Talk:Rotom (Pokémon)

Talk:Rotom (Pokémon)

This talk page is for discussions about the contents of Rotom (Pokémon).

Archived discussions: 1 • 2

Stereo Rotom

I don't think we should put rotom in its stereo form has one of it main forms, it hasn't appeared in a main line game only in Pokétopia. Neos (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the article is about the species; and is not limited to its appearance in any game or subset of games (though of course this information is covered). Pokopia is a game developed by Game Freak, but more importantly it has characteristics that are unique to it (specifically its typing), that is relevant to display in the infobox at a species level. 4iamking 22:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Then, with the reasoning that it has a type and that it is a form that appeared in games (albeit, in a not main tittle), then why not change the overall display of relevant forms to include the Rotom Phone, the Rotom Pokédex Form or even the Rotom Bike Form. All these forms are also relevant to display in the infobox at a species level too by that logic, and yet we keep them separated. If we go by the typing there was revealed in official media that its Pokédex form is a pure electric type, if we go by involvement in the plot and dialog it also participates in SM and in USUM. Neos (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think whether they appear in a Pokédex would be a good criterion. Landfish7 23:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Just like Bloodmoon Ursaluna. It’s a unique Pokémon form. Hence it counts plus adds fun lore and shows how unique it adapts and changes, epically with type change. Jacob9594 (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but thats it, Bloodmoon Ursaluna is Catchable and usable in battle, the Stereo Form is different, is not usable. It's like we put a picture of XD001 in the man box at the top for Lugia's Bulbapedia page. Neos (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Except we never did for Shadow Lugia. It’s just on the forms page, like Primal Dialga for example. And the two new Pikachu duo from upcoming Winds and Waves. So just remove the stereo Rotom from top of Rotom page and that should solve problem? Plus Tinkataon has the same thing but no form section of Tinkmaster. Jacob9594 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Shadow Lugia's exclusion from the infobox is because it doesn't exist within the core series. The infobox is pretty much exclusively for core series game data, so spin-off exclusive forms are a little out of place there. Shadow Lugia is covered in the biology section, which is still near the top of the page and is meant to be media-agnostic, so it makes sense to include it there.

Since we don't know yet if Stereo Rotom (or any of the other Pokopia forms for that matter) is going to appear outside of this game, I think we should take the more conservative approach and not include it in the infobox unless it shows up in the core series. All of its unique data can fit comfortably in the biology section. Pokopia has a lot more connections to the core series than most spin-offs, but it is still a spin-off at the end of the day. Storm Aurora (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

That is fair compromise and any spin off forms will be placed in biology instead. Jacob9594 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Then, shall we take out Stereo Rotom from the infobox along side the other forms of Pokémon introduced in Poketopia? Neos (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

(reset ident) I disagree, I dont think Wave/Windchu would be relevant for the infobox regardless of their main series inclusion since at this point they are just merely a character, unless those characters are confirmed to be unique forms, which is something that at this point we don't know. This is kinda also true with Primal Dialga / Shadow Lugia. Pokopia has Stereo Rotom as a distinct form which is a seperate entity from DJ Rotom (the character). 4iamking 12:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

also I want to say, "Usable in battle" isn't a standard we have used in the past; if that were the case we'd have to remove Eternamax Eternatus from its infobox. Overall I still stand by that we should consider it a form when an in-game Pokédex does so (and this is not the case for either Lugia nor Dialga). 4iamking 17:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Are the costumed Pokémon in Pokémon GO considered separate forms in GO's Pokédex? If so, we'd need to put them in the infobox, by your logic. Even if not, saying "it has to be in an in-game Pokédex" as the only criteria feels like a bit of an arbitrary line to draw. That would mean Pale Pikachu could be included because it has a Pokédex entry in Pokopia, but Halloween Pikachu would be excluded because it only has a "Sleep Style Dex" entry in Pokémon Sleep. Storm Aurora (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and we'd have to remove Partner Pikachu from the infobox too, since Pikachu's page directly states "The partner Pikachu is not differentiated from standard Pikachu in Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!'s Pokédex."

