Talk:Kiawe's Marowak

Headbutt?

Is it possible that Marowak knows Headbutt too? It seems to frequently headbutt Turtonator in its rematch, and afterwards when it got stuck in Turtonator's weak spot Azure/ChromeVoid42 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The act of heabutting does not equal the move headbutt.--ForceFire 12:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

it was in battle though, is there any evidence that says it can't be a known move? Scraggy headbutted people all the time too and that's a listed move Azure/ChromeVoid42 (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if it was used offensively, it could've been Tackle, Slam, or any other move involving ramming oneself into their opponent.--ForceFire 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Marowak?

Shouldn't it be Alolan Marowak? --PKMNAdventurer (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. 'Alolan' isn't so much part of Marowak's name as it is just a category it falls under. It'd be like having a page called 'Ash's Shiny Noctowl'. Watchermark (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Moveset

Why is there apparently an issue over Marowak's moveset? Not a single move has been placed on the page, despite three of the four used being obvious. Headbutt, Flame Wheel and Bonemerang all appeared clearly in the episode; the latter two matched previous animations while the fact that Marowak's head shone before using Headbutt makes it almost certain that's the move being used. Shouldn't these at least be put? I mean, if it's wrong (and it wouldn't be the first time) we can always change it? Watchermark (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Current Bulbapedia policy is that a move must be explicitly identified in order for us to attribute it. If it's not identified but people still think it has a unique animation, then you should wait for it to be okayed before adding it (anyone can have an opinion; waiting for approval will help avoid edit wars).

Also remember that the moves may be identified in the dub's CCs. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, your question in conjunction with an earlier question about the same issue shows exactly why we require explicit identification: You've concluded that Marowak's head shining means it's using Headbutt, while FinnishPokeFan92 observed the same thing and concluded it was Iron Head. You both can't be right, and you might both be wrong. And it will always be possible for disagreements to happen over these kind of "eye of the beholder" assumptions for any move that's not explicitly identified and doesn't have a unique animation. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So.. Lemme get this straight: The mods decided on a shitty rule, did no announcements for it, AND it applies only starting with SM? Wow, honestly, that's kind of ridiculous. And this rule is kind of dumb because wild mons very rarely have their moves named, so... It's self-sabotage at its finest..--ShallowShaddoll (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I know I explained it to a number of people when we decided it should be strictly enforced. (What I'm also saying there is that I believe it's been the ideal for a long time, but it was allowed to slide and/or may have gone mostly unnoticed. One of the older staff—especially one more familiar with anime matters—would know about that better than I.)

And you seem to think we're saying it's OK to assume for moves from XY or earlier, but that's absolutely not the case. It applies to any move move in any episode. If a move has previously been attributed that violates this rule, that should be fixed (or discussed). Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

But this rule is so ridiculous (would stay mad, or stupid, but don't want to offend people...): You're purposely stopping the flow of information instead of, I don't know, putting it up to a vote in the talk pages. Like, that would be much more reasonable. And, as beforementioned, wild mons don't have their moves named. What are you gonna do now, remove ~80 per cent of moves just 'cause it was used by a wild mon and Ash and co. didn't bother to call it by a name? Immediately, like half the mons should be removed from the Psychic section, for example.--ShallowShaddoll (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If it went to a vote, it could easily be voted wrong. As a matter of basic policy, staff does not wish for Bulbapedia to have wrong information. We will not assume just because we can't know what the right answer is. We're not stopping any flow of information except for misinformation.

If you can't find citations for examples on Psychic or whatnot (there's an archive of closed caption scripts floating around somewhere, which is an easy way to also check for stuff that may not even be voiced) and the move doesn't have a unique animation, then yes, it should be removed. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This rule wasn't enforced much back in the day if at all, if I remember correctly. The problems that came from that loose mindset led to the current standard that moves must be spoken out to be confirmed. There must be some kind of barrier in place, because if not, people can just add whatever move they want. There have been plenty of instances where a Pokémon did a movement resembling a headbutt, doesn't mean it's actually Headbutt. And similar cases like that. In the end, Bulbapedia is still aiming to be as factual as possible. This can't be guaranteed if people can just go assume.

Having said that, I personally do believe it is sometimes enforced too strictly. There are cases where a move is unspoken but a good case can be made that it is a certain move. For example, when a move is visually so obviously a certain move but is still unspoken. However, even then it should still be discussed civilly on talk pages first, as again, we can't have people just adding whatever they like based on assumption. Ps. I have not been able to check out SM034 yet so I won't comment on Marowak's moves this time. ☼ BlazingFist ☼ 00:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've talked about this subject with Force Fire (talk • contribs), and while he hadn't seen this episode by the time I last heard, he seems to agree, based on my description, that at least Flame Wheel can be confirmed by its unique animation. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just watched the episode and I think Flame Wheel is fine to be added, it looks as Flame Wheel has looked before. As for the other moves, I still stand by my explanations. The headbutting move could've been another move that involves ramming oneself into their opponent, while the bone move (the one said to be bonemerang) still could've been a stylized Bone Club. As for why I would think that, because it's Marowak's debut and the animator would probably want to make it look cool to appeal to the kids, so they could make a move appear more fancier. That and it wouldn't be the first time they've changed a move animation. As for the "Shadow Bone" move, it's still too early to say that it's Shadow Bone on the basis that it is a newly introduced move, so just wait for it to be stated (it could've been a stylized Flame Wheel; again to look cool and appeal to the kids).--ForceFire 06:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Shadow Bone not being confirmed, since its a newly-introduced move with no basis for comparison. And Headbutt... yeah, I hadn't considered Iron Head as a possibility so that should be left alone for now. But I still think Flame Wheel and Bonemerang need to be added; Flame Wheel because the animation speaks for itself (literally a wheel of flame) and Bonemerang because, again, not only does it match what we've seen before but also I can't see what else it could be (I can't accept the fact it could be Bone Club since even the name denotes the fact the Pokémon would club the opponent with it. Also, as another question, where does this far-too strict "moves must be called to be identified" reach? Could we have a Pokémon use Flamethrower but not have it placed on the page on the basis it could be Flame Burst? Watchermark (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Moves have to be explicitly stated, period. All of them. The only reason we would go by animation if they have a unique animation. Moves like Flamethrower (and to an extent, Hydro Pump) have extremely generic animations that they could easily be another move that would have similar animations.--ForceFire 10:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Third Caught??

Sorry but shouldn't it be second caught as of now since Charizard hasn't been explicitly stated to be caught by him, just given to him. Right now it seems more like a family pokemon who helps him out with his job. We've never seen Charizard's ball nor is he under Kiawe's owned pokemon on his page. RBK (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should be stated to be his second caught Pokémon. I changed it a few days ago, but my edit got reverted, so I hope this'll be discussed. Satsjoe (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)