Our 2014 Christmas Contests have begun! Check the Bulbagarden Forums to find out how you could win 1 of 30 copies of ORAS!
Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Talk:Gender

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Gender Based Evolutions

Thanks for making Gender Based Evolutions more detailed, Fabu-Vinny! I thought it was important, but I couldn't seem to describe it well. --Cai 06:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First mention?

Of differences between genders. Rustboro Pokemon (Lazy again) Center, male kid on the left. Trivia? It's the Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links10:09 7 Jun 2008

"Just like people, there are male and female POKéMON. But no one seems to have any idea how they're different."
That seems more of an explanation for why the world's inhabitants don't know how breeding works... --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 10:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems to point the fact that before Gen IV there were no differences between genders, or maybe no one in the Pokémon world knows any of biology. hfc2X 00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Larvitar

I'm pretty sure Larvitar is a female-only pokemon.- unsigned comment from Retasulettuce (talkcontribs)

Uh, you're wrong. No offense.--Loveはドコ? (talk contribs) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Gender or Sex

Gender is not the same thing as sex. A gender implies identification with people of a certain sex, but not necessarily being that physical sex. The Pokémon here are physically of a certain sex or not, as are the male or female trainers. Thus, this page is discriminatory against transgendered individuals. If the game ever uses the word "gender", then this page shouldn't be moved. However, otherwise, it should be moved to "Sex". I know that some people have a irksome avoidance of usage of the terminology due to its other meanings, but in this case it is at the point of being discriminatory. If the games do actually use "Gender" in their own terminology, then it should be mentioned that when Pokémon says "Gender" it actually means "Sex", just like "Evolution" in Pokémon is a misnomer and is more related to concepts such as "Metamorphism". Satosuke 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You scientists and your wacky terminoligies... anyway, I'm 98% sure in-game it's referred to as gender. Besides, "genderless" sounds better than "sexless" Gligar 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Because Ditto's anything but. The game uses "gender" in the Gender unknown Egg Group in Stadium 2. TTEchidna 22:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
They also use "gender" in the Diamond & Pearl game guide by Nintendo Power:
"When two Pokémon of opposite genders are left at the Pokémon Day Care at Solaceon Town, they may produce an Egg."- Kogoro | Talk to me | 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No one seems to have noticed the joke I made about Ditto... TTEchidna 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was hilarious. Nearly laughed out loud-RexRacer -talk 22:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I never actually understood Ditto... It is supposed to morph into the Pokémon it's using Transform on, so why does it somehow become the opposite gender to the other Pokémon you left with it... Shouldn't it become an exact copy of the Pokémon you left with it? - Kogoro | Talk to me | 22:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we have better to do than talk about Pokémon.... intercourse. I can honestly see why this problem arose, and I have honestly wondered this myself. And that does make sense, why DOES Ditto become opposite gender? Rawr I say! 23:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In battle does it copy genders?--RexRacer -talk 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, it hasn't shown to gain a gender in battle (This could be due to a technical limitation, or the developers not thinking that players would even notice) However if it's making an exact physical copy of the Pokémon that Trasform is used on, it should logically also copy gender (or at the very least, the physical traits of gender) Anyhoo, we should probably take this to the forums since I think we're going a little past the actual subject at hand. - Kogoro | Talk to me | 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Or at the very least, Ditto's page.... Rawr I say! 23:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


So the games actually use the misnomer. Alright. Then a move isn't necessary. However, somewhere either near the top of the article, in a section "In relation to the real world" - as in the Evolution article, or in the trivia (least appropriate location of the three) it should mention that gender in Pokémon is really more akin to the real-world definition of sex (not sexual intercourse, but the biological quality of an individual). It's not just science - and it's not about pigeon-holing either - it's about not being discriminatory. I have transgendered friends. I know transexual individuals as well. They're different, and they prefer to be identified correctly, rather than being lumped together. It's like how we could say that that Dawn's Buneary is female, but it could actually be the other sex, and just identify with the female gender (note this is different than a suggestion that it is homosexual in liking Pikachu). Satosuke 23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, the reason the games use the word "gender" is because it is a commonly accepted euphimism for biological "sex". Sean... Lord of the Shadows!!! 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite their differences, it’s not clear that Pokémon actually have sexes in a biological sense, and the term “gender” is consistently used in the canon. It’s not sufficient when talking about human characters, though... and I don’t think it is ever used to classify humans in the games, is it? Don’t the professors just ask if you are a boy or a girl? --LaprasBoi 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender Counterparts

