Talk:Metapod (Pokémon)

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 12:35, 9 August 2012 by Blazios (Talk | contribs) (Caterpie Evolving into Metapod - Error Correction Discussion)

Jump to: navigation, search

Is this trivia worthy?

is it worth noting that metapod is the only pokémon based on a cacoon whose name doesn't come from cacoon Turtwig A Contributions 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. —darklordtrom 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Coloration

Is it worth noting that Metapod's shiny coloration may be a reference to the games Red and Green? --Bardock 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Not everything red and green means Red and Green. Not everything gold and silver means Gold and Silver. And so on and so forth. —darklordtrom 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

worthy trivia or phisiology?

Has anyone else noticed how Metapods body looks like a face?

and due to way it looks

it's back "face" is angry

while it's front one looks bored (Ataro 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

Name Origin

I have a theory that Cater"pie" (pronounced like "pea"), Meta"pod", and "Butter"free are part of a food-themed naming convention (particularly that of peas), but my editions stating this as possibility were reversed. To a lesser extent (not present in my edits), "Cater" (pronounced as in the act of food catering) and "pie" (pronounced as the dessert) also have culinary implications, and (reaching further around) "Meta" could refer to one's "meta"bolism. I also once received "free" food at a Burger King, a known sponsor. Am I alone? Also, why will no girls date me? --GrowlitheandEkans 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you imagined a lot of thing, such as associating Butterfree with Burger King. About the girls, I can't tell you. Gabriel Rocha (Diby esp) 03:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Good point. --GrowlitheandEkans 05:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Caterpie Evolving into Metapod - Error Correction Discussion

In prior revisions of Metapod (Pokémon), it listed next to "Evolve Caterpie" that it was for "White/White 2 only". I attempted to correct this by removing the reference to White/White 2, since a Caterpie (Pokémon) traded into Black can evolve perfectly fine in Black; I'll be happy to trade one into the game and level it up, then take a video to prove that everything is indeed perfectly fine if anyone wishes to suggest this is not possible, but I would presume this is common sense without a video.

Within the hour, Blazios reverted my correction giving the reason that Caterpie can only be caught in White. Trust me: I know that. I have since restored my correction (it was reverted again, and I have made no additional attempts to restore the correct information at this time CycloneGU (talk 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC))). There is no need to disambiguate a version next to a note saying that you have to evolve a Pokémon. A Pokémon can evolve in any game, and even if it's common sense, we should not lead down the road suggesting that, to evolve a Caterpie into Metapod, you have to be playing White.

If a Pokémon cannot be caught in any game and must be evolved or breeded, that's fine. That ought to be mentioned. However, it should never be suggested that in order to evolve or breed, you must be playing one game and not the other. Sticking "White/White 2 only" in there suggests that. This error is existing in numerous Pokémon articles (not just in Black/White entries) and should be corrected; I thought I'd start with the earliest instance and try to establish a precedent rather than appear to wreak havoc throughout all of the articles. It quickly seems I will have a challenge doing this. CycloneGU (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, you can trade/transfer just about any Pokémon to a fifth generation game and evolve it into any of its possible evolutions. But by that logic, every evolved Pokémon that's not otherwise available in should just say "evolve <previous species>, but that's not exactly useful information. So that suggests you can transfer a Bayleef from a SoulSilver cartridge to a White2 one, evolve it, and the page should say you can get a Meganium in White2 by evolving Bayleef. But it already says so at the top of the page that you get Meganium by evolving Bayleef.
So the way these tables work, essentially, is to tell whether or not the Pokémon is a version exclusive, as in where you can find its evolutionary family in the paired version without trading for one. So the table should say Metapod is "only in White/White2," since the Caterpie family is exclusive to those games. Dimenticare (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
People are not stupid. Version exclusivity isn't about whether a Pokémon can evolve in a certain game, as all Pokémon are able to evolve in all games (with the sole exception of Magneton/Nosepass/Leafeon/Glaceon in HGSS). Version exclusivity is about whether the Pokémon can be obtained at all without the use of trading. It doesn't matter if you're able to evolve Caterpie in Black 2, you still need to trade with White or White 2 to get a Caterpie, which makes Caterpie, Metapod and Butterfree all version exclusives. Saying that Metapod isn't exclusive to White 2 is exactly the same as saying Black Kyurem isn't exclusive to Black 2. Sure, they both can be obtained within the other game, though you still need to trade with another game to obtain what is needed to get them, making them both version exclusive. - Blazios talk 12:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)