To be clear, I'm not saying this to bash Pokopia or anything; I love the game, and I think it's really interesting that it gives distinct form names different than what the characters are named. But I don't think that alone is a good enough reason to include them in the infobox. Storm Aurora (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean PGO shows it as a variant but it doesnt have them as a form with unique flavour text, I don't see it as the same thing. To be clear I feel that distinction matters because Pokopia gives unique data (height, weight, typing, flavour text) these are parameters that differentiate the species, are directly included in the infobox data and are not present in the other examples you had listed. 4iamking 18:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The infobox is the place for most Pokédex data, whereas other kinds of

data would get there own boxes in the Game data section. No need to arbitrarily split out Pokopia's data from the infobox just because it's a spin-off. Landfish7 18:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I doubt the exclusion of Shadow Lugia was specifically because it's not a core series thing. (I don't think it was a conscious decision/discussion in the first place.) I'd rather assume it's because the accompanied data that usually goes with it isn't/wasn't there, and maybe that's why people didn't put it.

I'd certainly support Stereo Rotom being included. (And I don't think we necessarily have to spell out a strict "rule" about it.) Nescientist (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that including a form that has never appeared in the core series in the intro of the page is actively misleading and unhelpful when everything else in intros for Pokémon pages is very specifically focused on core series information (evolution methods, form change methods, EV yields, etc.), that's the information these sections are clearly for and is what people are expecting to see in them. It's also misleading to include in a list of forms prefaced by mentions of Rotom's Room and the Rotom Catalog when these things have never included the Stereo Rotom form. There's nothing "arbitrary" about separating spin-off information from core series information, it's established practice on the wiki (look at all the sections on the page under "Game data" being split between core series and spin-offs) and is helpful for conveying information clearly. I'd be fine with an extra paragraph at the end of the intro talking about Stereo Rotom and its type but we should absolutely remove it from the infobox and stop pretending like it's a part of the core series like the other forms. Hewer (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I dont think it's good to equate the infobox as a "core series only place". The infobox should have key data from the subject of the article and in this case the article is about the species of Pokémon in general, it's not called "Rotom in the Core Series". Other game data is separated lower down in the article as it should be, but for high level infobox data, it shouldn't matter where it comes from. I have no problem however changing the wording in the lede to more clearly emphasize that Stereo Rotom is currently a Pokopia exclusive. 4iamking 19:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So why does the infobox contain fairly trivial data applicable exclusively to the core series like Egg cycles and EV yields and levelling rates and Pokédex body shapes, while having a complete lack of non-core series data? Why is the catch rate the one from the core series and not the one from Pokémon GO? Why doesn't it list the Pokémon's anime debut or Pokémon Sleep sleep style? And why is the whole rest of the lead section written exclusively from the perspective of the core series (on every Pokémon article)? Hewer (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) It's been about a month since this discussion has continued and I'd like to continue it.

I personally think it's rather awkward to put Stereo Rotom on the infobox, BUT I am rather content on the reasoning being because that it displays unique information on it. But we do not really do this with any other spin-off or unique forms. Pokopia DOES display it as a unique form, and maybe that's enough, where as Windychu and Waveychu are not. We do not display Zygarde Cores and Cells, and they are not listed as forms. Additionally an argument from the quick read is that we don't display *characters* on the info box (assuming they aren't treated as forms, as technically Eternal Flower Floette, Cosplay Pikachu and Ursaluna (Bloodmoon) would fall under these), however DJ Rotom is the only Stereo Rotom we know of, and we don't have things like Pikachu (Pale) on there despite Peakychu having arguably all the same uniqueness as Rotom does other than she doesn't have a new type, and a new type doesn't need to be introduced to make it a unique form (Basculin White-Stripe anyone?). Rotom Pokédex can contain any Rotom just like Stereo Rotom, and it is not shown in the infobox, additional it has a type change like it, being pure Electric-Type. Is it not listed because it's a specific character in context to the main series? I feel like there is a lot of double standards here. I am PERSONALLY under the assumption that the info box should only hold core series information that is usable in most contexts, primarily anything in the core series (and by extension HOME and Bank) Pokedexes.