Alright, I keep seeing the argument about Tauros/Miltank connection, but people keep using other examples, specificly Nidoran♂/Nidoran♀ and Volbeat/Illumise. Could someone please confirm the relations of the Pokémon with known genderal relations, suspected relations, and just plain similarities? Sean... Lord of the Shadows!!! 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nidos are OBVIOUSLY gender counterparts-they were gender counterparts before gender even existed! As for Volbeat,/Illumise, they happen to mention it in the Pokédex AND the anime. So your argument is invalid. Me and my fellow torchics agree on this - Sk8torchic. 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it, personally. When i saw the Tauros/Miltank mix... i got really confused. I mean, they don't look similar at all like the Nidorans and the Volbeat/Illumise. Tauros is a more realistic style compared to Miltank's cartoony look. And they're just... i don't see the relation at ALL. Okay, so one is a bull and one is a... cow. o_o Can someone give me a few valid arguements to help me out? I just don't see why anyone would think they're counterparts. CherryParanoia 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you look at their availabilities, they are found in the same locations in GSCDPPt; and in DPPt their appearance rates are inverse of each other. —darklordtrom 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
And the bull and cow thing... Pretty obvious... --ケンジガール 06:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a HUGE stretch to me... they're from different games, look completely different, and just... even if they happen to have similar locations, it's still weird. And Tauros is more of a wild bull than a steak bull. ._. CherryParanoia 20:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Heatran

As far as I know, Heatran is also a male-only Pokémon. Pan·da·mo·ni·a 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Male or female. --PsychicRider T - C 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nidorans

Why are they listed as unofficial? Nidoran♀ can produce Nidoran♂ eggs, regardless of the compatible male she breeds with. I just confirmed it after several friends said they tested it before as well. A Nidoran♀ and a male Marowak produced a Nidoran♂ egg. I plan to test this will Volbeat and Illumise later as well. - MK (t/c) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unofficial because they're not one "Nidoran" species but they are considered two species (diff Pokédex numbers, etc). ZestyCactus 06:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well they do have the same name, sort of. I don't want this to turn into a canon, fanon, or semantics arguement, but I think the fact that a Nidoran♀ can produce a Nidoran♂ egg, even without breeding with a Nidoran♂/Nidorino/Nidoking, is enough to make it official. In a sense they are in the same Pokemon family line, like a split evolution, only the split occurs before the egg hatches. Either way, it shouldn't be grouped with Pokémon that are indeed wholly unrelated like Tauros and Miltank. - MK (t/c) 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial...

Yeah we need to use a different word. Illumise can make Volbeat eggs, and Latios and Latias are intentionally counterparts. TTEchidna 11:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Egg relatives? I hate not having an official term. - MK (t/c) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What did you have in mind?--Midnight Blue 23:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have rearranged things to take care of the Bug-types. I dunno what to do about the Lati@s, though, and “Egg relatives” wouldn’t cover them since they produce no eggs. --LaprasBoi 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Gardevoir & Gallade; Glalie & Froslass.

They are currently in the same section as Lati@s, and not in the same as Mothim and Wormadam, despite evolving from the same species. Typo? Or is the game mechanic unofficial, somehow? --PLA 12:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think those families are unofficial because they have one member that can be either gender and one member that has a fixed gender. —darklordtrom 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, that explains it. The word "unofficial" led me to think of disputed fan speculation, so it might be a confusing choice of word. Their relations are also a step more established than the Lati@s relation. --PLA 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the evolutions of Kirlia and Snorunt should be listed as "male and female counterparts" at all, unofficial or not. They are sets of Pokémon that evolve from the same species, one of which existed in Generation III with a 50-50 gender ratio, and one of which was introduced in Generation IV as an alternate, gender-specific evolution. I know it is mentioned in tiny print that Gardevoir and Glalie can be either gender, but with that being the case, why list them under the counterparts section as if they were a single-gendered Pokémon? You could say one was more feminine and one more masculine, but I don't see how they are "male and female counterparts" any more than Politoed and Poliwrath or Gorebyss and Huntail. If they were removed from the section I believe it would help to clear up some confusion within the fandom as well. Endeavor 00:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lati

