Talk:James's Cacnea

I am sorry, but I don't know how to edit the box with one's Pokémon. May someone please do it? ~Light

James Forever

I don't really like the idea of moving it to "Gardenia's Cacnea". It's still James' Pokémon, isn't it, even if given away. It's not called Benny's Lickitung, is it? And how often do you think Gardenia (or, indeed, Cacnea) is going to show up again? Once they leave Eternia, we'll never see either again. It's notable only as James' Pokémon, and should just get a brief mention that he left it behind with Gardenia at the end of the entry. That's it. --DarkfireTaimatsu 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with DarkfireTaimatsu. It's not like Cacnea is going to a many character like Paul's Chimchar is.

Truthfully I believe we should wait until the episodes premier before we go moving all the pages around. This is a future event after all and doing this could confuse people.

And think about it. Do we also call them Anthony's Primeape or Susie's Vulpix? No we don't.

And I know we call Haunter Sabrina's and I'm guessing that's why this idea was thought of. But think about it. Ash never formally caught Hunter and he only had it for two episodes. James's Cacnea has been with him for like what, over 200 episodes. Yeah, this was a mistake. --☆ケンジガール 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, the only reason we call the articles Sabrina's Haunter and Casey's Beedrill is because they were owned for rediculously short amounts of time. Cacnea was owned for practically the entire Hoenn arc, as well as the Battle Frontier and the first 52 episodes of Sinnoh. There is no reason why this should have been renamed. --PAK Man ^Talk 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely either move this back (preferred) or move the above-mentioned Lickitung, Vulpix, and Primeape. Zurqoxn 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting that Benny and Anthony are characters of the day? Articles on Pokémon belonging to a character of the day are, for the most part, considered non-notable here on Bulbapedia. Sugar, Number Six, and Kay's Raichu have been deleted as such. The only cases in which an article for a COTD's Pokémon would be considered notable is if the Pokémon would be considered a COTD in its own right, such as Puka and Orville (Nero wasn't successfully caught). --Shiningpikablu252 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Forrest is certainly notable enough for his own article yet his Pokémon are still under Brock's name. And with good reason: The fact that they belonged to a main character is why they get their own article regardless of the circumstances of their departure. (Should we move released Pokémon to "Wild Butterfree/Arbok/Weezing/etc" under the same logic?) The only exception I see is Beedrill, who has become one of Casey's main Pokémon while the first thing Ash did was give it to her. --FabuVinny ^T-C-S 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gardenia

I think that it should stay under Gardenia's Cacnea. It is Gardenia's Pokémon now (James doesn't have a Cacnea!), so it should be named after Gardenia, who owns it. We don't have Ash's Haunter, it's Sabrina's Haunter, so the argument that it belonged to a main character isn't enough to make it stay as James's Cacnea. --Shiny Noctowl^{Talk | Contribs}File:Ani164MS.gif 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only Sabrina's Haunter because Ash owned it for one episode, and it has never been alluded to again. It is not Benny's Lickitung because he is a character of the day, and we do not have articles about character of the day's Pokémon. Same thing with Ash's Primeape and why it isn't called Anthony's Primeape. James owned Cacnea for well over 200 episodes, and what are the odds of Gardenia appearing with the darn thing ever again? I say move it back, and move protect it so that nobody else can move it. --PAK Man ^Talk 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)