Part of the above discussions seems to have debate on it being only core series. But debatable, most of the information there is only for the core serie, it's already inconsistent (the first thing I can think of is Mega Stones are listed but not species-exclusive Z-Crystals). I don't think our spin-off readers will really read the info box for their content other than to know they're on the right species page. Every Pokemon already has a link on the top of the page telling them to go to the Pokémon GO section, and every other spin-off is listed there too with their mechanics and type and everything. Wouldit be hard to add a Pokopia section explaining what they do in that game? TrainerSplash (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Pikachu (Pale) is in its infobox though and also has unique form characteristics (namely a lower weight). Wind/Wavechu will likely also end up in the infobox, the way they have been referred to in japanese media is highly suggestive that they are likely to be considered forms as well as being characters, but we are also in no hurry to jump the gun until we have more concrete things to run off. Its also not inconsistent because Z-Crystals upgrade certain moves but they don't affect a Pokémons form. 4iamking 08:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, we should hold our guns, and I think that people got overexcited with the Pokopia forms, so they just treated them has main series forms when it hasn't been confirmed by main game series appearances, when it seems that they are just gonna stay in Pokopia has characters and not distinct forms. Particularly just adding the forms without people agreed on this seems like a rush, is like adding anime exclusive forms into the main infobox, is unnecessary and unhelpful and obscures important information on the page giving way more importance to a form that is NOT USABLE in core series gameplay or competitive gameplay has of now or comaptilbe with Pokémon GO or HOME. Also I notice that instead of pulling it from the infobox and wait until the to the end of the debate or pulling it up to a vote by putting a banner on the top of the page has other pages with structural topics have, instead the page was keep from reverting the infobox to the state prior to the it's inclusion and does not indicate of ongoing discussion. Neos (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I will reiterate that the page is about the species as a whole and not just a "main series forms" box. Anime forms to the extent they can be called that, Pokémon GO costumes etc and whatever do not have any information that we could include that would be relevant to this infobox, whereas Pokopia, by virtue of being developed by Game Freak and having a complete Pokédex gives them distinct form names and characteristics that are directly relevant but I kinda feel like this is getting a bit circular at this point since these things have already been pointed out. As for the page itself it's generally better to include information/lean to the status quo unless a clear consensus develops that the information should be removed. 4iamking 18:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually had no clue the other Pokopia forms were there, last I checked Pikachu's page it wasn't. so that's my mistake. But yes I was well aware they are labeled as forms, they are like this both in marketing and in the game itself. I'm not bothered by that.

But we have a spin-off section, and currently it doesn't mention *anything* about Rotom's purpose in the game (new form or not), and that would be where all the new information would go, wouldn't it? I don't necessarily mind spin-off content being in the infobox, but it is strange to me that we just didn't decide to put anything else in it other than main series stuff until Pokopia, and that on it's own is strange to me because even if spin-off content is there, why is stuff like EVs involved? Surely this is information not necessarily for people trying to look for this content. I'm less worried about what actually goes in the info box (this can be figured out), and more confused as to where the information on Stereo Rotom is supposed to go. You then go to the biology section for Stereo Rotom and it has another link to go to the form data...in where there is none and it talks about more main series content.