Why are the Lati in the unnofficial section? They are confirmed to be the same Pokemon, similar to the Nidoran & Volbeat/Illumise, the only reason they are in the No Eggs group is because they are legendary.Vuvuzela2010 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

lati@s

My friend is a real cheater and one time he used cheats to breed latias but the egg hatched into a latios!! Is this a good fact to add? - unsigned comment from Nickvang (talkcontribs)

If it involves cheating, it's not notable. --Carmen (Talk | contribs) 15:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Both Pokemon are in the No eggs group, so they cannot breed. Though I do not know what would happen if Latias was given the ability to breed with cheats, if it could produce Latios eggs. (A reliable source really should check if this is possible) XVuvuzela2010X 16:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not really about cheats but about the game programming so it's perhaps notable. Nickvang 18:43 5 June 2011
From the article: "Latias have produced eggs containing Latios in the anime", so it would make sense since the two are related. Pikiwyn talk 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Genderless

Would a list of genderless Pokémon be appropriate for this page? If not, will someone please link me to where said list is? Stmorawski 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a place to start. PLA 07:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Single Gender table

Whats with the order of the female Pokemon in the Single-gender Pokémon table? Though the evo families are grouped together (makes sense), none are sorted by Dex number or alphabetically. Basically, the currently order is: Chansey family, Petilil family, Jynx family, Vespiquen, Kangaskhan and Cresselia. Is it meant to be like this? XVuvuzela2010X 21:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A main image?

I want to ask if anyone thinks it's a good idea to add a main image at the top of the page, because I've gotten two suggestions: we could use the 'Are you a boy. Or are you a girl?'-picture on the top, or maybe the picture at the bottom of this page: http://www.pokemonxy.com/en-us/downloads/. (However, there is some text in the latter picture, although I do think that there exists a version without it.) I also think that latter picture would be really usable because of the split of blue and pink to clearly indicate the picture is about genders. That way it would also indicate that this page is about genders. So does a main image for this page sound suitable or not? Nickvang (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. If we could find an image without without the text that would be preferable. --Pokemaster97 19:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Foud it: http://www.pokemon.com/uk/pokemon-fun-zone/downloads/detail/all/empokemon-xem-and-empokemon-yem-heroes-wallpaper/. However, it still has the 'Pokémon Xtm Pokémon Ytm'. Is that a problem, or should someone try to edit it by using both images? Nickvang (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Editing it out won't work I noticed. However, I don't think the X and Y will be a problem, as we could simply state Boy-Girl' artwork from Pokémon X and Y'. So would anybody be nice enough to upload the file to the Archives, please? Nickvang (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Petilil and Cottonee

Could Petilil/Lilligant and Cottonee/Whimsicott be added as unofficial counterparts with them asterisked to indicate it can be either gender--like Gardevoir and Gallade, for example. griffindaly (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They are (essentially, even though not literally) version counterparts, but they are not gender counterparts, so they do not belong on this page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, don't include the "unofficial" chart, but...

