Talk:First partner Pokémon

• Archive 1

Change name to “Starter Pokémon”

I noticed that this page is at “First Partner Pokémon”, an obscure and unusual term for the topic usually called “Starter Pokémon”.

Having reviewed the archives, I see the argument in favour of “first partner Pokémon” as follows:

- It is the preferred term of the Pokémon Company

- It is the preferred term of a small number of highly-dedicated staff members.

- changing the name might be the straw that causes Pokémon fans to adopt TPCi’s preferred term, despite TPCi’s attempts since Gen V having failed.

- the Wiki has used the official terms for pages like “Vise Grip” and “Feint Attack”.

The counter-argument is:

- the term “Starter Pokémon” is the term that is more common, more widely recognised, and where users will expect the page to be.

- the page should reflect the world “as is”, not the world how TPCi would like it to be.

- this decision has damaged Bulbapedia’s reputation and credibility.

Look, I’m not a regular Bulbapedia user. But it seems to me that the staff who imposed this move were motivated by strongly-held emotions, rather than strong reasoning. Now that tempers have cooled, hopefully we can agree that the needs of readers should come before the desires of editors. Users expect the page to be at “Starter Pokémon”, the common everyday term, not at the more obscure “First Partner Pokémon”, and it is not suitable for a Wiki to attempt to impose terms on the reader base. This is an encyclopaedia, not publicity material, and professional encyclopaedia do not slavishly stick to “official” terms (for example, look up any common animal in an encyclopaedia - “dog” will not be at “Canis lupus familiaris”).

I have my other issues with Bulbapaedia - it’s ridiculously hard to find useful information - but this is the thing I feel compelled to register to voice. Prioritising “official” names over actual names is terribly short-sighted. Dr Vesuvius (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you are referring to "Starter Pokémon" as the "actual" name is not necessarily correct, and suggests an obvious bias rather than an objective argument. I don't think it's fair to project "strongly-held emotions" onto the staff on account of a serious decision like this. The response to said decision on social media and the like afterwards has more evidence of such emotions in my opinion. But this preamble over, I'll address the actual issue.

Regarding the points you mentioned in favour of the change, the first point is true, the second is misleading, as it's not one of the "arguments" made in favour of the move.

Regarding the third point, that's not necessarily one of the reasons that supported the move. All I found related to that was an offhand comment speculating what would have happened if we made the change earlier. Please do not overblow this beyond what it was. If it were actually the case that this were a reason, I'd concede that it's a bad reason. This decision was not one made based on any intent for publicity. The fourth point is true.

You forgot the point that the term "First Partner" refers to more than just the trio of Pokémon selectable at the beginning of the game, but also any first Pokémon a Trainer gets (Hop's Wooloo, for example). "Starter" as the commonly understood term is more restrictive to the player/most rivals in the main games. This is the full extent of what the page intends to cover, and the name is thus fitting for that.

Addressing the points you summarized and made against the change, 1. Starter Pokémon still redirects here, so finding the page "where users will expect [it] to be" is not an issue. 2. Stating that the page should reflect the world "as is" and not what TPCi would have it be is as misleading as it is incorrect. For example, in the TCG, types are not always named the same as they are in the main games (e.g. "Darkness" type instead of Dark). Even if the fandom as a whole called the type "Dark," that would not be a good reason to change the page to that from "Darkness." Because that doesn't reflect the world "as is," but rather what the fandom would have it be. The same applies to this term. Popular reference does not constitute "the world as is," but rather fandom preference. I hate to break it to you, but the creators of Pokémon are well within their rights to decide what their terms are, and as a Pokémon wiki (not a fandom wiki), Bulbapedia is well within its rights to reflect that. Bulbapedia is not intended as a "crowd pleaser."

As such, it's clear that the third point is not a good one. Nothing about the change inherently makes Bulbapedia less credible.

This isn't a matter of "the desires of editors" tyrannically overshadowing "the needs of readers." That narrative is demonizing the decision way more than necessary. The needs of readers would not be impeded by a title change, since again, searching "Starter Pokémon" redirects here. This is a mountain-out-of-a-molehill situation.

I think you are conflating "official" names and "scientific" names as per your example. For example, Oddish is the official name of a Pokémon, but Oddium Wanderus is its scientific name according to the Pokédex. The two are different. Don't confuse them. Also, what is "official" is relevant more to works of fiction, where creators get to decide that, not so much to non-fiction, where general terms reign supreme.