It seems to me that there's no where else to put the information so we just put it in the infobox.Neither the biology or NPC section even mention how the species works as a tool in the game or even its preferred habitat or anything. Why did we leave it up to the infobox for the most minimal information it? There forms do have the usual pokedex information (type, height, weight, even an entry) so that would be my reasoning as to why they should be listed, but pokedex entries are not listed in the info box. Again, Rotom Dex even has it's own type (but lacks the other contents, but CAN be used in battle, albeit temporarily). It's less confusion on main vs spin off content being in the info box, but rather what makes the reason for the pokopia ones in particular being put on the infobox. TrainerSplash (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The lack of mentions in the spinoff data is more just that no one has gotten around to developing a template for it yet than any intentional omission tbh, stuff like specialties, preferences and habitats should definitely be added to there. 4iamking 08:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do you keep conspicuously ignoring the argument that the current Pokémon infobox is very blatantly designed for specifically core series information? If it isn't supposed to be only for core series content, why aren't we adding that Pokopia information (habitats etc.) to the main infobox? Why is only some Pokopia information allowed there? Hewer (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not, my overarching point is that while some of the information might be geared towards certain core series games (particularly older games), its not limited to the core series; nor is it representative of all the things that would be relevant in core series games because then we'd probably include things like evolution mechanics, species strength spread and whatever else. Another thing is that infobox is quite old which lends itself to including information that isn't really a thing in modern games (like footprints). What gets included/not included tbh is better to discuss on a global infobox level, but we shouldn't be omitting type, hight and weight information if those are direct fields in the infobox. Likewise if a game doesn't produce any data that would be relevant for the infobox we shoudln't hunt for data that doesn't exist; but at the same time we shouldn't ignore data that does. 4iamking 16:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with these. I think issue revolves around that there is Pokemon with known features like this that just aren't included, but the Pokopia ones are. I've mentioned Rotom Dex several times, not only does it have a listed type and a pokedex entry in the anime, but I believe in the anime they even strictly call it a form. It's sort of creating a "pick and choose" scenario that seems to be at the moment "usable forms in the games + whatever is in Pokopia." I know that's not what you're saying, but that, we should just cater to whatever information is available and what fits. But the infobox was definitely made for the core series in mind first. Certain Pokemon (such as Pikachu) is already getting cluttered. Pokopia makes this messier, and if we allow any and all spin-off content that fits, then it gets even more cluttered, which again, turns into a pick and choose scenario, why does Stereo Rotom get benefits of being up there and not something like Rotom Dex? TrainerSplash (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that the best way to consistently determine which forms are eligible for being included in the infobox is by aligning it with the list of Pokémon with form differences. That page separates Pokémon with forms that are recognized by the Pokédex from all other forms, with non-core-series games receiving their own section. I double-checked and every single form in the "Pokémon with multiple forms" section is included in the infobox of its page except for Pokémon that have more than 7 forms (the current limit of the infobox), Pumpkaboo, and Gourgeist. Meanwhile, no form listed in the other sections is included in its page's infobox except partner Pikachu, partner Eevee, and the Pokopia forms. Thus, it should be pretty easy to implement a standard such that Pokémon with multiple forms recognized by the Pokédex are included in the infobox, and forms outside of that group are excluded. (Rotom Dex, for the record, is apparently only acknowledged as a "form" of Rotom in the Japanese version of the anime, so the page classifies it as a form-like transformation.)

My only concern left is that removing unique height/weight data from the infobox for Pokopia forms will remove it from the page entirely, but we could probably fit it into an eventual Spindata/Pokopia template. Storm Aurora (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Tbh that page is a bit wierd; the rest of the page is sorted by species and then all the Pokopia stuff just got awkwardly thrown on the bottom. I think it would make more sense to rejig that page to be a full species list, also just so it better lives up to its title. Given the page uses the definition of "recognized by the Pokédex" even more so. 4iamking 00:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I do think the list of form differences page should probably be cleaned up a bit, I feel like we tend to make up some weird categories. I do believe Rotom Dex's listing as a form actually was translated, but they called it "Pokedex Edition" or something, it was weird and I'm unaware of the specific Japanese terminology. I only used it as an example anyways, not super keen on it as an actual suggestion. If we want to set a standard of Pokedex recognized only forms, Pokopia being prioritized over the Partner Pokemon seems more acceptable, imo, because at least that's consistent. My only issue with the Pokopia stuff in the infobox is that it's kind of like treating them on the same level as main-series stuff (and I am NOT trying to say it isn't important, it absolutely is), Stereo Rotom doesn't give out EVs or breed, so why should information relating to it specifically be put on the same box of information that doesn't pertain to it. I personally think we should probably format Pokopia sections in the spin-off section after how the Pokopia Pokedex lists things rather than putting it in the info box, since there actually is a lot of it. There's still actual main series information that is just missing (I'm mostly thinking PLA preferred foods and such), and it feels odd to prioritize Pokopia over that stuff. That said, I'm not entirely against spin-off stuff in the infobox, but I do think we should have more consistency with it. TrainerSplash (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think the inclusion of partner Pokémon in the infobox is shaky at best, I support them being taken out in the same way that we don't put totem Pokémon in the infobox. The other thing what the infobox does is it applies the proper categories, it might not give out EVs and breed (so we dont have any new info to include there), but it does have a unique type, and its the infobox that accordingly applies the proper category (not saying this couldn't be done manually ofc but its just cleaner when its done through the infobox since it keep the category order consistent across pages). And tbh a similar argument can be made for something like Pikachu where certain forms (particularly Cap Pikachu) can't do so either, yet are still in the infox. 4iamking 06:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Most Pokopia information will be put in the spin-off data section, yeah. But after thinking about it more, spin-off data sections omit information about the Pokémon when it's the same as it is in the core series. Since 99% of Pokémon in Pokopia are gonna have the same type/height/weight as they do in the core series, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a dedicated area of the spindata template for that information. So keeping it in the main infobox isn't such a bad idea.

