Talk:Pokémon Legends: Z-A

Contents

Hide

Close table of contents

• (Return to top)
• ralts line?
• add missing pokemon from returning list
• set after pokemon x & y
• Adding and commenting out Pokémon with Megas that we haven't seen yet
• Evolutionary relatives
• urbain/taunie determination
• Panpour and Simipour missing from the list
• Shelgon Missing From List
• No Baby Pokemon On List
• S.o removing all the evolutionary lines of Pokemon confirmed to be in the game through the trailers
• cross-system release
• My release date speculation
• Pokemon Presents
• Lopunny not present in revealed pokemon list
• Pokémon Legends: Z-A is the first GenX Title
• eternal flower floette in revealed forms?
• pokemon templates
• Spawn Overload Glitch
• Adding Quotes Pages?

Contents

ralts line?

the ralts line is listed as being shown in the trailer here and on serebii. however, inspecting the trailer myself and looking at other fan-made lists of pokemon that appeared, i don't see it anywhere. was it really shown in the trailer? it's important we source our own research and don't just copy serebii's work. - unsigned comment from lilycove (talk • contribs)

I went ahead and commented out Aerodactyl and the Ralts line for now as I also could not spot either of them in the trailer. Minibug (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ralts holding Gardevoirite is a pre-order Bonus, and this Pre-order bonus ad does appear in trailers. TohjoFalls (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I believe Ralts was revealed in the Pokémon Presents in July, and was added to the page then I think --Thespeon196 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. Seems the most recent topics are on the bottom and least recent are on top TohjoFalls (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

add missing pokemon from returning list

some pokemon that are shown in newest trailer are not in this list such as kangaskhan Emil sylveon (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

set after pokemon x & y

the friendship between eternal flower floette and az is pretty clear in the trailer- does this not suggest that the games take place after the events of x&y, after they reunify with each other, and could this be added to the "plot" section. Ianjc. (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We do not assume anything and do not add information that is not in the official sources, regardless of how much sense the info makes. Kikugi (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We only know about the redevelopment phase and not the year it is happening in, do we? In addition, AZ's age is not normal. So, it is difficult to come to a conclusion just based on that to be frank. Adil — Talk to me 15:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really think Z-A taking place after XY is speculation, it just seems to be the logical conclusion when taking what we've seen at face value. From the trailer, narrated trailer, and website - while they don't explicitly state that Z-A takes place after XY - the tone of it is very much pointing to that conclusion. Some quotes include:

• "These days, Lumiose City is undergoing a high-tech urban redevelopment plan to turn it into a city that people and Pokémon truly share" - narrated trailer, about 00:20 in.
• "Compared to Lumiose City as it appeared in the Pokémon X and Pokémon Y games, released in 2013, more greenery now adorns the city, alongside facilities with a cutting-edge feel." - official Legends Z-A website, Lumiose City section

The use of "these days" in the first quote and "more greenery now adorns the city" in the second quote highly suggest progression from a previously-known version of Lumiose, i.e. progression on top of what we knew from XY. The second quote makes that suggestion much more heavily by mentioning XY itself.

Additionally, the website states that AZ and his Floette are 3,000 years old, and they are clearly on good terms with each other. This is important, as a main plot point from XY was about how they had a falling-out and had been separated for 3,000 years, before then reuniting on-screen.

It's possible that Z-A is, say, an alternate universe where XY's events and backstory didn't happen, but that seems much more speculative, requires a lot more assumptions, and currently doesn't have anything backing it up (to my knowledge, at least). Stating that Z-A takes place after XY, or at least that it appears to, seems like the safest and most common-sense approach.--Boblers (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding and commenting out Pokémon with Megas that we haven't seen yet

So, I know it'd just be speculation for now, but at this point, it seems like a safe bet that we'll see all past Mega Evolutions in this, seeing as that's one of the primary focal points, and it sure seems to have been the case so far. So would it be a good idea to add them but just have them commented out until confirmed? SylveonFan700 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Evolutionary relatives