What you are suggesting is simply against Bulbapedia policy: Whenever possible, adopt/prioritize current official terminology over dated terminology. We have our own guidelines for how the wiki is trying to do things, not just for this page, but across the 'pedia in other articles. Dougbro1 (Talk) 15:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your input. It’s clear you have very strong personal preference in this area, and it is heartening to see that you care, but I’m afraid your attempts to justify your viewpoint are deeply unconvincing, and indeed contradictory in places. It is, of course, inevitable that we all have personal biases, but we must be able to support our arguments rationally.

The idea that the meanings of words and the names for things can be “officially” determined is not one that many philosophers of language or linguists would take seriously. The meanings of words are determined through group consensus, not diktat. Language is fluid and context-dependent. It changes gradually and naturally over time. Often, authorities try to impose changes - sometimes they stick, sometimes they don’t. “First partner Pokémon” is plainly a change which has not stuck despite the concerted efforts of the authority. The official name is different from the actual name in use. “The world as is” is not dictated by TPC, that’s just not how reality works. TPC doubtless is very influential in the way people talk about Pokémon, but if people reject their terminology then TPC are the ones denying reality. “The world as is” calls starters “starters”, and has no idea what “first partner” Pokémon is, a term very rarely used despite TPC’s preferences. For instance, the term “starter Pokémon” is searched for on Google around 60 times more often than “first partner Pokémon”, according to Google Trends - a gap which has only grown over time (although that seems to be partially due to improved methodology rather than a genuine change in preference). Imposing the “official” term rather than the “used” term is the equivalent of insisting that it’s wrong to use the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”.

Appealing to “Bulbapedia’s rights” and “Bulbapedia policy” is circular reasoning. My point is that Bulbapedia’s new policy is plainly bad policy which has produced bad outcomes. This is reflected in how the threat to move “base stats” to “species characteristics” or whatever has been quietly rowed back once staff realised it was a bad idea. “It’s the policy” is not a rational rebuttal to criticism of the policy or a valid argument against changing the policy. And sure, it isn’t the law that Bulbapedia has to call them “starters”.

I really can’t agree with your claim that this doesn’t damage Bulbapedia’s credibility. As evidence, I present the very fact that I registered to point it out. You mention there was a social media uproar too. If people see that you’re getting the names for terms wrong, then it obviously damages your credibility.

It’s a fair point that the redirect minimises the damage done, causing mild confusion rather than total inability to find the information, but the confusion could be averted entirely by simply changing the name to “starter”. I do note that this contradicts your later claim that “first partner Pokémon” and “starter Pokémon” are actually subtly different terms, with “first partner” being more inclusive - if that’s the case, I think few people would object to separate pages, or a section about other “first partners” like Wooloo on the starter page.

I’m not sure what Oddish having an in-universe scientific name has to do with the real-world concept of animals having separate official scientific names (dictated by the ICZN) and everyday names. It seems you’re implying that scientific names are an entirely separate category from official names, rather than being a subset of them.

I don’t agree that the creators of fiction have absolute control over how their creations are referred to. Jack Kirby never created the term “Stucky”, Verity Lambert never created the term “Time Lord”, writers like JRR Tolkien and JK Rowling have both tried to make written addenda to published work with varying degrees of success or derision. Mary Shelley never named her most famous character, but it’s often called “Frankenstein” anyway. Like any concept, fictional things exist in the popular imagination, and often grow outside of their creator’s control. A good encyclopaedia will reflect that.

The tale of Canute stopping the tide is sometimes portrayed as one of arrogance, but in the original story Canute was demonstrating that he couldn’t stop the tide. I guess the question is whether one wants to use the common name, minimising confusion and being realistic about the world around us, or use the official name and shout at the world around us that it’s doing it wrong? Dr Vesuvius (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the move for Base stats and the like have not been abandoned or rolled back, it is simply something that is going to be more involved and will be tackled at a time when we can give the topics the attention and focus they deserve, accounting for the nuances without compromising accuracy. To address a particular point you made, despite "Frankenstein" being a commonly referred to and popular name for the monster, the Wikipedia article uses "Frankenstein's monster" for clarity and accuracy.