So, to summarize what we'll do going forward:

• Pokémon forms will only be included in the infobox if they're recognized as separate forms by an in-game Pokédex.
  • Partner Pikachu and Partner Eevee are not recognized as separate forms in-game, so they will be removed.
• Pokémon forms that are included in an in-game Pokédex should be included in the infobox unless the Pokémon has more than 7 forms.
  • Pumpkaboo and Gourgeist only have 4 forms, so their alternate forms should be added to their infoboxes.
  • 7 forms is the current maximum limit, but that number may be increased in the future as new Pokémon and forms are added.
• Pokémon forms that are exclusive to spin-off games are allowed to be included in the infobox if they follow the above rules.
  • Additional research may be required to see if there are any other forms from spin-off games that fit these criteria.

Is everyone in agreement on these points? Storm Aurora (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I'd be interested to see how we end up actually handling the pumpkin mons. Landfish7 19:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I do think this is the best way to handle it; I think we can also add a point that in the case where there is a dispute over which form is the "default" form shown up top; it should be the one with the lowest internal index number (i.e. Regular variety not small variety) but I guess that might create problems with Unown so maybe not, up for debate. My only thing is with Pumpkaboo/Gourgeist its basically showing the same artwork 4 times but in different sizes; the comparison of which is a bit lost when the infobox doesn't display all artworks in the same image size. 4iamking 19:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can easily take some discretion there. Landfish7 19:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

For the pumpkins I was thinking that we'd do it like how Polteageist and its relatives are displayed - the Sugimori-style artwork up top with a generic label, and HOME art beneath showing the different forms. I haven't checked how that would work with listing the different heights/weights, though. Storm Aurora (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a lot of forms that just aren't displayed in the infoboxes (I'm thinking of Ash's Pikachu and Furfrou). I'm wondering if we should do some combined images depending on the species, much like we do for the gendered species like Meowstic. Obviously things like Unown and Silvally could be omitted, but it might work a bit better with the pumpkins. Although, I don't think visual images are necessarily needed since they are visually all the same anyways. I do think HOME images should be used when necessary. Something like Furfrou doesn't do any of this despite all forms being recognized in the Pokedex and has official stock art for them. If the pumpkins need to show visual distinction, I do like it in the suggest way that the Polteageist is, I think you can just organize it by how they are internally.

Pale Pikachu's height is listed independently from other Pikachu, despite being the exact same (the weight is not), and that information is usually by how they are internally. Regardless of order, the information should probably be in the same order as the visualized images. TrainerSplash (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn't mind removing those combined image things in most cases where they're used, I don't think it makes sense to display forms for Gastrodon differently to forms for Toxtricity. It works for purely visual gender differences like Pyroar (since those aren't technically considered forms) but I don't think it makes as much sense with Pokémon like Meowstic (where the gender difference is actually a form difference). Hewer (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Pumpkaboo and Gourgeist really need a change as their forms kinda already are represented in the infobox, as their height and weight data is included. The only sense in which they're not included is that there's only a single image of the Pokémon, but that's an image that represents all four of the forms anyway (and has been used as such in official media). I'm fully in support of removing Partner Pikachu/Eevee though. Hewer (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

(reset indent)I think it also Makes sense to seperate the infobox by artwork for things like Gastrodon since combining it does kinda remove one piece of information; would also make it easier to maintain consistency. I.e. merge artworks where they are just gender differences (stuff like Pyroar) but seperate them where they are distinct forms that should probably be labeled as such (i.e. Meowstic). 4iamking 21:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I like keeping Shellos and Gastrodon's forms in a single image because otherwise it'd make it seem like one form is the "primary" form (same with the gender difference mons). The form names are clarified in the intro.