I know this is the way we've done it since Sword and Shield, but I find it odd that the returning Pokémon list includes evolutionary relatives of confirmed Pokémon, even if those relatives aren't confirmed to appear themselves. While a Pokémon being seen in a trailer does make it likely that its evolutionary relatives will return as well, it's not really confirmed what with things like regional evolutions, and it's not implausible that continuing to list evolutionary relatives of confirmed Pokémon could at some point result in us listing a Pokémon as confirmed that doesn't end up being in the game (not helped by the way the list makes no distinction at all between actually confirmed Pokémon and their evolutionary relatives). So I suggest that for this game (and other upcoming games going forward), we should only list the Pokémon that have actually been confirmed and leave the reader to draw conclusions about their evolutionary relatives rather than doing it ourselves. Or, at the very least, we could add some kind of distinction between confirmed Pokémon and unconfirmed evolutionary relatives. Hewer (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

there's also precedent for this not being the case, as BDSP didn't include sylveon. while that was a special case, it's best to exercise caution in general with this kind of thing. the entire evo families also clutter up the confirmed pokemon list somewhat. lilycove 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been feeling this too. And while BDSP did cross my mind, I was thinking about Let's Go instead. Neither Happiny nor Blissey are in that. and while the argument could be said its because these are remakes, Legends: Arceus didn't feature all regional variants either, and I feel as though at some point a Pokemon may take the bullet and not be in a game simply because the regional form isn't in the game. But looking through the current list, we don't list all the Mega-Evolved Pokemon either unless they've been seen. So I'm not particularly sure why standard Pokemon get some what of a pass. Even taking account games like SV and SwSh, some of those Pokemon just didn't make it into the game until HOME transfer. TrainerSplash (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

We have already had a case where an evolutionary relative isn't in a game because of regional form shenanigans: Mr. Rime isn't in Legends Arceus while Mime Jr. and Mr. Mime are. Hewer (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely forgot about Mr. Rime! It's not in BDSP either, I recall there being talks about whether or not BDSP would feature cross-generational evolutions, Mr. Rime and Sylveon being the two that would be in Sinnoh's Pokedex... neither of them were in the game.

I think it would be a much better decision to remove anything not actually seen in the game. After the dex cut, having all evolutionary relatives be there when they literally haven't been seen yet creates a bit of a false narratives (especially since Let's Go didn't have all evolutionary relatives to begin with). At the very least these types of precautions should be done for Let's Go titles (if we get more) and Legends titles. But even then, there's still the chance of a Wydeer situation. TrainerSplash (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

mr. rime didn't included in legends arceus because galarian mr. rime isn't included in legends arceus, while kantonian mr. mime is Emil sylveon (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I agree that we should be cautious about extrapolating too far with these. I brought up this topic in the Bulbagarden discord to gauge more opinions/insight on it, and was able to gather the following (some of which echoes what's been said here already) :

• Listing upward evolutions we have not seen is too risky and should be avoided (Legends Arceus being the prime offender here, as only the Hisuian final forms of the starters are in the game, while their "normal" forms are not in the game and can't even be transferred in.)
• Listing pre-evolutions might be less risky, since apparently the only precedents for dropping them were LGPE and BDSP, both of which were aiming to be restrictive remakes.

With this in mind, I'd propose the following changes to our coverage:

• Pokémon that have directly been shown in pre-release material should be in their own section ("directly-shown", maybe?).
• Upward evolutions of directly-shown Pokémon should not be listed, as there's precedent for them not being included in the final game.
• Pre-evolutions of directly-shown Pokémon can be listed, but they should be in a separate section indicating that they were not shown directly ("pre-evolutions" with a sentence of two explaining that they were not shown directly)
• Mega evolutions should be in their own section, and should only be listed if they have been directly shown. For example: if we saw Salamence, then that doesn't mean we can list Mega Salamence, until we are specifically shown Mega Salamence. (We have been following this guideline already, aside from splitting off into its own section).

