User talk:Landfish7/Pokémon pronoun guidelines

Disagree

I don't understand the reason for this. It's essentially required misgendering of Pokémon, which is something the main policy is against, so why are you doing this? Just because the games and anime use "it" for some strange reason doesn't mean Bulbapedia should. We really need more user input on this before it becomes an actual policy, because it should not become an actual policy. Besides, you are alone in believing this should become an actual policy. Goyangi (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just a proper grammar. Every animal is referred to as "it" and Pokemon are supernatural animals. Their sex is unimportant most of the time and the creators don't bring as much attention to it. Rocket Grunt 18:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's still unreasonable for us to do the same. Calling them by their actual gender is also proper grammar, and you wouldn't call real individual animals with known sexes "it", would you? Especially a pet such as your own. Additionally, your reply comes across as indifference to whether or not a Pokémon is misgendered or not, as opposed to definite opposition or support. Goyangi (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Notably, the Pokémon themselves don't even use gendered pronouns to refer to each other, as of Pokémon Pokopia. Landfish7 18:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not a reason for us to follow suit. We're not the games, we're Bulbapedia. Why should we continue to treat Pokémon as if their gender doesn't matter, and that they're not worthy of basic respect? Pokopia not using gendered pronouns doesn't mean anything. Goyangi (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Bulbapedia convention has always been to draw from the official source material. Our mission is to explain the franchise as it is, not how we'd like it to be. But on the other hand, we're also not adopting an in-universe voice either like, say, a fan fiction might. To me at least, using gendered pronouns when the series itself doesn't even do so a majority of the time, almost makes it seem like we're treating Pokémon like they're real people, which muddies the encyclopedic voice we're aiming for. Landfish7 19:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record I'm also in favor of using "it" to refer to Pokémon. Bulbapedia presents the material using official language as far as possible. The games and anime doing so is a strong indication that this is how they should be referred to here too. Thespeon (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Official language refers to things like names for Pokémon and items, not pronouns used in source material. Believing it does refer to pronouns is being overly fastidious. Goyangi (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Individual Pokémon should be treated as people, because they are beloved by their trainers/humans who know them, and if official source material confirms their gender, pronouns used in place of gendered ones are irrelevant to the standards of Bulbapedia. And even if you believe treating individual Pokémon as people muddies something, it doesn't mean everyone else should treat individual Pokémon as unworthy of basic respect. Goyangi (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Even IRL it's not polite or respectful to assign gendered pronouns to someone who doesn't use them. But again, that's kinda where attributing moral value to this gets far too in the weeds. Landfish7 19:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The only reason the games and anime use "it/its" is because of translation quirks/issues that cause "aitsu" (which, might I add, has a rude/disrespectful tone) to always be "it/its", instead of translators taking liberty. We don't have to feed into those. Goyangi (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, according to this BW-era TCPi style guide, that was a deliberate choice by the company to avoid using gender-specific pronouns to refer to Pokémon. Given that the games, anime, and other media still tend to use it/its pronouns to refer to Pokémon, I think it's safe to assume this particular guideline is still part of their policy. Storm Aurora (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Even then, that only started because of strange translation choices, and for some reason they didn't fix that. Plus, notice how they call Meowth "his" and "he", so they don't even follow their own "rules". The contradiction alone should be enough to dismiss this material. Goyangi (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Contradictions or minor errors do not invalidate the broader standard. Official materials have inconsistencies all the time, but we still follow the overall, consistent conventions they establish. A few exceptions like Meowth don't override the general pattern of how Pokémon are referred to.

It's also worth noting that internal or explanatory documents not intended for public use can be less strict in wording, so occasional deviations there aren't especially meaningful compared to consistent public-facing usage.

To keep this grounded in policy, what Bulbapedia guideline or convention supports moving away from official language here? Recent discussions on naming and terminology have leaned strongly toward aligning with official materials when describing the franchise.

I concede that we don't mirror official wording verbatim in all cases, especially for the sake of conciseness (we don't say "Pokémon Red and Blue Versions" every single time), but introducing gendered pronouns where the source material generally avoids them starts to drift into editorializing, which we usually try to avoid.