Miltank, Tauros, Gallade, Froslass, Rufflet, Braviary, Vullaby, and Mandibuzz are now not on the list of mono-gender Pokémon at all. Gee, what a stunning improvement. </sarcasm> If they're not on their own chart, they belong in one of the other charts. And given that I come from a Wiki where consensus is the be-all and end-all and there is no visible consensus for removal, who is to blame me for reverting their removal? --HeroicJay (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. And I, not Pumpkinking, was blamed for edit warring. I, who reverted once. Not Pumpkinking, who reverted my reversion. I wasn't even given a chance to respond before being blamed. This Wiki has a massive problem with insularity, as this shows. --HeroicJay (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I was not aware that the mono-gender list does not already list all Pokemon regardless of whether they are listed elsewhere on the page, and I feel this is a mistake; also, there is a consensus against fanon for Bulbapedia as a whole (excluding the Appendix and Shipping namespaces), so each individual issue doesn't need a separate consensus on it. Finally, I did not revert you. TheOriginalOne did, then 0danmaster restored the section, and I reverted 0danmaster. In my personal opinion, this was not an edit war because no party reverted multiple times in a row, but I'll let the mods handle it as they will.
The mono-gender table looks ugly anyway, so I'll draft up a new version of it in my userspace and request an admin put it in at their soonest convenience. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
For the record, this is my draft, and I've asked G50 on her talk page because she was the one who protected the article. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for jumping to conclusions a bit, I did not notice there had been another reversion in there. (For the record, though, 0danmaster wasn't warned about edit warring either; only I was, though if there was a war it was in RESPONSE to my edit.) Aspects of the old chart were questionably fanon (well, Rufflet/Vullaby was a reach, version counterparts or no) but fine, my main concern was the loss of the information in its entirety - if I had noticed the re-reversion without the page getting locked, I'd have given up and thrown them into the lower chart, which would have completely pre-empted any edit war. A lot of my reaction is that I do not like being accused of something I did not do, and this isn't the first time accusations of things I did not do have been thrown my way on this Wiki. --HeroicJay (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. Forgot to say: But I shouldn't have taken it out on you since you didn't make that accusation, so again, sorry. --HeroicJay (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't get any of this! There are many Pokémon to be stated counterparts of each other in their trivias. Mostly because of a shared location, similar movesets, similar ways to evolve, similar ways of obtaining and simalar base stats. But we can't list Miltank and Tauros here as being counterparts, and that they are also (maybe like coincidentally) of the opposite gender? That makes no sense! Nickvang (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the fact that they're in trivia instead of the main body of the article is the reason they can get away with not being deleted. Second, they're carefully worded as "may be counterparts" or "can be seen as counterparts" because if they were stated outright as counterparts — as this page previously did — they would immediately get removed for speculation. Third, even as they currently stand, I don't like those trivia and would like to see them deleted, but there seems to be enough of a consensus for them that I'm not going to bother trying. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
"A counterpart of the other gender" seems to be everything necessary to be put onto that list. In interviews with Ken Sugimori he stated that Mandibuzz and Braviary are officially counterparts: "According to interviews with Ken Sugimori in Nintendo Dream, Vullaby and Mandibuzz were added late into the development of Black and White. When Mandibuzz was originally created by James Turner, it was unrelated to Braviary, but it was later decided to use its design as a counterpart to Braviary." So they are counterparts, and of the other gender. So they have the right to be on such list! No fan speculation, no whatever. Just facts, confirmation and a fitting list! Nickvang (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
But, unlike the other “official” counterpart species, they aren’t related in-game by evolution or reproduction. At best, they are conceptual counterparts only, in the vein of Tauros & Miltank. For this reason, I have removed reference to “couterparts” from the single-gender section of the article, replacing it with the phrase “explicitly related species of the other/both gender(s)”. This also resulted in the removal of Vespiquen, who is explicitly related to Combee; Vespiquen is covered in the section on gender-based evolution. --LaprasBoi (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Your draft needs updating: you forgot Tauros, Rufflet, & Braviary; Flabébé, Floette, & Florges from the now-released Gen VI are also female-only. --LaprasBoi (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, it seems weird/kinda ugly having two completely different table styles in the same article. I do think the big gender symbols are kinda out-of-place. Lemme try something. --LaprasBoi (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There, I removed the big ugly gender symbols, & added a table that covers the single-gender evolutions, so every single-gender Pokémon is now present in at least one table. Do you like the small gender symbols, or would you rather have one looking more like this:
236.png
Tyrogue
106.png
Hitmonlee
or 107.png
Hitmonchan
or 237.png
Hitmontop
440.png
Happiny
113.png
Chansey
242.png
Blissey
115.png
Kangaskhan
? --LaprasBoi (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, sort of

...which is to say: while my solution will probably not please everyone, at least ALL single-gender Pokémon are now back in the article. --LaprasBoi (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: I also tried to bring the table more in line with the others on the page in terms of background color & fix a few formatting errors, but my edit got a bad formatting warning. It looks fine to me, so I posted it anyway, but maybe someone could identify what exactly Bulbapedia believes I broke? --LaprasBoi (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