Also, since they're identical in everything but size, I'm okay with Pumpkaboo and Gourgeist being an exception to the "show all forms in the infobox" rule. Storm Aurora (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean TBH they still do have a "primary" form (West Sea) in Gastrodon's case and the Male one for gender forms; this is kinda reaffirmed on the TPCi Pokédex website and the way Zukan organizes them. Also wonder if its worth exploring an infobox that might put 2 artworks on an equally prominent "primary" space since I do think there is value having the form caption directly associated to the artwork in the infobox that you don't just get from prose. 4iamking 22:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

we could also allow shuffling for pages where there's two equal primary forms, like how Clavell's page functions Chaogotchi (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I recall, the infoboxes actually used to work like that a long long time ago. I think it would be a poor decision to have Pokemon on a switch considering people probably want to know what species they are probably looking at when they look it up. I think merge images are probably the best way to handle it. I don't expect many of those Pokemon to have forms beyond those anyways, so it'd probably be easier to mark them as individuals, sort of like the Polteagiest infobox actually. TrainerSplash (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

oh, what i meant in my message is that both would appear at once, it's just whichever image is the main one would be the thing to alternate. the captions would also alternate as well so the reader knows what they're looking at Chaogotchi (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

i wanted to create an example of what i meant here, so i did it on my Sandbox page with Gastrodon, Meowstic, Lycanroc, and Toxtricity Chaogotchi (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I like 4iamking's idea of having separated images with equal prominence in the infobox. The main advantage over combined images is that it allows the form names to be included, and that it's consistent with other Pokémon where we already do pick a "primary" form (e.g. Toxtricity, Urshifu). It would also be nice to make the distinction between Meowstic's gender differences (which are actually a form difference) and Pyroar's (which aren't) more obvious on their pages. Hewer (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Guys the infobox is already a mess of spaghetti code, can we please not make any major internal changes to it? 😭 We can split Gastrodon and Meowstic and any other form that's currently in a single image, I'd take that over editing the infobox template again... Storm Aurora (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't forms still be identified with merged images? As shown here. Doesn't even have to be the same wording. this is also an option, but the reason I suggested merged images is to save space, so having duplicates like this would also just feel redundant, we may as well split them if we're not to conserve space. In Which case the primary form (in the case of Gastrodon would be West Sea) as the main image. TrainerSplash (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think its also been pointed out that our approach to when we merge images or not is also a bit inconsistent between species, coming up with a rule that each form should be identified by a caption in the infobox also would just make enforcing a standard easier. I think whats done on Toxtricity's page works so maybe I'm also leaning towards thats what our default should be. 4iamking 19:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I do kinda like Splash's second suggestion (combined image + individual forms identified separately) but having just the separate images would be less work. So I'm good with either. Storm Aurora (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's an example I did with Toxtricity. I feel like this would solve a lot of issues with "default forms". Give Deerling and Sawsbuck a merged image, and it'd look pretty much like Genesect's own. Furfrou could probably be updated to include the three other pieces of artwork in the infoboxes + the remainder in HOME's stock images. Furfrou, imo, is kind of the exception to the cosmetic forms that something like Vivillon and Silvally have, it doesn't have nearly as much as has (some) stock art for it. TrainerSplash (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