Additionally, one of the reasons we should avoid gendered pronouns for Pokémon is that Pokémon often differ in gender between media. For instance, we concluded Serena's Delphox is female and use "she/her" pronouns throughout, but Serena's Delphox is male in Pokemon Masters. Even Cynthia's Garchomp, which is very intentionally canonically female, sometimes appears as a male in the core series games. I think we'd be safer by sidestepping that entirely and choosing the "always correct" option, rather than ending up with language like "Serena's Delphox is a Pokemon in many media. She was depicted as male in Masters". Landfish7 11:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The only logical reason for referring to a Pokémon as "it" is if the Pokémon's gender is unknown. Saying "it" when a Pokémon is confirmed male or female is irrefutably disregarding their gender and treating them as though they are still unknown, which is callous. Deep down, you know this, but you ignore it for the sake of "consistency with source material". It comes across as overly meticulous and nitpicky. Additionally, if Ash's Pikachu gets to have two separate pages for his two incarnations, why would Serena's Delphox be undeserving of the same? I understand that Delphox's role in Masters is much smaller than in the anime, but the Delphox in Masters and the Delphox in the anime are clearly not the same individual. Goyangi (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Bulbapedia can and does explicitly state a Pokémon’s gender where relevant. Pronoun choice and acknowledging gender aren’t the same thing, and the source material itself routinely separates those two.

My point with Serena's Delphox is that the mix of gendered language in prose introduces another layer of complexity for editors and readers. And in cases where a Pokémon character's gender is already debated in the first place, this could result in a lot more back-and-forth than we already deal with.

With Delphox, we'd still end up with an overview page for the character that switches between different pronouns, which I think presents a poor and potentially confusing experience for readers.

I will clarify that I may be willing to accept gendered pronouns in cases where the character is consistently referred to by those pronouns, such as Meowth, but I do not accept imposing those pronouns on characters that don't use them or that use inconsistent pronouns between media. Landfish7 12:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not imposing, it's treating a Pokémon as an individual instead of as an object/generic entity. Contrary to your claim, acknowledging gender and using gendered pronouns are, indeed, the same thing in this case. The fact that people are actually on board with misgendering Pokémon is genuinely surprising to me. Additionally, Mega Kangaskhan's Pokédex entry in Ultra Moon very clearly uses gendered pronouns, so using gendered pronouns for Pokémon is perfectly acceptable, and the handbook sourced is simply corporate folly. Goyangi (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it's not the job of the encyclopedia to take a stance in these instances. The only neutral approach we can take here is drawing from the source material itself rather than imposing our own beliefs and theories on the text. In the case of Mega Kangaskhan, it's notable that this was intentionally corrected in later games. Landfish7 12:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It was not "corrected", but rather uncorrected. Goyangi (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the source material argument, we shouldn't just blanket refer to every pokemon as it/its. We have to take into account the gender differences, or pokedex entrees that state things like mother or father, even if its just in one or two games. Sonario648 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

They use it/its because the word is a gender neutral term. Otherwise they would have to make three separate versions of the dialoge. It's not disrespectful at all. Sonario648 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

There have been a lot of arguments about "official usage vs what (some) fans prefer" on various topics, and official usage always won, and I don't see that changing now just because a new argument emerged. Kikugi (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

(resetting indent) @Goyangi: I think this may come down to a difference in what standard we think Bulbapedia should follow. From my end, I'm prioritizing consistency with the franchise's presentation, while you seem to be approaching it from a different angle. It might make sense to get additional input at this point to see where broader consensus lands.

@Sonario648: I absolutely agree that we don't need to be shy from using "mother", "father", etc. where appropriate when they are used officially. I think we should similarly reserve usage of gendered pronouns for when they are consistently used officially, however, such as in the case of Meowth. Landfish7 13:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

