Talk:List of Pokémon (599–649)

Kumasyun, Shandera

Kumasyun is gross. I am tired of repeating myself. The comment has been there for months unnoticed. Its chilly habitat is NOT the cause of its runny nose.

Shandela, Shanderaa and Chandelure are all incorrect spellings and anglicizations of Shandera's name. If the name is actually spelled Shanderaa (Chandelure) then change the supposedly incorrect spelling of "Shandera" with just one a.

Sewaddle is NOT the name of Kurumiru.

````Fifteen501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifteen501 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The chilly habitat may not be the source of its runny nose, you are correct. But you can't say that it is gross. This is not a neutral point of view statement.
• If you can provide a reliable source giving Shandera's English name, then please give it. Your japanese game is using the japanese name. I don't see why you brought that up on your talkpage. Those may be the incorrect spellings, yes, I am just saying that is what the leaked list says. I am not using it as a source though. The name will stay as is until it is revealed.
• I know that Sewaddle is not a revealed English name. That was revealed through a leak, and I meant to remove it, but overlooked it on accident. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blake is right. You are not allowed to post your own opinions on the character designs. Because you personally find Kumasyun disgusting does not mean that Wikipedia has to report on it. And your repeated changes of the formating to Shandera's section are incorrect. Stop using your Japanese game to determine what is and what is not the English name. And "Sewaddle" is Kurumiru's English name, but it has not come out in any reliable sources, so it should be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Kumasyun, Shandera

Kumasyun's cold is not from any "chilly habitat". It doesn't say anywhere in it's Pokedex entries.

Shandera is fine in the front part of the template, as long as it isn't in bold. Stop obsessing with this.

Fifteen501 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Fifteen501

I somewhat get that saying "Because of its cilly habitat" is Original Research, but why do you keep moving Shandera's name? That just makes us have to move it when the english name is revealed. I mean, the only difference is your way it isn't italicized. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 04:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen501 stop editing this page. No one agrees with your changes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect

Because these three Pokémon are:

• Event only
• Not-obtainable in normal gameplay
• Completely not acknowledged by the Pokémon company to exist yet

We at the English Wikipedia should not acknowledge their existence because there are no independent reliable sources or any official sources (outside of people ripping apart the game data) to even make it known that they exist. I believe that until the events occur or until Nintendo officially admits that these three Pokémon exist, the English Wikipedia should not make mention of them as per WP:RS. I have modified every page that I can to point out that there are only officially 646 Pokémon in existence. This page has been moved to reflect that as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Hacking a game card should not be considered a valid method of verifying the existence of a particular species of Pokémon. In fact, wouldn't the act of ripping the game data apart be considered a violation of Nintendo's intellectual property rights? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in on the intellectual property bit: at least in the US, a user is allowed to modify the source code or dataof any video game they buy, fiddling and tearing it apart as they please, providing that it is for personal use. This precedent was established in Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.. Quote: "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work." But as to the topic at hand, they are not official Pokémon and should not be included, since as of right now, they are just bits of floating game data and are not independently verifiable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. As for independent reliable sources, I haven't been able to find any myself. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, Arceus was not revealed officially for the longest time. When fans asked a staff member about Arceus, they acted dumb.(although this might have been between the JP and NA events) It was still on the list though because it was a known Pokemon. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only known because fans searched through the game data. That's not a reliable source. Just because it happened with Arceus doesn't mean we should do it with Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, just saying, we can ignore the rules, since this isn't an article that will be going under GAR or for FL probably ever. We know they are true. Plus, fans are going to be bugging us for years until these things are officially announced. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 19:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Then we're going to have to remind them about our policies and how just because it's posted on Serebii doesn't mean we're allowed to report on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So what about the people who will use an action replay to obtain them? Will we still deny its existence? I thought the games themselves were supposed to be the ultimate source. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 20:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not denying their existence. We are just saying that there is nothing available that per our policies allow us to cover them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah you kinda are. In this instance it would be perfectly acceptable to state what is known (currently unobtainable in the actual game, pokedex info, appearance) and leave that as the entry. Even if for some fluke it never does get released, even that can still be stated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If we do not have any reliable sources on a subject, then we cannot cover the subject. People hacking into the game data and using cheating devices to acquire three Pokémon that are otherwise unobtainable in game play does not count as a reliable source. We can put it back if and when Nintendo acknowledges that these characters exist by initiating the events to acquire them in game/give them out at some sort of promotional event, both of which are likely to happen in Japan soon enough.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty well on the fence here. On one hand, I can appreciate the argument that, while we are able to verify using in-game information, said information is nowhere near simple to come by in the game; on the other hand, we can personally verify the existence, which allows us to make an informed decision. And considering that every Pokémon ever made has been released up until now through legitimate means, we can apply common sense that Nintendo will continue this practice. Even still, it would be fair to leave them up, as the game has only been released for days. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it's likely to happen doesn't mean we should cover it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant; we can still ascertain, personally, that they exist. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Through means that are not reliable sources. You and I can know that these things exist, but we cannot report on that matter on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMON - <sub>"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."</sub> I think this is one of those times when common sense says that these exist, and the article would be improved, not damaged, from having these creatures listed here. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 20:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Common sense also says that we can expect Ruby/Sapphire remakes; if we hack deep enough into the code we might find location data for Hoenn, as there was for Johto in Gen IV. But just because we can find that information ourselves doesn't mean we can include it without it being sourced. It's textbook original research. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

While I get your point, that data just suggests that a RS remake might happen. The Pokemon species data confirms that they do exist. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Common sense also says that we can expect Ruby/Sapphire remakes"

^ Bullshit. Just because they remade R/G and G/S, that doesn't mean they're going to remake every generation. FR/LG and HG/SS were needed because the Gen I and II games weren't compatible with current games. That isn't the case with R/S/E, as you can transfer Pokémon from them to the Gen IV games, and then to the Gen V games. Moreover, there's NO evidence whatsoever about Game Freak planning R/S remakes. With HG/SS, we had a unused location labeled as "Johto" in D/P/Pt as evidence. There's no such evidence for R/S (there's a location label for Hoenn, but it's used for Pokémon obtained in R/S/E that were Pal Parked and then Poké Transfered, so there's no reason to assume that it's intended to be used for any future remakes). - 190.139.54.45 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] - "Black and White alone adds 156 new Pokemon to the lexicon -- bringing the total number of creatures players can theoretically collect to 649." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats a nice start, but it doesn't show the names. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And the "156" is based on the fact that people tore apart the game data to find Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So, you are saying that if a reliable source covered these three in detail, it would mean nothing because the information would be from hacked data? <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] While I am not quite sure of this site's reliability, I think it covers it nicely. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 00:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It should come from a reliable source and more than likely that reliable source would not be an American video game website prior to the American release. Until Nintendo fully acknowledges that these characters exist Wikipedia should not report on them. THe fact that they can be hacked to access the information does not relate to reliable sources as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gamasutra verifies the number of Pokémon. This is good enough. We can use the in-game data to add on to this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not good enough. I just went to the Japanese-language Wikipedia and found this discussion regarding the deletion of the Japanese-language article about Keldeo, as well as this discussion regarding the deletion of the Japanese-language articles about Meloetta and Genesect. The conclusion that I could draw from those discussions is that due to verifiability concerns, the Japanese-language Wikipedia should not cover Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect until Nintendo or The Pokemon Company officially acknowledges the existence of said species through one or more official announcements. So likewise, we at the English-language Wikipedia should also wait for such announcements. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Until a Shyamalanian twist occurs where it turns out that we are that sect of the jp.wiki that made this decision, we do not define our actions based on what they do. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But until there's some sort of official announcement or until the in-game data on Keldeo, Meloetta, or Genesect become accessible through legitimate means (whichever comes first), such data should be treated as unpublished in my opinion. And since there is no explicit mention of the names Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect by any existing independent reliable source, having Wikipedia cover those three species because Gamasutra has stated that there are 649 total species could potentially violate WP:OR. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy that covers accessing information from games that Nintendo never intended them to be accessed in that way. We are not obligated to only display information only if Nintendo allows. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still the same issue as covered at ja.wiki. We have no reliable sources to confirm or deny the existence of these three Pokémon. Bulbapedia, Serebii, and all of the fansites can have what they want, but Wikipedia has stricter guidelines for coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I say that we compromise on saying 649, but that only 646 are confirmed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because 649 cannot be verified outside of hacking into the game data and finding the last three Pokémon. That is how everyone else has determined the existence of Keldeo (and its special move), Meloetta (and its special move and two forms), and Genesect (and its unique items and forms). We cannot use any source from shortly ate theJapanese relase of the games because they are all using the same information that we did before this: hacked game data.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is just nonsense Ryulong. If a reliable source ever says that these three Pokémon exist, we are un-hiding them. It doesn't matter if the site got it from unreliable data. If a reliable source prints unreliable information as truth, it becomes reliable. Although I think you will win, because it is unlikely at this point for them to be covered. The hype has died down about the release, and the reviews/guides are mostly out. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not reliable. It is only verifiable. But this information cannot be independently verified without hacking into the game data.