Our policies and approach to things are of course different to Wikipedia, which has a very different scope to us. Our guidelines are informed by the conventions established by our editing community in the interest of clearly and accurately informing on the franchise as it is presented by official sources. We understand that this topic in relation to certain popular terms is something some people feel passionately about. However, just as we use the title Vise Grip for the move even though people are used to it being spelled as "Vice Grip" for most of the franchise's history, we will continue to use the official terms in order to best inform our readers.

We recognize that "starter Pokémon" remains a widely used term, which is why it is still acknowledged within this article, which also links to a full article dedicated to covering the various terminology and usage over time. The page has a redirect in place to ensure accessibility, and the historical term referred to right in the lede. We understand concerns about search visibility and are reviewing potential improvements in our SEO for this page. However, the title itself will remain "First partner Pokémon" to reflect current official usage.

I appreciate you both sharing your perspectives. Feel free to let us know if you have any further questions. Landfish7 17:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

> To clarify, the move for Base stats and the like have not been abandoned or rolled back, it is simply something that is going to be more involved and will be tackled at a time when we can give the topics the attention and focus they deserve, accounting for the nuances without compromising accuracy.

This is very troubling. Ir seems to be a long way removed from the consensus in previous discussions. The discussions present a clear picture that most editors wish to keep the real names, rather than having staff impose the “official” TPC names. It would seem prudent to simply shelve the plans, if only on the grounds that you don’t have the resource for it.

This change would significantly worsen Bulbapedia. A community like this does tend to hinge upon a small number of very dedicated users who keep the site alive, but this firm adherence to TPC’s preferences over real-world usage, community consensus, and user need, is suggestive of groupthink.

I’m trying not to cast aspersions upon individuals here - everyone is a volunteer, and I suspect everyone who would jump in this quickly is very dedicated, but bunker mentality is very easy to fall into and routinely leads to bad decision-making. I appreciate that suggesting rules are being applied strictly or inappropriate is inherently deeply emotive due to our cultural conditioning, so I’m taking extra care to engage respectfully and avoid making comparisons about what is ultimately fairly trivial. If I have gone too far at any point, please take that primarily as evidence for the respect I have for what has been built on this site over many years, rather than a reflection upon you.

That said, it seems premature to jump in early in a conversation and make definitive statements like “the title will remain “First partner Pokémon””, especially when this seems to be against community consensus (based on the previous discussions and the apparent backlash). Wouldn’t it make sense to see what people have to say? That seems philosophically aligned with a wiki, where the selling point is community collaboration. I’ve seen other wikis where admins have made decisions which “followed policy” but which produced results most users found arbitrary or bizarre, and it doesn’t tend to inspire people to contribute. (I’m most familiar with TARDIS Wiki, which at various points banned pages about Faction Paradox or Vienna - pretty laughable now when you see how much of the site is about Faction Paradox. This isn’t nearly that bad!). Decisions should stand on their own merits; when those merits conflict with policy, that’s evidence there’s an issue with the policy. Dr Vesuvius (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

One thing we do have in common with Wikipedia is that Bulbapedia is not a democracy. Decisions on content are not decided based on a vote or majority opinion, but rather through consensus and discussion. There is no strong consensus in favor of upending the established convention of using official names on the wiki, and to make an exception would detract from our goals as a fan wiki to provide a consistent experience and expectation with our readers and contributors on how these topics are presented officially. The decision to move the article was based on the positions of our established editing community within Bulbapedia and those shared within wiki discussion spaces from the broader Bulbagarden community, while using the feedback we received as an opportunity to further educate and inform on these franchise topics, which has allowed us to expand and improve coverage of the topics beyond what we had previously.

Additionally, we have paid careful attention to not give undue weight to a past influx of new users with no established history on this site coming in with strongly worded opinions at best and outright uncivil behavior and accusations at worst. While we have listened and taken into consideration the spectrum of opinions on this topic, large numbers of users coming in and demanding us to revert the policy did not and will not sway things on its own. We are happy to discuss the policy and its merits and hear out any arguments on whether the policy aligns with the goals and principles of the wiki, but as of now our position has not changed. Landfish7 19:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like to remind you to engage in good faith and treat other users with respect. While I accept the need to assume good faith of other contributors, it becomes difficult to do so when claims that you have “taken into consideration” views that you have plainly ignored, and when unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry are made.