LaprasBoi, I agree with your point that we shouldn't have differently-formatted tables on the same page, but I disagree with most of the rest of what you're doing. We should absolutely not group unofficial counterparts together; they are unofficial and we report facts, not opinions. Thus, National Pokedex order is the easiest way to enforce neutrality on this article. Likewise, the symbols are completely unnecessary; the headers easily signify gender, and evolution lines are irrelevant to the subject matter of this page. (Also, please add new comments to the bottom of the section, not sandwiched in the middle. You're making your monologue hard to follow.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I DID PUT THEM IN NATIONAL POKÉDEX ORDER. Then I moved later-introduced evolutions & pre-evolutions to be with their pre-existing family members. Then I moved all the legendaries to the end. This just HAPPENED to put all counterparts next to each other; it was completely unintentional, but I thought it was a nice bonus & a good compromise since there is NOT a consensus here yet, clearly. That said, I don’t really mind the split into two tables, but I disagree that evolution lineage is should not be considered for ordering; & also see no reason to include alternate formes & megas.( And my comments are placed based on what I am responding to. You can easily trace the intention by looking at how far they are indented. But here, I WILL subsection this, since it is relatively separate from the earlier dialogue, though still within the same conversation.) --LaprasBoi (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"Then I moved later-introduced evolutions & pre-evolutions to be with their pre-existing family members." Using an order like that is more confusing than anything. There are two options, IMO.
1) Keep the table basically like it is and ONLY order the Pokemon by National Dex order. That means Tyrogue comes after Hitmonlee.
2) Revamp the tables and make the different "groups" more distinct, less consecutive. As a decent mock-up, I mean something like this for the males:
Male
236Tyrogue.png
Tyrogue
106Hitmonlee.png
Hitmonlee
107Hitmonchan.png
Hitmonchan
237Hitmontop.png
Hitmontop
128Tauros.png
Tauros
538Throh.png
Throh
539Sawk.png
Sawk
627Rufflet.png
Rufflet
628Braviary.png
Braviary
641Tornadus.png
Tornadus
642Thundurus.png
Thundurus
645Landorus.png
Landorus
Throh and Sawk are together because they're obviously "related", but they could be separate. Likewise with the Genies (who may actually present a challenge if done like that; they'll need borders, and I'm not sure that'd work out well, or else easily).
I really think we should just do pure National Dex order, though. It's easily the simplest (in a number of ways). Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain what you find confusing about family grouping? That might help me see where you’re coming from. --LaprasBoi (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
There's not a ton of reason to organize it by family, and National Dex is standard and clean. --Wynd Fox 02:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, ^that, basically. Specifically: when I see something like Tauros sandwiched directly between Hitmontop and Throh, I become terribly confused about what order everyone's in. It just makes no immediately apparent sense.
Honestly, if you want to group families so badly, then you shouldn't be listing everyone in one continuous table/set of cells where they're all mashed together. If you're concerned about the families, you should separate them more clearly, something like I suggested above. Tiddlywinks (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Um. Why is it confusing to have Tauros between Hitmontop & Throh, but not confusing for it to be in the middle of the Hitmon family( as in National order)? --LaprasBoi (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, because it's the National Order. I know the National Order. I've played every game more or less as it came out, or had my ear to the game news. I don't have any trouble, really, telling which Generation a Pokemon was in. Therefore, I also know its position in the National Pokedex relative to others. So when I see Tauros from Gen I between a Gen II and Gen V Pokemon, that's jarring.
But just in general, National Pokedex order is an actual order. Your family-prioritized order is a rarity at best; it's absolutely not in any games (at least as far as I remember; which says something if it actually is). Therefore, it is also not so understandable. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
AH. I see part of the problem: I am trying to do what will be simplest for a Pokémon newbie to understand( grouping visually similar, related Pokémon together); while you are doing what makes most sense for someone who has memorized the National Pokédex order. Is there a compromise that would be less space-consuming than the one you have posted in this section( which, ftr, looks O.K. to me, just has more blank space than I would like)? - unsigned comment from LaprasBoi (talkcontribs)
Given that we are on a wiki on which all users have access to the fandom's complete collective knowledge of Pokemon (or at least, as close to it as we can get), I don't think we should sacrifice canonical sense for ease of understanding. But also I like the table Tiddlywinks posted above as a compromise. I'm not too concerned with the blank space; given the choice between it and misleading/confusing/cluttered presentation, I'll take the blank space. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree about not prioritizing accessibility of the info for casual readers, but since it seems most of us are willing to accept that table, I guess we go with it. See folks? Discussion→understanding→compromise→consensus. Yay. :-p --LaprasBoi (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution and players