Splitting into sections should hopefully make it clearer to readers what has been confirmed with proof, and what we are only assuming. It would hopefully also make it easier for us to track, as currently I wouldn't be able to tell you offhand which things in the list are direct-confirms and which are not.

Do these changes seem reasonable? --Boblers (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why we wouldn't exclude pre-evolutions if we're excluding evolutions. The point of this is to future-proof and avoid assumptions. Keeping only some assumptions just makes it more confusing. We may not have any precedent yet for pre-evolutions being cut, but that could easily change in the future - only a few years ago, games cutting previously introduced evolutions (and games that cut Pokémon at all, for that matter) were also unheard of. That said, I'd take this idea of splitting it into sections over the way it is now, where assumptions and confirmed facts are just blended together with no distinction (though cutting the pre-evolutions entirely would save us the awkwardness of having to admit that the page contains speculation). Hewer (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I do think it's incredibly reasonable to assume that if normal Charizard is in the game, then normal Charmander probably is too. However, things change when an evolved Pokemon gets a regional variant, but we never see their prevolution, in which case, those should probably be avoided too. In whatever case, it might just be best to not put any prevolutions down. If prevolutions must be included, I think the only ones that should realistically be tacked off are babies, since they fall into the same role as a cross-gen evolution (is post-evolution a word? I mean Pokemon evolutions after their respective debut)

As for sectioning things off, splitting them between "revealed species" and "revealed form differences" would be a good idea imo. I don't think we should make a separated list of "assumed Pokemon" though. it's not our job to decide how people speculate on content. If people see a species of Pokemon, they can already come to their own conclusion if their prevolutions exist. TrainerSplash (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Good points. For now, it seems like the safest move is to list only direct confirmations. To get us started, I've done a sweep through the trailers and determined that the following 31 Pokemon haven't been shown directly: Charmander, Charmeleon, Arbok, Abra, Kadabra, Gastly, Dratini, Dragonite, Bayleef, Meganium, Croconaw, Feraligatr, Pichu, Slowking, Pupitar, Ralts, Roselia, Shelgon, Riolu, Leafeon, Pignite, Emboar, Watchog, Simisage, Simisear, Litwick, Espurr, Doublade, Barbaracle, Skrelp, and Noibat. I've also updated the page's list, and split megas into their own section. --Boblers (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

by this metric, should the 50% and 100% formes of zygarde be removed from the list? i'd do it myself but tables are greek to me lilycove 05:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

They're confirmed by the official game site. Landfish7 06:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, on another look, it seems several of the unconfirmed Pokémon are "sandwiched" between ones that are confirmed - for instance, we have not seen Pupitar, but we have seen Larvitar and Tyranitar. This also seems to apply to Roselia (Budew and Roserade are confirmed), Shelgon (Bagon and Salamence are confirmed), and Doublade (Honedge and Aegislash are confirmed). Should we include these in the page's list?

While for pre-evolutions we could argue that the game might not have breeding (see LA and LGPE), making non-wild pre-evolutions unobtainable; and for evolutions we could argue that new forms could branch off from previously-known evolutions, leaving the previously-known evolution unobtainable; I'm not sure how a "sandwiched" evolution would not be present - especially since there's no precedent to that effect. --Boblers (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm personally am of the opinion that is just as much of an assumption that evos/prevos won't be included as it is to assume they will be included. I think the way we were doing it before was adequate tbh, as it was stated in the article that it was a list of confirmed Pokémon and their evolutionary relatives. I think the only thing missing was making some sort of visual distinction on which ones have been seen and which one have not. As suggested on Discord, we could grey out the ones that are not hard-confirmed, or something along those lines. Landfish7 02:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

