Talk:Nidoking (Pokémon)

Nidoking's Anime Dex Entry

Here's Nidoking's most Pokédex entry from the most recent dubbed episode for the page:

Episode Pokémon Source Entry DP128 Nidoking Dawn's Pokédex Nidoking, the Drill Pokémon. Once swing of its mighty tail can snap a telephone pole as if it were nothing but a matchstick.

Watchermark 13:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding something in the Trivia.

There is a Bullet reading: "Nidoking and its female counterpart Nidoqueen share the same species name with Rhydon and Rhyperior. They are all known as Drill Pokémon." Then there is sub-bullet reading: "Coincidentally, all four are also Ground-types."

What I was asking is if: "and dual-types" can be added to the sub-bullet?- Thanks. User:BAC510 19:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Baragon

Is there some kind of proof that Baragon is the origin of Nidoking that I haven't seen? If we are going by resemblance alone, then there are other Pokémon that resemble Kaiju. Blastiose resembles Gamera, Aerodactyl resembles Rodan Tyranitar resembles Godzilla, and so forth. I really think that if Baragon must be mentioned it should be in the Trivia section if there is no proof that Nidoking is based directly off it. Trainer-c 06:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that's almost absolutely impossible to find definitive evidence about the inspiration of any Pokémon. There isn't any proof that Ninetales is based on kitsune, or Bronzong on Of a Mirror and a Bell legend, or Golduck on kappa. It's just a matter of common sense. I personally think that Nidoking is uncannily, embarrassingly, painfully similar to Baragon, to the point that I think it would be appropriate to write it in the article. --Siegfried 06:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference there being that Pokémon like Ninetales and Bronzong are based on common Japanese legends and myths. Baragon is not a legend or a myth, it is a copyright character belonging to Toho Company Ltd. Secondly, the similarities are purely superficial, if that much. Baragon is a dinosaur/lizard, Nidoking is a rodent, Baragon can live underground, Nidoking can't live underground, Nidoking is part of a set of gender-counterparts, Nidoking secretes poison. My point is that any resemblance is more likely coincidental, and should not be used as the basis for the origin section. Trainer-c 08:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to be a coincidence, Nidoking is practically a point-for-point cartoon drawing of Baragon. There is no other major kaiju, and certainly no real animal, resembling a big burly reptile with a horn on its nose, spines down its back, jutting fangs AND those big, floppy rodent-like ears, which are wholly unique among reptilian kaiju, and both monsters are tunnelers. Adding a poison aspect and gender dimorphism is the bare minimum to make it a legally distinct creature, and does not do so visually.Scythemantis (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, copyright didn't stop them from creating Hamilton, or basing Kadabra on Uri Geller (the entire Abra line is named directly after real people). They probably just wanted to create a Pokémon reminiscent of a highly recognizable kaiju from popular culture. Another example of low profile origin is Wobbuffet. I also think that Pokémon use a lot of syncretism. Golduck is based on a kappa, an amphibious human monster, but its ingame specie is Duck Pokémon, Shiftry is based on a tengu, a bird-like monster, but it's a tree. They don't need to be exact copies of they original mythical creatures. So it isn't strange for a Baragon-like Pokémon line to have some rabbit features. And where is stated that Nidoking (or its preevolutions) is based on a rodent? I really can't find any direct reference from game or anime. Its similarity to rabbits, noted in the article, is as much referenced as its similiarity to Baragon. They are based only on its appearance (and to me Nidoking is way more dinosaurian than leporine). Also, Nidoking is in part Ground, so it wouldn't be so strange for him to be based on a monster that lives underground like Baragon. What to me look like evidence, for you is only a coincidence, but you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am and I don't want to seem too pedantic. I'm wondering what other Bulbapedians thinks about this. --Siegfried 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So a few things.

The origin sections, unless specifically stated by the games or something else, are nearly all speculation. That's why most say "may", "could be", or things like that.

Basing something on another thing has no real meaning. You could take a Dragon Pokémon that we haven't already hunted down a possible origin for, and claim that it's related to nearly any myth related to a dragon, because the Pokémon is a dragon. That's also like when people make an OC for a fan fic or to draw. It's based off of the Pokémon series. So what?