It's admittedly a little hard to achieve "consistency with the franchise's presentation" in this situation because the franchise's presentation is so inconsistent. I just took a look at the descriptions for several spin-offs on Pokémon.com and they seem to avoid using pronouns for Pokémon as much as possible, but I did find a handful that use gendered pronouns - Detective Pikachu, Detective Pikachu Returns, and PokéPark 2: Wonders Beyond - and some that use gender neutral pronouns - PokéPark Wii: Pikachu's Adventure and Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs. Then there's stuff like Chef Dente in Pokopia, who is referred to with she/her pronouns by a diary entry and then the narration immediately after you read that entry refers to that Greedent with they/them pronouns. So at this point I'm ready to just throw my hands up and say "don't use pronouns to refer to an individual Pokémon ever". Storm Aurora (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally lean towards maintaining the gender pronouns. In Masters EX, sync pair Pokémon are consistently referred by "he" or "she", based on the appropriate gender, though I admit that I don't think any Pokémon has been consistently referred to with gender pronouns in the animated series. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you. Masters' use of gendered pronouns brings the whole thing into question, and I am in favor of keeping gendered pronouns. Goyangi (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

For Pokémon Mystery Dungeon I try to use it/its when referring to a general species and the gendered pronoun when referring to a specific character, since the game scripts stay 99% consistent on the latter point.

For Pokopia the switching between they/them and gendered pronouns depending on the speaker/writer makes it more complicated, but I don't think the current use of gendered pronouns on Pokopia character pages are a poor solution as long as there are human records to support it (Is Tinkmaster ever referred to by human records? That article might need a change if not).

I do feel using it/its is not a great solution for referring to a character that is both sentient and unique unless it is specified by the source material (Ditto in Pokopia for instance). --RRad (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Storm here. There are valid reasons to use gendered pronouns and there are valid reasons to use "it/its", but I think gendered pronouns present more potential problems. Simply using "it/its" across the board would never be "wrong", and would cut through the noise and confusion of having to know when and where to use this pronoun or that pronoun, making things much simpler for editors and more clear and consistent for readers. Landfish7 10:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This also opens things up to clearly list out exceptions where the character is always referred to with specific pronouns; I've updated the proposed guidelines accordingly with some potential exceptions. Landfish7 15:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

To add to the discussion, I wanna bring up Pokémon including but not limited to Ogerpon, the Loyal Three, and the spiky-eared Pichu. These Pokémon are always a certain gender in the games they appear in (Ogerpon and the Pichu are female while the Loyal Three are males), and yet are still referred to with it/its pronouns there.

On Bulbapedia, I’ve run into articles that vary between it/its and gendered pronouns for the Pokémon, leading to inconsistency between them.

You could easily say to just follow the games and use it/its, and when I changed the pronouns in the articles, that's exactly what I believed. I had no idea this was a pretty big issue until I discovered this talk page and one of my edits got reverted.

Admittedly, I sometimes use gendered pronouns for Pokémon, but those are reserved for informal contexts and Bulbapedia is supposed to be semi-formal from the looks of things. I don't see anything wrong with using it/its for the same reasons that have already been brought up earlier, so I won't repeat any points. SuguriSweet (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why or how it/its is formal, nor do I see how gendered pronouns are informal. It just seems like an excuse to see Pokémon as things. Goyangi (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It/its pronouns are more formal in this context because they're generally preferred by official sources. Using them also allows for more consistency across the site, as we have to use it/its pronouns for any Pokémon whose gender is unconfirmed, anyways. Storm Aurora (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

And such Pokémon are the only instances where it/its should be used. Goyangi (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

In the interest of not repeating the same arguments over and over, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this. You're welcome to use whatever pronouns you like for Pokémon in casual conversation, but I think it's better for Bulbapedia to use it/its pronouns in general and note exceptions when they occur.

That said, @FinnishPokéFan92 brought up this point earlier that never really got addressed, so I'd like to discuss Pokémon Masters EX's use of pronouns for Pokémon. Masters is very internally consistent about using gendered pronouns for Pokémon that have genders, only using it/its pronouns for gender unknown Pokémon - notably, even when this contradicts the way the Pokémon are referred to in the core series games. For example, Kieran refers to Ogerpon using she/her pronouns in Masters despite him using it/its pronouns for Ogerpon in Scarlet and Violet. It's tempting to add Masters Pokémon to the list of exceptions to match their source material, but I'm concerned it would cause too much confusion for readers and editors if the same Pokémon is referred to with different pronouns depending on whether the Pokémon's core series or Masters appearance is being discussed. Storm Aurora (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)