Talk:Gourgeist (Pokémon)

I've already mentioned the feminine appearance, this being the hair and shrill voice, and then there's the living hair and malevolent nature, as well as the fangs. As much as the Gourd interpretation is more valid, my viewpoint is hardly able to be rejected outright, is it? Even so, the main similarity is in the name, and why else give it such long, prehensile hair? I doubt the candle wax explanation.

That's basically as far as I can argue, to be honest. I understand if this seems like a bit of projection on my part. It's the first thing I thought of, 2 Gs you see, very similar to Gorgon. I thought of Gourd-Gorgon-Ghost. --Headsprouter (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought...

Are we just gonna ignore the possiblity that the "Gour" in Gourgeist may be referring to Gorgons? Its feminine appearance would explain that. Candles never even crossed my mind, and I think the hair being dripping wax is a bit of a stretch. Even so, to solidify my point, we have mentions of less likely name origins such as "Forret" in Forretress, so why not give this possibility a mention?

Headsprouter (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Does it have any relation to gorgons? I'm not a mythology buff, but I don't see any whatsoever. If there isn't one, or it's super tenuous, then it's probably not worth a mention. --Wynd Fox 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

Is is noteworthy that this thing learns Trick-or-Treat a ridiculous FOUR times by level-up, with none of these instances being at Level 1? Kyurem's page mentions the oddity of learning Glaciate twice... I think four times is pretty significant, I just don't know the best way to word it. Or if any other Pokémon does the same thing. --KiANGLO ^(TALK) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Name

Gourgeist = gorgeous?

It makes sense, considering its hair. --Sartharis, God of Twilight (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are arms. And given how nothing about it mentions it being pretty, it's unlikely. Ataro (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

?? ? ?

If ン (n) before p = m, then why aren't we spelling パンプジン as Pampujin, yet we're spelling ガンピ as Gampi? --The Truth aka Relicant 19:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Because all Pokémon use the Hepburn romanization of their Japanese name until the trademarked romanization is revealed (unlike during BW, when we used inconsistently both fan romanizations and Hepburn romanizations). However, characters' Japanese names have often an obvious origin, meaning that we can use a sensible romanization instantly.--電禅Den Zen 19:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

But the "obvious origin" here is the word "pumpkin" which is romanized in Japanese as パンプキン -- note the first three characters being the same as the first three in Gourgeist's Japanese name, yet the word is still "pumpkin" rather than "punpkin" (which honestly is just not possible to say out loud). It's Pampujin. --KiANGLO ^(TALK) 07:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless Pampujin is the official romanization, it shouldn't be used. We don't assume how names are supposed to be spelt. Also, your logic is slightly flawed. If that were accurate, it could very well be spelled as "Pumpujin." Ataro (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not pushing "Pumpujin" for basically the reasons you said; it's just a little too far off. However, what Relicant said up there was true: In japanese, the letter N (ン) when written before M, P, or B, is pronounced /m/. I used "pumpkin" (パンプキン) as an example but if that's too convenient for you, lamp (ランプ) also follows this rule. If you want an example in the Pokémon world, check Mamoswine (マンムー Mammoo). I think following the pronunciation rules of Japanese is necessary in all cases. --KiANGLO ^(TALK) 17:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's actually as correct to romanize it as "n", and we have always done so; see how Happiny's, Mamoswine's and Lampent's Japanese names are romanized (and I'm meaning the Hepburn romanizations, not the official romanizations). Wikipedia also always romanizes it as "n".--電禅Den Zen 17:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)