Bulbapedia talk:Speculation policy

Gender policy

I have a few questions about the new gender policy:

1. Which Pokemon does the sentence "By contrast, any individuals that appear in DP001 or later can retroactively be considered confirmed as soon as both designs have appeared." have in mind, the ones introduced before or in generation IV? Maybe both?
2. How does it treat Pokemon introduced in generation IV that appeared before DP001, like Weavile in "Duels of the Jungle!"?
3. Which Pokemon with generation IV gender difference are considered "with very minor gender differences" and which are "with clear visual gender differences"?

--Rocket Grunt 18:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If a species was introduced before Generation IV and gained gender differences later... For any individuals of such a species who debuted before DP001... By contrast, any individuals that appear in DP001 or later. (It's all the same reference frame.)

"How does it treat Pokemon introduced in generation IV": For species with clear visual gender differences, inferences can always be made from these if the species was introduced in Generation IV or later.

Minor gender differences are ones that are just "more" or "less" some characteristic. There has to be a clear difference to point to; not just "that Pokemon is too big or too red to be fe/male". Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Then I suggest to change the last sentence to "By contrast, any individuals that debut in DP001 or later can retroactively be considered confirmed as soon as both designs have appeared."
2. What about Eevee? How far can we go to retroactively confirm its gender as soon as female variant appears?
3. Then the Weavile falls into category "we could have made inferences as it is species introduced in generation IV, but the difference is minor so we can't"?

--Rocket Grunt 08:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Moves, inferences, and exceptions

Since there has been some confusion, here are some things that may help clarify what our approach is or should be:

• Exceptions: All the moves that are to be inferred, those with or without additional context, have to be discussed with the staff first and then can be added to the moves pages, if the staff themselves haven't added already. This is to avoid edit warring, potential disputes or confusion like in Goh's Raichu's case. Another thing is the exceptions to inferences for non-verbal moves that are very difficult to identify, even with the additional context present. That would include moves like Thunder Shock, Thunderbolt, Thunder, Discharge, or when it's between Volt Tackle and Wild Charge, or Stone Edge and Rock Blast etc. You folks get the gist. In JN035's case, while we do have some context present, which would be Ash commanding Pikachu to use the move and other characters lining up to contribute, it is definitely not enough to confirm that the others were using the exact same move. The animation of such moves did/does not help in differentiating them, as they look way too identical to identify. Because of this ambiguity, different users may perceive these occurrences differently, which may potentially lead to edit warring or disputes, and that is why it would be more safe to avoid such speculations.
• Mallow's Shaymin's Aromatherapy: Shaymin uses it in two episodes, SM117 (initially unconfirmed) and 134 (confirmation). With the exception of added green shading for the latter use, in both episodes, Aromatherapy affects the Pokemon (Eevee and Primarina) in a very similar way; it heals their poison with the help of a powder-esque substance and they recover as a result. In addition, it's the only move that Shaymin has used throughout its entire stay with Mallow. Again, it has been acknowledged not because it's visually identifiable in all cases i.e. has unique animation, but based on the useful additional information (same effect and later commanded verbally).
• Scorbunny's Double Kick in JN004: Based on the events that occurred in that particular episode, it's been decided that JN004 should be Double Kick's debut episode. The flashback followed by Goh recalling the move and commanding makes it abundantly clear. Also, it's the only kick-based/Fighting-type move that Scorbunny/Raboot has used from JN004 till the recent episode (Ember involves fire and kicking a rock, which is different). One thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that the decision has been made purely based on the specific scenario that played out in the anime. I want to emphasize that without the presence of Goh's mini flashback, it would have been very difficult to acknowledge this without ambiguity as Double Kick. The level at which it learns the move in the games plays no role in this particular case.

That's all for now. We the staff will continue to work on this and other policies to make them as clear as possible, especially as more cases come forward. Adil — Talk page 09:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Anime Gender verification

I think that the policy should say that unless a Pokémon is a gender specific one, like Miltank and Tauros, the Pokémon's page must have a reference which sources the episode in which it was confirmed. Likewise Pokémon with gender differences must have a reference saying that it was confirmed through gender differences, this is to ensure that the information is correct and cited. I hope people agree with me.Huntress (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rework of "unsourced Pokémon origins" ruling

As discussed in detail on the Discord and Baxcalibur's talk page, I don't think many users are satisfied with the current policy of unsourced Pokémon origins. The exact passage I take issue with is the following:

"Unsourced character or Pokémon origins should remain generic in scope and avoid explicit comparisons to specific outside characters or franchises. Particularly distinct cases are occasionally permitted through staff approval."

This is a bit of a strange ruling to me because there are several examples where this ruling is not followed due to the similarities being too notable to ignore. Lokix is able to mention the franchise Kamen Rider just fine in its Origin section, but with a comment to not name a specific Rider from the series:

"<!––DO NOT CHANGE TO NAME A SPECIFIC RIDER. REFERENCING THE FRANCHISE IS FINE, NOT A SPECIFIC CHARACTER.––> Lokix also appears to be based on the superheroes of the Kamen Rider franchise.'"

So it'd seem that mentioning a franchise is fine, but not a specific character; this is already one thing that's made unclear with the current wording of the policy. But then, strangely, Palafin's Origin section does mention a specific character:

"Hero Form Palafin may also draw inspirations from the Ultraman series, with the red symbol on its chest somewhat resembling the one worn by Ultraman Noa."

Even stranger, while mentioning a character appears to be off-limits, mentioning a franchise that bears the exact same name as the character is totally fine:

"Palafin evolving from Finizen at level 38 may be a reference to 1938, the year Superman debuted."