No one is assuming that the evolutionary relatives aren't included, that's not the point. Excluding them from the list is just a better idea to reflect the possibility that they won't be included, even if it's not a likely one. I don't think we should put any speculation on the page even if it's a safe bet (we're usually so cautious about avoiding any speculation that this page previously didn't even take the pronunciation of its title as confirmed), the job of the wiki should just be to report on what is definitively known. If a reader sees that Bagon and Salamence are both confirmed, they're free to conclude themselves that Shelgon is probably in the game without us having to do the speculation for them. Hewer (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the desire to limit speculation, but also, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. We have to be careful to not speculate by omission either. Readers can and will make the assumption that if Shelgon is not included, that we are implying Shelgon will not be in the game. I don't think it's speculation for us to indicate that Shelgon is part of that evolutionary line, but is not confirmed to appear. Leaning in to the uncertainty is an opportunity for us to be more informative, not less. Landfish7 14:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"Speculation by omission" is absolutely not what is happening here. The list currently contains 94 Pokémon, that doesn't mean that precisely no more than 94 Pokémon will be in the game. The list doesn't claim or attempt to be an exhaustive list of all Pokémon that are in the game, because we don't have that information yet. It's supposed to be an incomplete list that only contains the Pokémon we have confirmation are in the game. The page already makes this clear, stating that it "lists Pokémon species that have appeared in trailers and promotional material". Therefore, the current contents of the list are entirely factual and not remotely speculative. Hewer (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It clearly stated before that it was a list of "Pokémon that have appeared in trailers and promotional material, along with their evolutionary lines". This way was also purely factual without being speculative, while also being more informative—if unclear due to a lack of distinction between confirmed appearances and unconfirmed appearances, which we can only do if we decide to include them, which I think we should. Since removing them has already caused immediate confusion, we must come up with a way to convey this information that is not alarming to our readers. Keeping things the way they are is untenable, nor am I suggesting we revert to exactly how things were done before either. Landfish7 14:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it may have technically been factual before, but I'd argue that listing an unconfirmed Pokémon in a section for confirmed Pokémon is much, much more misleading than not doing so. Hewer (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Would something like another section work, with a grey table color and a little disclaimer that the species weren't directly shown? I've thrown together a quick sample in my userspace here: User:Boblers/Sandbox#Extrapolated_species. --Boblers (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

A second section wouldn't really hurt. but also if it's assumed that Shelgon is in the game based on Salamence and Bagon being there, why does it need to be included (not that I care either way)? There will definitely be people who would assume that Shelgon is not in the game, but rather it would cause confusion the other way around.

Personally I think it's neat to see what Pokemon were actually shown in trailers and footage. Adding extra Pokemon that weren't in the trailers (part of an evolution line or not), detracts from the ones that were shown imo, especially since people likely compare and contrast things between trailers. I think a separate section of assumed Pokemon is a smart idea. Although I would prefer something less bulky compared to the main list. TrainerSplash (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

urbain/taunie determination

"The player's friend, Urbain or Taunie, depends on the player's chosen gender. Male players have Taunie as their friend, while female players have Urbain." has this been directly confirmed? all the english material i've seen has just said it depends on the appearance the player chooses at the start of the game, without specifics. it'd follow the usual pattern for rivals, but best to not assume anything. was it confirmed in another language? lilycove 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the article to more accurately reflect the language used in this game (and to be honest, most games from recent generations), while taking at face value the fact that gameplay footage shows the "male" player character having Taunie as their friend, and the "female" player character having Urbain as their friend. Landfish7 18:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make this it's own section, but knowing the confusion already, I decided to put it here.

We currently have four pages for these characters, including the player characters; Urbain, Taunie, Paxton and Harmony. I suppose it's because the game is not out yet and we'll merge and section off whenever we need to. But I would like to put it out there, that in past the player characters have had different names from NPC counterparts (May/Brendan, Hilda/Hilbert and Serena/Calem to name a few are specifically the names of the NPCs). I guess I'm asking more so if we're sure that the player and NPC this time around actually are different characters? My biggest issue with this is that four is a lot for essentially describing the same thing, when the usual is two. These two share common trends with previous characters, but the biggest evidence we have for this is that they "look different", which is a bit too subjective of a reason at the moment knowing how some people have gone on record to say that they "look the same" because the only change are hair/eye color and outfits. I'm remaining neutral on this for now, but I thought it'd be worth to discuss.

