User talk:Spriteit/Kanto first partner Pokémon

Pikachu and Eevee

As we discussed a bit on Discord today, I suggest that this page should probably be about all the five Kanto first partner Pokémon:

• Bulbasaur
• Charmander
• Squirtle
• Pikachu
• Eevee

In the current version of the page "Kanto first partner Pokémon", only Bulbasaur, Charmander and Squirtle appear to count, without including Pikachu and Eevee except it has a link to "Partner Pokémon (game)". As we know, that linked page already explains Pikachu and Eevee in the context of LGPE, but those two Pokémon also qualify as first partner Pokémon in Kanto games like the others.

I don't think the page "Kanto first partner Pokémon" needs to have the LGPE-specific details like all kinds of game mechanics, Secret Techniques, and so on, but in my opinion this page at least needs to include Pikachu and Eevee with the others, including in the sections such as the stat comparison and game availability.

As discussed before, one possible argument to state that Pikachu and Eevee don't count would be that they apparently have never been referred to as "first partner Pokémon" in the game dialogue. However, I don't think this changes the fact that both are first partner Pokémon. If we had to strictly use the game dialogue as a source (and never use other sources like Pokémon.com), then we would have to ask this about all other Pokémon too. If the wording "first partner Pokémon" is never used in-game referring to Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, then would that mean that Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle are not first partner Pokémon?

Pikachu and Eevee are referred to using the wording "first partner Pokémon" on several pages from Pokémon.com:

• "Red makes one other appearance in the Sun & Moon—Cosmic Eclipse expansion: on the card of his partner Pikachu. Here we see Red at Professor Oak’s lab, choosing Pikachu as his first partner at the start of his journey." (source)
• "At the start of players’ adventures, they will receive their first partner Pokémon, either Pikachu or Eevee. Unlike regular Pokémon, their first partner Pokémon is not interested in evolving and instead prefers to stay out of its Poké Ball." (source)
• "Although the storyline is the same in both Pokémon: Let’s Go, Pikachu! and Pokémon: Let’s Go, Eevee!, there are some differences between the two versions. Of course, your first partner Pokémon will be either Pikachu or Eevee depending on which version you get, but the types and rarity of the wild Pokémon that you encounter also differ between the two games." (source)
• "In addition to determining your first partner Pokémon, your choice of Pokémon: Let’s Go, Pikachu! or Pokémon: Let’s Go, Eevee! also affects the species of Pokémon you encounter and the rate at which you encounter them." (source)

I know this is a spin-off, but those five are also known as first partner Pokémon in the context of Pokémon Quest:

• "You’ll start out your journey by selecting your first partner Pokémon: Bulbasaur, Charmander, Squirtle, Pikachu, or Eevee. Your choice can have a big impact on your adventures, especially as you take on the initial stages." (source)

Some other pages use the wording "first partner Pokémon" referring to Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle but not to Pikachu or Eevee. However, I would argue that this is simply ommitting but not excluding Pikachu and Eevee. That means Pikachu and Eevee are still first partner Pokémon even if they aren't mentioned on some pages. I am referring to sources like this:

• "Experience picking your first partner Pokémon with a set of T-shirts featuring Bulbasaur, Charmander, Squirtle, and their Evolutions!" (source)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's make sure we are being critical of when things are being named and when things are being described. The Cosmic Eclipse example is describing a scenario and does not use the term first partner Pokemon, and thus isn't applicable when determining if things are being called a name. ^Maverick_Nate 02:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you ask me, I would say that in all those example sentences, the concept of "first partner" is being simultaneously named and described. If you would like to offer some kind of additional distinction that I was missing, I am interested in listening and learning more.

The Cosmic Eclipse example includes the wording "choosing Pikachu as his first partner". It seems pretty similar to some in-game usage, such as this one from Pokémon X and Y: "Which Pokémon did you pick as your first partner?" --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This page was not really created to be about first partner Pokémon who were in Kanto games. I 100% understand that that pretty clearly sounds like what "Kanto first partner Pokémon" is describing, but it's not exactly a descriptive term; it's a term that is used by official products, and it is used in ways that clearly exclude Pikachu. I have added references that show that to the intro so that hopefully it can be a little clearer that this isn't just "Pokémon who are first partner Pokémon and who are choosable at the beginning of Kanto-based games".

Let me draw a distinction between thinking of "groups" or "collections". A group is something that is inherently related—in the case of a creative work like the Pokémon games, it is something that the creators intentionally give relations to and group together. (And there can be no clearer grouping than being officially named.) By contrast, a collection is a set of things that are assembled by some analysis after the fact, some assignment of criteria that says "these things are similar" when those things are not necessarily grouped by authorial intent—a fan designation, in short. So the "group" for Kanto first partner Pokémon would be Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but the "collection" of Kanto first partner Pokémon would be those and Pikachu/Eevee. To look at another problematic term, legendary dragons has been offered as the title of Unova's legendary group, which sounds fine, but it also very much sounds like a collection, meaning it could easily include Legendary Pokémon who are Dragons from anywhere (not just Unova as the group title is "meant" to mean). (This isn't meant to be 100% rigorous terminology that adequately captures all related topics on Bulbapedia, it's just meant to be a useful device for this conversation.) Or we can think of "first partner Pokémon" itself. That is a "group" that has certain explicit members. But if we treated it descriptively, we could attribute a large "collection" of Pokémon who are people's first partners.

So in short, you're thinking of Kanto first partner Pokémon as a "collection"—where we can follow rules to deduce members—when it's really supposed to be a "group"—where members are defined and it's not really our place to try to add anything that isn't directly given the same label, and especially not things that have been explicitly excluded from the label (like Pikachu being excluded from Kanto first partner Pokémon, as the references currently in the intro show). Whether Pikachu or Eevee are called first partner Pokémon or in what context is not at issue. We need to see them explicitly called "Kanto first partner Pokémon".