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And if Gamasutra editor Leigh Alexander hacked a copy of her game to obtain the information? Or learned it from another reliable source that hacked the game? Would this not be a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who hacked which game. The information cannot be independently verified outside of hacking. While Gamasutra and 1Up can normally be used as reliable sources, for this specific number that is not the case. Anyone playing a standard Pokémon Black or White DS cartridge is not going to be able to see that there is anything beyond 646 Pokémon once they manage to capture Kyurem and that should be the basis of our information. Not several game blogs reporting on information acquired through game hacks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to know that a primary source is independent verification. Can you please, in your next edit, explain to me the guideline that explains why this matters? Is there any guideline that says that a reliable source is not reliable if they are hacking a game? I'm legitimately curious if such a guideline exists. Otherwise, you are fighting a reliable source solely for a personal argument rather than one supported by Wikipedia. A reliable source is always reliable and never not without reason to doubt what they say. I must again repeat that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Explain to me how we did not show verifiability. In the next line, it reads "that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The fact of the matter is that readers can verify that the 649 number was verified by a reliable source. Nowhere in WP:V does it suggest that we need additional game verification. What if we were attempting to verify something difficult? Look at Mew - it is incredibly difficult to verify that you get a certificate for obtaining Mew. Why should a reliable source be usable to verify that, but not this number? Are you implying that more important to the notability of inclusion for a certain verifiable piece of information is that Nintendo find it important, not reliable sources? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS. And acquiring non-derivative information from the primary source is most definitely independent verification (if the games say Pikachu is yellow, so can we). And certain sources can be deemed unreliable if they are contested. And the issue is that these three characters cannot be discerned from any reliable sources, and neither should the total number of Pokémon in the games. If we cannot name all 649 Pokémon with reliable sources, then we should not say that there are a total of 649 Pokémon because that number cannot be verified outside of the sources that are using hacked game data for the information.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no guideline or policy that disallows a source to use hacked data. You're using synthesis to argue that if we do not know what 647-649 are, that we cannot say that that many Pokémon exist, which is not supported anywhere. Wikipedia policies ask if the source is reliable, if we can verify that they can be trusted. We can. You're making assumptions that a source considered one of the most reliable in gaming is, for whatever, reason, not reliable in this case. It is your burden to demonstrate, with a specific policy (everything you've just said is not citing any specific portion of the two policies you've just cited - if you were, you would have quoted the policies). The only attempts of demonstrating your arguments were citing policies that we have - but unlike our side, we actually quote the specific portions of the policies in our arguments. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm contesting the use of the 1up and Gamasutra sources for this information. The most reliable source for this information should be the media itself (the data that can be accessed without hacking) or the owners of the intellectual property. Until they say that there are 156 Pokémon introduce in Black and White, and that means that there are 649 Pokémon spanning from RG to BW then we cannot say anything otherwise. And you are the only individual contesting this. The Japanese Wikipedia seems to have the same idea: that this content should not be covered until it is available to players and the general public outside of those who read Serebii, Bulbapedia, and all of the other fansites to acquire their information.

To tl;dr, I believe that in this case, the two sources you Retro Hippie are claiming are usually reliable are not reliable in this situation due to the nature of the acquisition of the data.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No guideline or policy suggests, even lightly, that how they acquired the data is important to determining reliability of sources. It has never been, and will never be, reliant on what the primary sources deem important to mention. You must quote the specific passage that disallows based on what is revealed in the primary sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy concerning this. However, there is certainly no information out there in reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to corroborate the information in the 1Up and Gamasutra pieces.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source said that Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect were real Pokemon, then it would not matter that Nintendo hasn't announced them yet. While you can say that WE can't use hacked data to verify information, you can't say that THEY can't use hacked data to verify information. If they say it is true, then it is, and we can report on it. Until that happens, I don't think the number being reliable, and "knowing" that the names correlate with them is enough. Like I said, you won for now with me, but ONCE A RELIABLE SOURCE SAYS THEY EXIST, THEY ARE GOING IN THE ARTICLE. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 21:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why 1UP.com and Gamasutra, two completely independent sources, do not corroborate themselves in the first place. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blake: It doesn't matter if they're real or not. The fact is that there are no reliable sources providing the information that you guys want to post.

Hippie: They're the only ones that corroborate each other that have been found and because of the nature of the information I do not think that they are reliable sources in this case.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are. You have simply arbitrarily declared two sources that are always considered reliable as unreliable. Your only argument has been a person argument, not one of guidelines or policies, that information which cannot be corroborated by a primary source can never be used. Until this is a part of a Wikipedia guideline or policy, which you admit that it is not, then it is not a valid argument. Barring this invalid argument, why are they not reliable sources? And what is the threshold for the number of sources needed for the information to be corroborated? As it stands, every source could say it, and by your logic, it could still not be used. This is a violation of the policy of using primary sources - you're effectively placing the inclusion of information on primary sources as more important than reliable sources.