While im partial to both, I personally prefer the current Toxtricity approach; mainly because of the image redundancy that gets introduced from that, also it does highlight the default form better. 4iamking 11:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is that some Pokemon don't have a "default" in overall premise or concept. There's only a default in code because there has to be. A good example of this is Oricorio, who's Balie Style is actually the first one listed internally (and the first one revealed in Sun and Moon's reveal trailer for it), but Pom-pom Style is the first actually seen in game, I'd assume most people would probably think Pom-pom is the default. I do agree with the redundancy though, I just don't think we should be prioritizing what a default is if both the fandom and official don't really have one. Lycanroc has a similar issue too actually. But I am mostly questionable of this because Cosplay Pikachu was removed from code after ORAS and its form data was replaced with Ash's Pikachu in SM. I believe I edited the infobox awhile ago so that Cosplay Pikachu came first just because it was in the games earlier, but it's technically just not in the games anymore, to the point that HOME doesn't even recognize it (but does with Ash-Greninja) and if we go by internal priority it starts becoming a bit confusing. Cosplay Pikachu, as far as I am aware, is the only one like this, so maybe it'll just be the exception and stay where it's at. TrainerSplash (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Imo both of those are fine though because even if its not the first form encountered in a certain game; it's still the one the Pokédex refers to. Cosplay Pikachu and Spiky-eared Pichu are wierd exceptions because both of them only exist in one game and were removed immediately after but in both cases it really doesn't matter because the default form is just the base form, and I imagine that will generally be the case for forms that only appear once. Also with Pikachu we are selective in general since were only showing one form out of the "grouping" and even there technically the plain cosplay Pikachu comes after all the costumed ones (the default one would technically be "Rock Star Pikachu"). 4iamking 21:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly if we've gone this long showing a "default" form even if there's not intuitively a default form, it's probably not something that really needs to be fixed. Also, as far as Cosplay Pikachu is concerned, I just checked my Pokédex in ORAS and only the version with no clothes on appears in the Pokédex at all, so I think it's safe to say that's the default form.

On a note more related to the original topic, I did some poking around to see if any other spin-off games (outside of Pokopia) introduced new forms and have a Pokédex, and the only game that fits that criteria is GO. GO's Pokédex allows you to view alternate forms you've caught, but it doesn't give them names or show any other info about them, so I don't think that really counts as being "recognized as separate forms in the Pokédex". That is to say, I don't think there are any other forms from spin-off games that we'd need to add to the infoboxes. Storm Aurora (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I just mentioned Cosplay Pikachu about where it should be placed in the infobox, I know the "naked" one is the default. It's weird case because it technically shares its form data with Ash's Pikachu, so I thought I'd mention it because it was kinda replaced and I'm unsure if we should even keep it there or in a different spot in the infobox. Ash-Greninja is no longer in the games, but it's form in-data wasn't replaced by Mega Greninja and is still recognized in HOME's own Pokedex. PSikey-Eared Pichu doesn't fall under this either because it doesn't have any forms after it. It's specifically about organization. Which will have similar issues with Spin-off content because they don't use the same internal form orders I'm pretty sure, and things like Stereo Rotom obviously can't be brought into HOME.

As for GO, from my understanding the only original form, from what I've been told, is Armored Mewtwo, which actually originayes from the movie remake, even has its own stats. The outfits are usually categorized as such. I don't really see an issue with including it, but it might make people question why Shadow Mewtwo isn't there, or any of the actual outfits in GO. TrainerSplash (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I dont see any form strings for that; the only thing that might qualify based on what has actual text strings, but im not too sure is the different Koraidon/Miraidon ride forms. 4iamking 02:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I really don't like the mentality of "it's been like this for a long time so therefore it's fine". That's how problems never get solved. We used "starter Pokémon" for a long time, and we didn't use "Pokémon the Series" for a long time, and it didn't stop us from fixing those. Hewer (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a valid point, but this discussion has moved way beyond the scope of this page. I'll start a new topic on Template talk:Pokémon Infobox shortly so we can continue the discussion over there. In the meantime, if anyone has any remaining objections/reservations about keeping Stereo Rotom in the infobox here, please speak up now. Storm Aurora (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sprites section

Would it be better to group each of the forms together in separate boxes in the Sprites section, similar to Furfrou - and speaking of which, should they be on a subpage like Furfrou (Pokémon)/Sprites? Also, along with several other Gen 8/HOME sprites, there's a lot of empty space - would be good to find a solution there.Landfish7 16:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that something should be done; but I think I'd prefer using tabber to hide the different forms between different tabs to me would be preferable over shipping them off to a subpage. 4iamking 19:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)