Aside from the trio being explicitly named as a group and Pikachu being explicitly excluded, I think we also need to remember that the starter trios are consistently treated specially in all media. We very commonly see people choosing their "starter" from one of a regional trio of Pokémon. Or we see those trios of Pokémon highlighted together in some episode or merchandise or promotion or whatever as a trio. What we see much less is any co-incidence of all five "first partner Pokémon that are from Kanto". We never see Trainers choosing one of those five Pokémon, or merchandise or anything that focuses on all five of these Pokémon specifically. I'm not sure I even know of Trainers choosing among Pikachu and Eevee, or of Pikachu or Eevee being treated as a starter except for Ash clones generally.

All that is to say, in almost every way, I don't really see how adding Pikachu and Eevee to the page really comports with or improves the other information currently on the page. For the simplest example, the starter trios are generally pretty rare, so an availability overview makes reasonable sense; but if we add Pikachu and Eevee, and we then add every other way to get a Pikachu or Eevee outside of Y/LGPE...is that really useful in the same way as for the rarer trio Pokémon? To be fair, the simple place where adding Pikachu and Eevee would matter would be the base stat comparisons—but at the same time, the trios are pretty plainly balanced against each other, and Pikachu and Eevee don't really measure up even with their partner stats. The other thing to examine, then, is anime/manga/etc appearances, and as I said above, we see much more of the trios appearing together than we do of all five "Kanto" starters together (in a relevant way). (I'm honestly not sure if appearances of all three Pokémon together is the only thing that should be noted, but if we don't have any such appearances for all five, then that just seems kinda telling.)

There are a few things we can possibly do about the confusion caused by the title.

We could possibly change the title. There's a few reasons this isn't an "excellent" option, but it could be "fine". The first problem is simply that they are named "Kanto first partner Pokémon". (The same could go for "legendary dragons", but there are some differences in the situations. Like, since Kanto first partner Pokémon has clearly in some places been defined such that Pikachu is excluded, it's quite clear that it's a narrow group and who the members are. But the way "legendary dragons" has been used, it is not nearly so clear if it is just descriptive or if it is truly meant to be a defined group with such-and-such members.) The other problem (and other difference from legendary dragons) is that the other trios are also called "[region] first partner Pokémon"; if none of those have any reason to use another name, it'd be fairly awkward to either force it only for the Kanto trio or to force it for all trios just because of Kanto. But, again, it could still be an "okay" option because it is a fairly simple way to solve the problem. There are a few name options then, such as: [region] first partner trio, Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, [region] first partner Pokémon (Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle)? (These aren't all good, I'm mostly just brainstorming things.)

We could theoretically add some sort of section that's an entire disclaimer about Pikachu and Eevee. I honestly don't think I like this option (to the extent that I can imagine what it could be), but it is a measure that would help.

We could add a slightly more explicit disclaimer at the end of the intro about Pikachu being excluded (and Eevee never being included). Something to the effect that "official usage of the term at times explicitly excludes Pikachu, and only ever explicitly names Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle". Maybe move (or even just duplicate) some of the references here instead of at the very start. I think there are other opinions about how explicit that should be (which is why we currently have a simple note that there's a partner Pokémon page for Pikachu/Eevee), so this may require more collaboration to find something broadly agreeable. But IMO this is the best option.

As a little summary, I do understand that the title of this page sounds like a description of a "collection" of Pokémon. But I think the best thing is really to keep the focus on the strongly related trio and we should address the potential confusion in other ways. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Fair enough, those are good points. I've been thinking about this discussion and the previous ones on Discord as well.

Yes, I can see that it's useful to have a page specifically for the trio of Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle after all. As you were saying, the trio has much in common with each other like similar availability in several games and they often play a part together as a trio in multiple anime series and manga series.

If we had a page for the five Pokémon as a group (including Pikachu or Eevee), I'm sure we could state that they have a few things in common: some trivia points like "All five Kanto FPPs can Gigantamax" or "All five Kanto FPPs are the only ones in multiple regional Pokédexes" are still possible. But yes, I understand that most of the interesting information here is really about the group of three. I definitely don't recommend using some awkward wording like "Three of the five Kanto FPPs can Mega Evolve, except Pikachu and Eevee."

I would still argue that Pikachu and Eevee are indeed Kanto first partner Pokémon based on some sources above. It's true that Pokémon.com does not seem to use the exact wording "Kanto first partner Pokémon" referring to them, but I think it also does not use the exact wording "Kalos first partner Pokémon" referring to Chespin, Fennekin, and Froakie. It does use "first partner Pokémon from Kalos" though.

If we need some sort of article for the Kanto trio, I suppose that the current title "Kanto first partner Pokémon" is not perfect but it's decent. Thanks also for suggesting the other possible names like "[region] first partner Pokémon (Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle)".

I wonder if we should actually have two separate articles: one for the Kanto trio (containing the details, trivia, and appearances of the trio) and another for the Kanto five (which would be about the points in common between the five).

Anyway, can we at least consider calling the Pikachu from Pokémon Yellow a first partner Pokémon instead of "initial" in all articles? For instance, the wording "initial Pikachu" currently appears 19 times in the friendship article. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think enough people wil ask about Pikachu that you might as well give them a section that exists to answer the question. This would involve a sentence in the intro, giving Pikachu and Eevee a enforced short section about them exclusively as the partners, and linking to their main articles. They are relevant to bring up, being that Pikachu often winds up mentioned in the same breath as these three, as seen in The TV show and GO allowing for a secret Pikachu capture. Salmancer (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)