Talk:Pokémon Pokédex

Delete Smosh section

There's currently a section and image about the use of this Pokédex toy in a YouTube video by Smosh. That section and image should be deleted, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't suppose we are going to mention every time something appears in a fan video. For instance, technically Mankey appears in that Smosh video too, but the Mankey article does not say that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Smosh is largely considered one of the most successful YouTube channels of all time, being the most subscribed to at several different parts of YouTube's history, with one of their Pokemon videos making the list of List of most-viewed YouTube videos ever. If we're talking about popular culture items, this would almost certainly be an ideal representative example. (We could always use more links to the List of references to Pokémon in popular culture page). I think there's sufficient notability to this specific piece of merchandise being used so prominently in something so successful. Bulbapedia aims to accurately document both the source material and the community experience when interacting with that material, and removing this content would be betraying that second point, in my opinion.

As for why an actor in a Mankey costume (technically not Mankey) doesn't appear on the Mankey species page, that's another question entirely. Ignoring the debate of whether or not a costume counts as an appearance (I'm inclined to say it doesn't), there's the simple fact that the species page structure hasn't been refreshed in over ten years. Documenting pop culture stuff is not something that the wiki has been able to tackle well in the past, but that doesn't mean we should go around removing the work that we've already done. What a waste! Otherwise, we shouldn't be comparing content merits based on whether or not things are appearing on other pages. We're not going to remove every episode's plot summary because PT17 doesn't have one for instance. It's a logical fallacy that would hold the wiki back. ^Maverick_Nate 08:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be describing the slippery slope fallacy. But that's not what I mean. When I said "I don't suppose we are going to mention every time something appears in a fan video", this was merely intended as a discussion about what Bulbapedia will or will not include.

This is a big difference: For instance, if someone creates an "Agumon" article on Bulbapedia, I'm not saying that it should be deleted for the specific reason that Bulbapedia lacks other Digimon articles. Instead, I would think that it should be deleted because Bulbapedia is not intended to have Digimon articles in the first place.

It looks like we agree that documenting pop culture stuff is not something that the wiki has been able to tackle well in the past. I already knew that we got some coverage like the "List of references to Pokémon in popular culture", but to add a "Smosh" section on a regular page is something new.

If we are going to keep a "Smosh" section here because Smosh is so successful, I suppose we should add least create a main article "Smosh" with a general explanation of their fan videos.

There are some other things that appear in Smosh videos. For instance, maybe the Poké Flute article would need a Smosh section as well because their other video titled "POKEMON IN REAL LIFE 3".

In the Smosh fan video "POKEMON IN REAL LIFE 2", Mankey, Pikachu, and Charizard really appear in-universe. An actor in a Mankey costume is just how this was achieved in real life. Would you say that no lions appear in the stage musical The Lion King? (they have actors dressed as lions there)

Additionally, Mankey appears as an image on the Pokédex screen. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The main section here is "In popular culture"; the Smosh header is simply acting as a divider signaling an individual medium between the theoretical additional media that this item appears in. The alternative would be relegating the content item to trivia, despite one of the best practices of the wiki is to incorporate trivia into the main body of an article. While it might be due for some restructuring if that's what we would want to do, outright deletion isn't the correct answer in any case.

We also don't need a Smosh article. Everything there is to say about Smosh as it relates to us can be done within the chart on List of references to Pokémon in popular culture.

Like I mentioned in the first comment, I'm not really going to comment on the costumes: that's a debate for another time on another page. I will say however, Mankey appearing as an image on the Pokédex screen is an example of how Mankey appears on the electronic device, not how it appears in fandom videos. We should probably have those images for the toy documented somewhere on the wiki, but it shouldn't be treated as how Mankey appears in the Smosh video. It's how Mankey appears on the Pokémon Pokédex which just so happened to get used as a prop in a video. ^Maverick_Nate 11:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok, we can discuss another time on another page about the Mankey. I really don't agree with you about Mankey. You can keep telling me it's not Mankey, but that's really Mankey in-universe (unless I missed some kind of storyline where they show that Mankey was a human in-universe all along).

As I was saying, I was under the impression that Bulbapedia would basically not want any kind of content from any fan videos whatsover. But it looks like I was wrong about that. Thanks for that information, I find it interesting. In this case, I don't mind keeping this Smosh content here. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)