I have three issues: One, the giant "N/A" in the evolution template looks really...not good. I don't have a suggestion for how to improve it, though, sorry. Two, Calem's cell is a lot darker than any other, and I don't know how to fix that. Three, Calem and Serena are really low resolution, so their images look quite blurry. --Wynd Fox 01:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the N/As in favor of visually null cells, how’s that? I also fixed Calem’s background. The problem with Calem & Serena is not that the images are low-res, it’s that there are no sprites for humans in Gen VI, so those are actually HIGH-res PNG images of their artwork, scaled down to a size on par with the sprites for earlier generations. --LaprasBoi (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, apparently someone else redid it so that there's no need for cells of that kind, anyway, and it looks fine. Thanks for fixing Calem's background. And yeah, I meant it was high-res scaled down; technical speak isn't my forte and I said the wrong thing. --Wynd Fox 02:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, now it shows that only female Kirlia can become Gardevoir. Again, I don't know how to fix this. --Wynd Fox 02:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe someone can replace all the player characters with artwork, as was done for the Pokémon? The we could have them all a bit less compressed... --LaprasBoi (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that, will get it in a second. --LaprasBoi (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't really "show" that, though I could understand if it might look that way. The male/female cells are supposed to overlap vertically with whichever evolution form they can evolve into; and it does, for Kirlia. But if you really want something else, let me present the best alternative I had, kind of a hybrid with the previous table. It could be more complete, perhaps, and I just tacked on the header (minus "Evolution method") from the current table so perhaps that could be worded differently, but here it is for reference:
Pre-evolution Gender Evolved
281Kirlia.png
Kirlia
Male only

Dawn Stone
475Gallade.png
Gallade
Either
282Gardevoir.png
Gardevoir
361Snorunt.png
Snorunt
Female only

Dawn Stone
478Froslass.png
Froslass
Either
362Glalie.png
Glalie
412Burmy.png
Burmy
Male only
414Mothim.png
Mothim
Female only
413Wormadam-Plant.png
Wormadam
415Combee.png
Combee
Female only
416Vespiquen.png
Vespiquen

Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That one looks a lot clearer to me. I vote that we use it. --Wynd Fox 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I mostly just think it's a lot uglier. =/ Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it does that for Snorunt but NOT for Kirlia. But I like the new one with purple best anyway, especially since it turns out I have no clue how to fix the current one. :-p --LaprasBoi (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
You're saying that, in Kirlia's row, the border between the Male and Female cells looks like it's exactly even with the border between the Dawn Stone and Level up cells? ...I wonder if you could screenshot it maybe, and I could see if it actually looks to you how it looks to me. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct. I was actually already thinking of that, because I wondered if our disagreement over <br> <br> in the player characters table was also due to seeing different things. So, I can take the screenshots, but how do I share them with you? Dropbox? --LaprasBoi (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Here, I took a picture. It's not quite exact, but the difference is, like, a pixel. I'm assuming it's the same for LaprasBoi. Ad4jy7Y.png - unsigned comment from WyndFox (talkcontribs)
What browser are you using? I'm looking at it on Chrome, and the borders line up exactly in the proper way. Never mind, it appears to have changed. A previous version is what I'm remembering lining up correctly. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent)It looks exactly like that on my computer, and I'm using Chrome. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 03:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. That screenshot is from Chrome. --Wynd Fox 03:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Well damn...unfortunately, I couldn't make it dynamic so that it was, like, always 3/4 vs 1/4 of Kirlia's height...but I'm a little perplexed that Kirlia looks like that and Snorunt looks fine. Maybe I'll try to think/search more about a better method. But if it's a problem right now, then I suppose we should just go with the alternative above, then. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I personally think that scaling the male/female at 75/25 and the evolutions at 50/50 would be confusing and look like a mistake to the average reader even if you managed to get it to work. I'd strongly prefer the alternative posted above in this section. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
For once, Pump & I are in complete agreement. --LaprasBoi (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup, it does look as above for me. Also, gimme a sec & I will post how the player character table looks to me without the <br> <br>s. --LaprasBoi (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
So:
Without <br> <br>s:OBUohOD.png
With <br> <br>s:DHYqLL4.png
If you have a better fix, by all means, please! --LaprasBoi (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
And this is what I see. The "Original" is this revision, without the breaks, while the "Altered" is this revision, with them. (I'm in Firefox 20.0 .) I'd honestly consider a solution that just sets the heights to be better...but I really wish I knew what was going on in the gulf between our browsers. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. I still think my altered version is better than how Chrome displays the original version, but ideally we want it to look, in all browsers, the way the original looked in Firefox. Fixed heights could do it, but they would have to be readjusted if the sprites get swapped out for artwork soon. --LaprasBoi (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the best "solution" is to submit it as a bug to Chrome and let them fix it... I downloaded Chromium and looked for ways to fix it, but I can't find anything dynamic, that you wouldn't have to readjust if the images ever changed. And it's not only a problem here on the Gender page. Rather than trying to "fix" it everywhere where it might be a problem (and again, it'd be a custom solution for each case and would have to change if the thing it was calibrated for ever changed), I'd really rather just leave things as they are/were and tell Chrome to fix it once, on their end, instead. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On the naming of the "Other single-gendered Pokemon" section