Also, it seems like the player character pages were made when the found out the name (but I assume this is because "Z-A male/female player" is not really good title, not because its their names), and I don't really think the promotional name alone is very evidential considering back in 2016 the Elio and Selene pages were changed from Sun/Moon to Elio/Selene. I believe the only time the promotional names were the same as the NPCs was back in 2020 for Legends: Arceus, so take that as you will. TrainerSplash (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Panpour and Simipour missing from the list

I know it has been recently modified and it will probably be fixed, but Panpour and Simipour miss from the list of returning Pokémon Ale.10 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Shelgon Missing From List

Where's Waldo? AKA Shelgon PikaRikaChu (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

No Baby Pokemon On List

Also all the baby Pokemon are missing, we gotta fix this guys PikaRikaChu (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

S.o removing all the evolutionary lines of Pokemon confirmed to be in the game through the trailers

What idiots remove the evolutionary lines of the mons confirmed to be in the game thru the trailer. If it appears, their whole line will appear AntiHero1989 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, there has already been a substantial discussion on this topic here, where the consensus seems to be that only revealed Pokémon should be included on the page. I would also ask that you do not use derogatory language towards other users of the site. Thank you --Thespeon196 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

cross-system release

there's been a bit of back-and-forth in the trivia section about what exactly to call this game, and i think it's gone on enough to take it to the talk page. how do we categorize this thing? it's being released for the switch 1, but is getting an upgrade exclusive to the switch 2 through backwards compatibility. it's not quite a totally separate game, like BotW for wii u and switch, and it's not quite just one product, like gold & silver for the gameboy and gameboy color. what do we think? lilycove 01:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking into this to get a better understanding:

• Nintendo seems to consider a game's switch 1 version + its upgrade pack to be equivalent to the standalone switch 2 version: https://www.nintendo.com/us/gaming-systems/switch-2/featured-games/switch-2-edition/.
• It's a little hard to see, but the text on switch 2 boxes says that they contain the switch 1 version + the upgrade pack.
• According to an "ask the developer" interview that Nintendo ran, the switch 2 converts game data for switch 1 games into game data for switch 2 in real-time: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/ask-the-developer-vol-16-nintendo-switch-2-part-4/

So it sounds like the switch 2 version is actually just a combination of the switch 1 version + upgrade pack. I'd say this would be similar to a gold & silver cart working on GB and GBC, you just have to pay extra for the enhanced features instead of them being included. --Boblers (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can describe the game like this: "It is set to be released simultaneously worldwide on Nintendo Switch in late 2025. A Nintendo Switch 2 upgrade pack will also be available, which adds enhanced resolution and frame rates when playing the game on Nintendo Switch 2." --Boblers (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That seems apt. Landfish7 05:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it also depends on what Nintendo does for reporting purposes on their quarterly financials, like if they'll include NS2 Editions with their respective NS1 game sales total or if they'll count it separately in the NS2 tab that they'll inevitably create for the August 2025 report and onwards. Wasn't aware that the packaged versions were basically the NS1 game + an upgrade pack. I thought it was just the NS2 version out of the box. Torpoleon (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

My release date speculation

(this is speculation and should NOT be added to the page) pokemon sword, shield, scarlet and violet before release date review, in non english and non european trailers they said "winter *release year*" and games released in november instead of december, which is autumn, but in legend Z-A trailer they said "autumn 2025", assuming that, maybe legend Z-A releases somewhere in october, i may be wrong if legends Z-A releases in november Emil sylveon (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This page isn't really for casual discussion and speculation, it's only for discussing work on the article. Bulbapedia has forums and its own Discord for that, if you're interested (under the search bar in desktop version. Kikugi (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

thanks Emil sylveon (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pokemon Presents