I agree - Bulbapedia is not a democracy. It is, however, supposed to operate via informed, reasoned consensus. Based on the discussions on this page - which do not show evidence of meatpuppetry - there is a clear community consensus that using the real name is preferable to using the official name, and a strong consensus against the erroneous name change. Indeed, the arguments in favour of “starter Pokémon” generally seem considerably stronger and more valid, while the arguments for “first-partner Pokemon” are solely fallacious and should therefore have been given low or no weight in a consensus-based system. I accept that there may be discussions elsewhere that are not immediately obvious - perhaps these should be linked so that future readers don’t make the same mistake that I appear to be making.

By definition, you should not give anything “undue weight”. However, this decision imposed by staff has failed to give *due* weight to the community consensus, and does not follow Bulbapedia’s policies of engaging with the world “as is” rather than “as you would like it to be”. It is an attempt by a small number to impose their preferred term at the expense of the Wiki at large.

It is obviously incorrect to say that this is in-line with the expectations of readers. The decision must have been made in the knowledge that it made the reader experience worse, but prioritising other considerations. When readers told you that it made the experience worse, you dismissed them out of hand. That is not how good decisions typically get made. More importantly, I don’t see any evidence that readers expect Bulbapedia to prioritise TPC’s preferred terms over the terms that are used in the real world - certainly it seems hard to believe that readers wouldn’t expect English Bulbapedia to use the same standard terms as the rest of the English-speaking community. Dr Vesuvius (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's really misleading to continue to refer to "starter Pokémon" as the "real" name as though the official term were any less real. "First Partner" isn't just a "TPCi media" term, it's literally the in-game term, and you can see this in quotes from the main series games since Black/White. I don't see how much more "real" you can get than that. That is, as you would say, "the world as is." If the Pokémon community at large started insisting that "Pikablu" were Marill's name (or kept insisting upon it after Marill's name was revealed way back when), there is no more incentive to change Marill's page to that to conform with that. There is a difference between popularity and consensus. There is more to consensus than that. Otherwise, Bulbapedia would be nothing more than a crowd-pleaser, which does not reflect what the mission of the wiki is in the first place. The term "Starter" is still on the page, with the contexts in which the term has been and is applied; nothing about the page's name change as a whole is telling readers "You have to call them First Partners or else!" - it's there to inform readers of what is being addressed, which is more in line with what one should expect an encyclopedia to do: inform.

If you take issue with Bulbapedia policy, as you've mentioned above, then that's a whole other conversation that should be taken up on the Talk pages of staff who oversee this (especially the ones who regularly write updates through the "Message from the Editor" where such policies have been communicated in the past.

Honestly, if users insist that their experience is worsened by a simple title change, even though the page is as findable as it always was and holds all the information needed, then it must be a matter of their own preference, aka the world "as they want it to be." This site doesn't adopt the relativistic (even if via popularity) mentality you seem to be insisting upon, that "the reality is what the majority rules." There may be any number of wikis out there that may opt to adopt fan terminology for everything where applicable, no matter how many official terms exist. This is not one of those. Dougbro1 (Talk) 20:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion before moving the page was here: Talk:First partner Pokémon/Archive 1#Suggested move. It started on 10 December 2022, and the page was moved on 8 March 2024.

The following is not a formal count, it is just my personal interpretation of the vote discussion:

The move proposal had 14 support votes (9 people voted with the word "support", 4 other people used other words agreeing with the vote like "yeah let's do it", "seems fine to me", "I agree with changing it", "I very much agree that this move should happen", and the opening proposal counts as 1 support as well), and 7 oppose votes prior to the move (1 more oppose was added after the move).

I didn't participate in that discussion, but my opinion is that "first partner Pokémon" is fine. I would have voted "support" too.

Personally, I'm usually interested in checking what exactly are the terms used officially or used by fans. I originally created, and was one of several people to edit, the "Terminology of first partner Pokémon" article which explains how "first partner" and "starter" have been used in official media.

I oppose the suggestion of moving it back to "starter Pokémon". If the page were named "starter Pokémon", I'm afraid it would incorrectly imply that "starter Pokémon" is the main term used officially. Since the main term used officially is "first partner Pokémon", I prefer keeping it as the article title.

As mentioned above, "starter Pokémon" is a redirect to "first partner Pokémon". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)