I think "Other single-gendered Pokemon" is a bad name for the section, because "Other" implies an original, a "Single-gendered Pokemon" section, or else "[SomeKindOf] single-gendered Pokemon" which has a separate set of single-gendered Pokemon. But there is no such section (not explicitly). In that whole "Pokemon" section, there's subheadings of "Gender Differences", "Related Species", and "Gender-based evolution". "Other single-gendered Pokemon" (the "Other" in particular) doesn't make sense among that company.

What the section really is is, as I had it, "Single-gendered Pokemon families". The List of Pokémon by evolution family has absolutely no problem with "families" with only one Pokemon, so that shouldn't be a problem here either. "Single-gendered Pokemon families" is the most accurate/descriptive name for the section. Can we please just go with that? Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Other" as opposed to each of the former sections (aside from the gender differences, which really shouldn't be grouped with the rest) which each describe certain specific types of single-gendered Pokemon. I object to "Single-gendered Pokemon families" on two grounds: (1) because Pokemon that do not evolve are not part of an evolutionary family, and that list is wrong about this as well and I object to it on the same grounds; and (2) because we must either include something in the title to indicate that it is only talking about Pokemon not previously mentioned in earlier sections or repeat those Pokemon in this section. In the interest of avoiding redundancy, I prefer the former.
Would you be less uncomfortable with my preferred title if we instead had two sections titled "Gender differences" and "Single-gendered Pokemon," the latter having further subheads titled "Related species," "Gender-based evolution" and the section we're contesting? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Since you've gone and edited it already, I'll say sure. But I made a couple of adjustments to satisfy my qualms with it. Mainly, that the "Gender-based evolution" section wasn't actually talking about single-gendered Pokemon in particular; it was more about a basic mechanic. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-aesthetic differences between player character genders

Aside from aesthetic differences like character sprite, bag, Pokégear/C-Gear/etc., what in-game events, Pokémon, or items are affected by the gender the player chose at the beginning of the game? The only ones I can think of at the moment are the Ferris Wheel trainers and Yancy/Curtis in B/W/B2/W2. The latter is a pretty big consideration since those in-game trades are the only way to get the hidden abilities of Meowth, Shieldon, Mawile, and Teddiursa (male player character) or Mankey, Cranidos, Sableye, and Phanpy (female player character) other than the Dream World (which will soon be shut down) or trading with other players (not everyone has a reliable internet connection). I haven't played X/Y yet, so is there even more gender-exclusive stuff in those games? ~ Katrinuh (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Gender unknown" over "genderless"

This is what Pokédex 3D Pro (and maybe Pokédex 3D, haven't verified) and the X and Y Postgame Guide/Pokédex calls Pokémon with no gender listed: "Gender unknown". Not "genderless", but "gender unknown". Thus, it may be incorrect to refer to such Pokémon as "genderless" if official sources say that their gender is unknown, and not simply having a lack of gender. Pikachu Bros. (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)