Talk:Pokémon

Creators

Should Masuda and Sugimori be credited as creators of the franchise as well? Masuda played a key roll in making the orginal games and Sugimori designed the original 151 Pokémon. Pikachubob3 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sugimoro and Masuda definitely played key roles in the development of Red and Green, but so did many members of the dev team. However, Tajiri came up with the franchise's core idea: catching and trading various creatures. Therefore, Tajiri is commonly said to have been the main creator of Pocket Monsters, which he initially called Capsule Monsters in his original pitch document.

Sugimoro did not design *all* original 151 Pokémon. This is one of the many misconceptions about the franchise that have sprung up over the years, and which this Wikipedia article debunks. Sugimori designed part of them, as did Atsuko Nishida. Nishida designed Pikachu, Bulbasaur, Charmander, Squirtle, and various others. - Manifestation (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, makes sense Pikachubob3 (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Manifestation Masuda did also introduce the erm... Masuda method Pokémon&BandGeek (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

I think it needs more The1hot1dog (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. @The1hot1dog, please be more specific. - Manifestation (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

For what purpose CheeseyHead (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Shiny Pokémon?

So I was scrolling through the article, looking for the section on shinys. Where is it? As far as I could tell, there was no section for shiny Pokémon, which, in my opinion, plays a very big role in the Pokémon franchise. Please add a section listing out shiny pokemon and how to hunt for them, shiny Pokémon history, odds, how they work, etc. Thank you to whoever does it. Pokémon&BandGeek (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the text, and the only metion of the word "shiny" was in the TCG section (I think) saying "With a shiny overlay effect" or something along those lines. Pokémon&BandGeek (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pokémon&BandGeek! Thank you for your comment. The reason why this article doesn't mention shiny Pokémon is because it is mostly about the creation of the franchise, and the cultural and financial impact it had on the world. Shiny Pokémon, unfortunately, fall outside this article's scope.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a scientific project. It is not supposed to be an entertainment site filled with video game walkthroughs, fictional biographies, episode summaries, celebrity juice, fan art, etc. There are plenty of other websites for that.

Wikipedia does have a small paragraph on shiny Pokémon: Gameplay of Pokémon#Shiny Pokémon. But for more extensive info, you should try fansites like Bulbapedia or Serebii. Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

Pokemon has been around for a long time - Mavcgaming2014 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not an edit request. - Manifestation (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Inline citations

User:QuietHere has expressed his dislike for inline citations, i.e. "[author] ([year])". He believes that they should stay in the <ref></ref> tags, not in the article itself.

I was under the impression that this practice was common, or at least not forbidden. But after I did some digging, I found this policy, put into place after this discussion.

The policy paragraph does not make it clear if the rule also applies to the citation style I used. I've asked about this at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Inline citations.

Here is a full list of inline citations in the article:

All current inline citations

1

Kenji Hatakeyama & Masakazu Kubo (2000) wrote that, at the time, Ishihara was probably the most well-connected man in the industry,[54] with a knowledge of games "beyond comparison".[55]

2 + 3 + 4

According to Tomisawa (2000), the phrase "Capsule Monsters" was already registered.[86] According to Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), the word "capsule" could not be used in the trademark.[87] Tomisawa (2000) states that the Game Freak staff then came up with several alternatives, before someone within the team suggested "Pocket Monsters".[86]

5

Anne Allison (2006) wrote that Nintendo also bought the property after Red and Green were finished.[118] Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000) noted that the ownership structure of Pokemon is uncommon.

6

Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000) wrote that, by coincidence, three people independently suggested to the council that a Pikachu should be a main character in the anime:

7

Buckingham & Sefton-Green went even further, writing in 2004: "while Nintendo is now among Japan's most profitable corporations, it could be argued that the company would have struggled to survive without Pokémon".[315]

8

Tobin (2004) wrote: "By the summer of 2001, Pokémon's shelf space in Japanese and U.S. toy stores was but a fraction of what it enjoyed in the fall of 1999".[355]

9

Dockery (2022) noted that "from both a marketing perspective and, really, a legal perspective, it would not be to the company's advantage to keep pushing that slogan".[360]

10

Yano (2004) even claimed that the reactions at one point constituted a moral panic.[473]

11

Tobin (2004) notes that rarity in this case is "artificially created", and "effectively a form of gambling" in which children need to repeatedly purchase booster packs to get more rare cards.[475]

12

Brougère (2004) described a cynicism among adults that corporations could apparently, "out of thin air", ascribe value to cards which they saw as valueless, thereby "deceiving vulnerable young consumers and garnering excessive profits".[474]

13

Allison (2006) wrote that even those within Pokémon's US marketing team agreed that the anime's visuals were "not especially sophisticated" compared to Disney cartoons.[496]

14

Kohler (2004) wrote that Pokémon was considered "ruthlessly commercial", and that it "program[med] children to be consumers of anything and everything Pokémon".[505]

15

Yano (2004) attributes this to cultural differences, which includes:

16

Anne Allison (2006) wrote that, before the 1990s, Japan figured little in the face of the worldwide hegemony of Euro-American cultural industries, in particular that of the US.

17

Kamo (2000) interviewed various American children and found that kids who thought Pokémon was cool, were more likely to believe that Japan was a cool nation.

18

Allison (2003) gave a similar finding: all the children she interviewed knew where Pokémon originated, and "many said that, as a result of Pokémon and other 'cool' Japanese goods, they had developed an interest in Japan.

19

Kohler (2004) wrote: "Japanese are proud of Pokémon, the most successful export of Japanese popular culture ever".

20

Although, Iwabuchi (2004) questioned to what extent Pokémon really is 'Japanese', and to what extent it is simply a good property with universal appeal.

- Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, my position is only that including the year parenthetical in every instance is redundant to the footnote which already has the year, and that only the names should be included in the sentence itself. A biographer's name should be invoked in the same way any other person's would be, with their full name in the first instance and just their family name in subsequent mentions. In my experience, any reference to a biographer in prose is handled this way, or at the very least I've never seen another article handle it the same way this one does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. In academic papers, "[author] ([year])" is the standard. It's useful for differentiating last names of cited authors, and last names of people being discussed in the paper. Example: "According to Doe (2025), Dane held slightly libertarian views."

I know that Wikipedia isn't an academic paper. But it does cite them a lot. - Manifestation (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)