Since Mega Dragonite was confirmed, should it be added to Returning Mega Evolutions.--Ryan Vanmatre (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not a returning Pokémon, it's a newly revealed form. It's in the New Pokémon and forms section. → SuperPikaPool13 20:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Ryan Vanmatre (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Lopunny not present in revealed pokemon list

Buneary is present in the list, as is Mega Lopunny in the returning megas; base Lopunny, for whatever reason, is not. I have no edit perms for this, so i have to elevate this to the Talk page. TohjoFalls (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Pokémon Legends: Z-A is the first GenX Title

After the recent trailers of the game in the Nintendo Direct, the Pokémon Legends: Z-A website updated new information about its conectivity with HOME and the other gens games, and, unlike the genIX titles, its stated that Pokémon caught in ZA and pokémon transfered from other games to ZA cant go back to previous gens, just like when a pokemon exits lets go (Gen7) and goes to any gen8 or gen9 title and cant go back to lets go (Gen7). With all this information separating it from the other genIX titles i belive we can categorise ZA as the beginning of the new generation. Obrigada Jim (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

https://legends.pokemon.com/en-us/news/pokemon-home Obrigada Jim (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Its an important detail that we should note but im not sure its wholly emblematic of a new Generation so to speak; we usually define that as a whole new set of First partners and new region; neither of which Z-A has. I also kinda want to say that the "compatibility" between different games on the Nintendo Switch is also a bit of a charade; since none of the games are truly comparable with each other (outside of their respective pairings); the current system requires HOME to store a lot of information server-side since it would otherwise be lost by the games. I guess eventually this system has just become extremely unsustainable. 4iamking 16:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think backwards compatibility (or lack thereof) is indicative of a new generation anymore. If that were the case, then the fact that you can transfer Pokémon freely between SwSh, BDSP, LA, and SV would mean that they're all part of the same generation. The lack of backwards compatibility here is more analogous to the fact that you can't send Pokémon from LGPE (Gen 7) to SMUSUM (also Gen 7). Storm Aurora (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

eternal flower floette in revealed forms?

should this count? it's been revealed as a character, not a pokemon, and it's not exactly supposed to be public knowledge that eternal flower is a real pokemon. partially asking this because i'm not familiar with these tables enough to add it myself. lilycove 21:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

pokemon templates

couldn't find any other reasonable place to put it but why do ZA trainers' party temps not include the ^P_K^M_N's genders pikabl151 02:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Spawn Overload Glitch

Back when the game released, there was a glitch known under the name Spawn Overload Glitch, which allowed to spawn additional Pokémon in some specific locations, by making them respawn through getting knocked out. When the Mega Dimension released with version 2.0.0, it was reported that the glitch no longer worked, being one of the unspecified issues mentionned in the version history. Should it be added in the More information section of the version history of 2.0.0? Mimigris (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding Quotes Pages?

Currently working on documenting all dialogue from notable trainers in the game. Could someone make quote pages for Jett, Vinnie, Andi, Andre, and Taunie? I haven't been a user long enough to be able to make pages myself. LYKILLOFASGARD (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting these! I can make the pages for you when you're ready. Have you got quotes for them all ready to go? Thespeon (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have up to the completion of Main Mission 02 right now. I'd like to make sure the formatting I have behaves since I edit using source code and I'm copying and pasting from Google Docs. LYKILLOFASGARD (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That's fine, yeah the quotes don't have to be completed all at once.

Also, I haven't played the game, who's Andre? I can't find the character on the site Thespeon (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty minor character—Andi's friend. I thought he'd have a page like she does, but I guess he doesn't. I think he shows up later only once, though, so maybe that makes sense. I'll just keep his dialogue on file in case he ever gets a page.

Thank you for helping. LYKILLOFASGARD (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, good plan keeping them as a backup just in case.

You're welcome! Thespeon (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)