The entire policy seems unnecessarily limiting and not consistently enforced. While the policy as written notes that "particularly distinct cases are occasionally permitted through staff approval", even with staff approval, editors have to jump through bizarre, self-imposed hoops to tiptoe around mentioning specific characters.

For example, why is the year Superman debuted relevant in the case of Palafin? Zatara, another DC Comics superhero, debuted the same year. Obviously, to you or me, the reason is because Palafin visually ressembles Superman, Superman is one of the most popular superhero characters of all time and Palafin shares similar abilities to Superman. But because we're not allowed to actually say any of that in the Origin section, this ends up reading as an irrelevant non-sequitor.

Now, I do understand why this policy exists. It's presumably to filter out low quality additions to the Origin section - opening the floodgates to the mention of any character could lead to massive leaps in logic, like saying Probopass is based on Super Mario due to its large nose and moustache and red and blue color scheme. No one wants to revert hundreds of garbage edits per day!

The solution I had in mind for this that garnered support from trusted Editors on the Discord is for any reference to other franchises or characters to have a citation from a reputable source commenting on the ressemblance. This would filter out a number of low-quality edits and reduce the amount of speculation on our part by jotting down that someone else had noticed the similarity. For example, Tyranitar's Origin section could look like:

"Tyranitar's design may have drawn inspiration from the kaiju genre. In particular, its design has been compared to Godzilla^[1], one of the most well known kaiju. Like Tyranitar, it is a reptilian monster who also has a robotic doppelgänger known as Mechagodzilla, similar to various mechanical Tyranitar shown throughout the series such as MT and MT2 from Pokéstar Studios and Iron Thorns, a Paradox Pokémon introduced in Generation IX."

Origin sections are inherently speculatory and we won't know the origin of any Pokémon for a fact unless there's an interview saying so; therefore, I see no reason to attempt to curb speculation in a section that is entirely speculation. Baseless speculation should be deterred, of course, but I would argue that none of the examples I've provided would be considered baseless. I hope to see some discussion towards a change of policy :) Meeper12346 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of this but for the sake of clarity, regarding the outliers you list near the beginning of your comment, I'd like to note that something breaking the policy doesn't necessarily indicate that the policy allows it, just that it's not been enforced properly, as you mention, which isn't necessarily a problem with the policy itself but a separate issue. This isn't to say that expanding the policy to allow such references in a limited capacity would be a bad thing though. I think generally I'd be amenable to allowing the citation of credible, reliable sources that draw connections between Pokémon designs and specific characters or franchises, though I'm open to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. Landfish7 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I like this proposal in concept, but it begs the question of what's considered a "reputable source". Like, there are some websites that say some ridiculous things because they were trying to fill out a top 10 list, or they wanted to make something that'd get people talking (even if it's not true); we wouldn't want to cite those kind of sources. But how do we help editors tell if a source is reliable or not? Storm Aurora (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say our regular sourcing policies would apply. Forum posts, reddit threads or other social media posts aren't good sources. Publications like Kotaku, Destructoid and Polygon are ideal. I would say things like Game Rant are also fine since Wikipedia does allow citing those for opinionated claims but Game Rant is also the exact kind of slop content mill you're describing and I'd 100% understand not allowing that. I think things could be ironed out but as a starting point that's probably how I'd define it :) Meeper12346 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Figuring out a reputable source for speculation sounds tricky to me. Although, I do like how the proposed origin section tries to dive deeply into the comparison being made - how the compared characters have similar designs, abilities, personalities, actions, etc, as opposed to surface-level things like "both characters are dinosaurs" or "both characters are green". We could try to encourage origin sections to be more-elaborate like this - it helps explain the line of reasoning, giving the claim better weight and showing effort/quality; deters comparisons that are too shallow/flimsy, as they likely won't backed up well; and makes for a much-more-interesting read for users. --Boblers (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, rather than trying to source the comparison from outside sources, we could require that copyrighted franchise/character origins are discussed on the Pokémon's talk page before they can be added to the Pokémon's page. A consensus would need to be established that the comparison is deeper than just a surface-level connection before it can be added, which would help curb baseless speculation. We could still require that it's approved by staff (which shouldn't be hard, since an active talk page discussion would likely be on our radar already), but doing it this way would allow users to easily see why copyright character origins have or haven't been approved to be added. Storm Aurora (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be the most agreeable approach. Landfish7 22:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating a citing system for "reputable source of speculation" calls into question any factual sourcing that we do. Blogger sites like Kotaku are the least reputable; not only are they mere reguritations of Twitter/Reddit threads (if not Bulbapedia itself), they're profit-driven sites that will push connections based on potential engagement over veracity. Static sites as a whole are fundamentally less reputable than us, as they can only present an argument, they can't test it against other arguments. If a world-renowned Egyptologist makes a blog post, video, etc. on what ancient Egyptian dynasties Cofagrigus is based on, they're not going to argue that Japanese pop culture depictions of Egypt are more influential in its designs than any actual pharoahs. Those arguments not only need tested against each other, the testing needs to be public and preserved, which is what talk pages are designed to do. glik^glak 01:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that, whatever the rule is, that rule is officially written down. The "no copywrited characters no matter what" rule isn't documented anywhere. Zurqoxn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be 100% fine with this. The point of the "citing journalists" approach was just to ensure that editors can't use themselves as a source by mentioning a ressemblance only they happen to see - if there's a reasonable consensus on a talk page, I think that absolutely qualifies as enough evidence. Glik makes a strong case for the advantages talk pages have over news articles above as well. Meeper12346 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)