them. Not "a main character"; Ash. Not "all except Plusle and Minun"; all period. The only thing different about the groups is that Pikachu became the franchise's mascot, so people want to ascribe some special significance to its group of similar Pokemon. ...But nothing in the franchise actually raises any of the other "Electric Rodents" to anywhere near the same level as Pikachu (except perhaps Pichu, which is related to Pikachu and therefore not really a surprise).

Maybe if you wanted to make a single page about all the similar Pokemon between Generations (the "Electric Rodents", the early birds, the early bugs, the early ground sorts (e.g., Rattata, Poochyena), Zubat/Swoobat...the starters...and so on...), that might be moderately worth a whole page. There are trends, certainly. But most of those trend really don't deserve their own pages. That goes the same for Pikachu's group, which is not actually special just because Pikachu is in the group. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The mainspace is not "for canonical content only". The notability requirements says "not all non-canon material is relevant, but neither is all non-canon material irrelevant". That's the whole point of Project:Fandom, to make articles on the notable bits of fandom that are not explicitly canonical. There is a large section of fandom that accepts that there is a pattern of Electric types modelled after rodents appearing every generation, that's why it's on the Appendix. I personally think that the group's members gaining a repeating, important function in the anime starting with the Diamond and Pearl series warrants the group having an article of its own. But I also agree with Tiddlywinks: the generational trends would be better if they had one combined article. Glik (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A Couple of things I would like to say:

• First of all-presenting a different valid subject for an article (early birds) doesn't mean that this subject isn't valid. Maybe we should just have both articles?
• Secondly, u are correct that the usage of "Electric Rodents" in the canon(esp. anime) hasn't been constant. But this is true with other subjects as well, as the anime itself changed each generation(i.e. which character has starter pokemon).But for the past 3 generation there is a constant formula.
• Electric Rodents is a popular fandom term, google it and find out.
• Aside from fandom, the similarities between these pokemon is found in canon-their origin and design of course, their egg group, their base stat isn't equal but it is the lowest of all others' electric pokemon, and of course their use in anime in the past 3 gen.
• And a more meta-encyclopedia argument- i can't see why would we want to delete it? Even if one can argue about the similarity of them, it is clear that many believe it exist. Bulbapedia should be the source for knowledge about pokemon, why would we want to deny this knowledge from our readers?

Mr. Bell (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You're still just talking about a general trend that is only remotely special in this case because Pikachu is in this group. A page about all of those general trends would be great. Redirect "Electric rodents" to there, and you can add any minor comments about all their commonalities there. But the "Electric rodents" are not nearly special enough to have their own page, nor would every trend deserve its own page. A list of trends, including the Electric rodents, is the only really sensible solution. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be other trends, but i think the similarity in this one is much greater, and it is much more present in the fandom. pseudo legendaries might also be considered just "a trend", as the similarities between them differs through the timeline of the series as well. The fact is that this trend is becoming more and more a formula in the canon, and it is already present in the fandom. I think it "deserves" an article, and by putting it with other "trends" we'll just create a massive unreadable article. Mr. Bell (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseudo-legendaries (here, at least) have very specific and objective requirements. The only completely objective thing that every one of the "Electric rodents" have in common is that they're Electric types. And most other trends aren't likely to have such objective requirements either.

As I said above, I actually consider Pachirisu and Emolga to be poor fits* among the other "Electric rodents", as far as design goes. Who's right? I'll tell you now: that question has no right answer.

As far as creating a massive article, I imagine you believe that every trend would be roughly as big as this page currently is. But the fact is, most of this page is little more than fluff. Pretty much the only thing this page actually does that's not (I believe) done elsewhere is the top/intro section. The rest is unimportant and/or can easily be found on the pages for any of the Pokemon. If each trend is therefore only about as big as that top section, then the whole page wouldn't actually be that big (big enough perhaps, but not absolutely massive). And really, the only way to know if it can work is to try first. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we should present the subject in the best and easiest way to our reader-no send them to other articles. If I want a comparison about Electric Rodents, I want it to be done in a good and thorough way. I'm really against deleting this article not because of this article, but because the message it sends about how we see this encyclopedia. If u want to create a page for all the the "trends" together, it is possible to try, but we shouldn't delete this page before we find out the consequences. Mr. Bell (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with making a page about groups of similar Pokemon, it wouldn't be that large, it would only consist of a table with sprites, a description and trivia. It would be as long the Legendary Pokémon page, probably much less. --Nico649 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If we keep this page, we would also need to make pages about the regional birds and the regional early normal type 2-stage Pokémon. There is as much a pattern for those as there is for electric rodents. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to expand the entries on Appendix:Fan terminology than to have a mainspace article about opinionated patterns like these. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a key difference between Electric Rodents and Pseudolegendaries. All fans can actually agree on what an electric rodent actually is. If anything should go, it should be Pseudolegendaries. Or at least, it shouldn't be mentioned on the opening paragraph of Pokémon pages. It has about as much place as putting Electric Rodent at the start of the relevant pages, if not less, given that, again, at least EVERYONE can agree on the conditions of an electric rodent as opposed to the pseudolegendaries, which are in constant debate. Me, Hurray! (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly the opposite — pseudolegendaries have a very clear and strict definition, so there's literally no room for disagreement whatsoever about what Pokemon are or aren't pseudolegendaries. On the other hand, this is a very loose aggregation with no unarguable definition, and as I noted last week, many fans are more likely to group Marill with the Pikachu ripoffs than exclude it. (I am more in favor of moving both to the Appendix namespace than keeping both in the mainspace, if people insist they belong in the same place.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. Pikaclones is the more used term anyway. C$ (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Trivia

Regardless of whether or not the article stays, I think some of the trivia needs to go. I don't mind the first two points, although the first is sorta questionable, considering Raichu is the only one who evolved from a non-baby, but I digress. The last four simply don't seem notable at all. They are, "Raichu is the tallest of the electric rodents at 2'07" (0.8 m)," "Dedenne is the shortest of the electric rodents at 0'08" (0.2 m)," "Pichu is the lightest of the electric rodents at 4.4 lbs. (2.0 kg)," and "Raichu is the heaviest of the electric rodents weighing 66.1 lbs. (30.0 kg)." While undeniably trivial, it doesn't seem notable or even interesting. It seems like a bit for me to delete, though, with no consensus. --Wynd Fox 04:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Height and weight are more important to a Pokémon to make sure each Pokémon have their own height and weight, so why it should be remove just because someone dislikes the trivia who's the tallest and who's the shortest. And there are the list of Pokémon pages about height and weight, so if you want to read it, just do it. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So interesting trivia shall keep those, so don't tell anyone that height and weight trivia is not notable and not interesting, so it's true. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with WyndFox. All height and weight trivia on all group articles should be deleted. It's not interesting whatsoever. It's just an inane space-waster. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll delete trivia about height and weight, it's not interesting at all. Cinday123 (Talk) 05:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Route Pokémon

Should Shinx be an early-route Pokémon?