And I personally don't see any relation between Nidoking and Baragon. Yes, they both have a tail, and a horn, and they have large ears, but so does a jackalope. R.A. Hunter Blade 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But a tail, a horn and large ears are not all they have in common. They have each and every single visual element in common, and that particular combination is seen in no other animal or kaiju, then to top it off they're both associated with burrowing. It's a clear-cut homage.Scythemantis (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jackalope? Amazing idea! :-)
So Vulpix should be based on a fox? Please, people, be serious. It has several tails and is red all over? It could be easily a storybook!--Siegfried 17:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. All of the origin sections are speculation, but the Nidoking page is currently the only one that claims a Pokémon to be based directly off of another specific character rather than a general concept, myth or legend. Ratatta is based on the general concept of a rat, or mouse, we don't say in its origin section that it based off of Mickey Mouse just because some users would say that they look alike. If during an interview someone at Game Freak says that they based Nidoking off of Baragon, then we can take that as a definitive origin, as long as that isn't the case, I believe it is too speculative to be listed as Nidoking's origin. Trainer-c 17:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I was only mostly serious. All we really need for origins is the basics, unless we absolutely know what something is based off of. Like, Vulpix and Ninetales is easy. As is anything that comes from Japanese myths and culture. R.A. Hunter Blade 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Baragon

Nidoking is quite obviously based on Baragon Their designs are very similar.Bennell 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See above discussion. It's actually kinda interesting. Volcronaperson 23:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

TM Detect

I was trading my nidoking and Nidoqueen to gold and it was holding a tm detect. Can I add this to the article? P.S what's with all the red and green artwork?. Shouldn't we use FireRed LeafGreen instead?

--Time for awesomeness! Pokemon Trainer Bowser Jr. [[ 17:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Moveset

Why are some of his moves commented out? Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because there are moves that Nidoking learns before them. Glik (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

.....what? That makes no sense. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Because no one's checked if he learns those moves at those levels, or even if he learns those moves in general. If you can confirm one, unhide it. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 21:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, okay then. Can confirm one at least. Thanks. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Baragon

Nidoking's Baragon basis is indisputable whether or not it has ever been overtly stated. Nothing looks like Nidoking other than Baragon. Nothing looks like Baragon other than Nidoking. Both of them are burrowing monsters and Pokemon is packed with kaiju references. - unsigned comment from Scythemantis (talk • contribs)

True. There is no reason not to mentions it in origin section, especially when all of them always say words like "may be".--Rocket Grunt 12:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still a copyrighted character, you know this already.--ForceFire 12:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That's why they won't ever confirm their inspiration, but why can't we say it might be?--Rocket Grunt 14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We outright do not mention copyright characters as monster origins, no matter how similar they are. Kai * the Arc Toraph 00:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For what possible reason? Like TRG is saying there is nothing legally wrong with homages like those, and especially not for a fan made wiki to discuss.Scythemantis (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, so I asked why not? It is illegal to use copyrighted characters without consent, it's hardly illegal to only use them as inspiration especially when they become popculture and shape the image of fighting monsters, it's not illegal to point out the inspiration, and I am absolutely sure it is fine to mention only the possibility that such inspiration could occur on encyclopedia in the trivia section where we always write the most plausible origin. Bulbapedia is a fan project hence stating these inspirations has no legal meaning, nor it will "bring awareness". It is widely known by people who know a little more about Pokemon and Japanese culture than average person who we are directing these informations to. Also, Bulbapedia has a whole page dedicated popculture references, List of references to popular culture in Pokémon and sometimes it is even impossible to not mention copyrighted inspiration like on Tyranitar's page where we can read about kaiju genre what seems to be acceptable.--Rocket Grunt 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I inquired about this exact topic at ForceFire's talk page half a year ago, but it seems that was even archived away recently. I'd like to repeat it here: Is there a policy, and if so, what policy and why? Nescientist (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to it, Dr Lava's interview with Game Freak confirms Pokemon were based on kaiju [1].--Rocket Grunt 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Kaiju in general. That only confirms that it's based of general kaiju monsters, not a specific one.--ForceFire 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Origin sections don't need such confirmations, they are always speculative. Now we have a basis to claim they were could based on trademarked characters.--Rocket Grunt 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Trademarked/copyrighted characters are treated differently because they are intellectual property. We can't just say something might be based off a copyrighted character without the legal implications. So yes, origins do need such explicit confirmation regarding copyrighted characters.--ForceFire 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)