Let me guess: GamesRadar, GameSpot, PC World, and Eurogamer, none of those are corroboration. Or [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/292744/interviews/pokemon-when-i-made-black/white-i-wasnt-considering-existing-pokmon-users/ the interview conducted by Computer and Video Games where they ask the creator about the 649 Pokémon, a count which he didn't correct. Assuming the 649 count is not reliable is just being ignorant to the mountains of evidence, when we have seven different reliable sources verifying the number, including one directed at the game's creator. You are overwhelmingly opposed not only by editors on the Wikipedia, but by many unique reliable sources. Reverting your changes at this point is fighting against evidence and opposition. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The 649 count is not mentioned in the Gamespot article (only in a comment), the other ones mention it, yes, and the Masuda interview does not feature any correction, but the fact still stands that this count comes from game data hacking. So maybe we can mention that there are 649, but we cannot name numbers 647, 648, and 649 until they are available to the general public.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never argued for the inclusion of the specific 647-649; in fact, I argued that compromise earlier in this discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, my question is now do we need to say that here are 649 when we are only going to cover 646?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We do, yes; simply clarify that the list only covers 646 of them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But why should we say that there are three more that we cannot cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we have reliable sources that say that there are 649. We should not limit information verified by reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What will people think if we say there are 649, but we only happen to have any info on 646 of them? The internet's best editors were just doing sloppy work? We should at least have the basic stuff like types and Pokédex data so people don't think they're going crazy. If we don't have any more information, then we don't have any more information. Tezero (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• http://guides.ign.com/guides/59687/page_657.html, http://guides.ign.com/guides/59687/page_658.html, and http://guides.ign.com/guides/59687/page_659.html, here they are! <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  But does IGN count in this case?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it count? You can still revert anybody who tries to add unverified information to them, but you can't deny that sources say they exist. <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For context, various editors across the VG project use IGN guides for stuff all the time. Tezero (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If this clarifies anything, page 15 of February 2011 (issue 65) of ONM (Official Nintendo Magazine), in the Number Crunch! section, states: "156: Number of new Pokemon in Black and White, bringing the total number of Pokemon to a staggering 649." . Whilst I agree that the three cases in question may not be used in the game legitimately as of yet, I think they should at least be acknowledged as existing within the code, under their respective names, and that they may be possible candidates as official canon pokemon in the future, but more importantly acknowledge that there IS a planned 649 current total to the list, whether or not the final three haven't been officially named. [Apologies in advance if I haven't edited this page properly, I'm new to this] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.226.156 (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If we can confirm that there are 649 Pokemon then we can assure those final 3 are Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect since otherwise whatever new design or Pokemon that are decided to be added wouldnt be able to be played in the games since they wouldnt be in the code of the games.200.94.114.216 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

http://au.faqs.ign.com/articles/116/1165064p1.html – I would call IGN a reliable source, and they recognise Genesect, Meloetta, and Keldeo. 2birds1stone (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a fan-made walk through. SO no.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The links I provided above were not fan-made, so why have we not settled this already? <sub>Blake</sub> <sup>(Talk·Edits)</sup> 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Because neither Nintendo of Japan nor Game Freak have yet to officially acknowledge that these three Pokémon exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the inclusion of those pokemon is all that important to the article but I do believe the discussion has lasted quite a bit and it seems to be something simple so I decided to initiate a discussion in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope this helps into reaching a conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_Pok.C3.A9mon_.28599.E2.80.93646.29

200.94.141.4 (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

649?

Now I saw there was a big talk over whether to include genesect, meloetta and keldeo. I know that the other 2 have been added but what about genesect? shall I add it to the list? (Lunashy (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

Those discussions were from over a year ago. Now, both Keldeo and Meloetta are going to be in the movie coming out in July. Genesect has yet to be even acknowledged by Nintendo or Game Freak or whoever owns the Pokémon copyright. Whenever Genesect gets acknowledged, this list will be modified.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was because of those discussions which was why I was wondering about Genesect, so I'm guessing we only count them as acknowledged if they were in a movie or the anime? (Lunashy (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

Obviously things change over the course of a year. And we only count them as acknowledged when Nintendo announces they exist in any way, shape, or form, which means they appear in reliable sources. The only reason you and I know Genesect exists is because of all of the data mining done on the game roms. If people didn't dig through the game data we would have not known about Keldeo or Meloetta or Freeze Bolt or Cold Flare or V-Generate or whatever other things that are not accessible by just playing the game normally.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, please stop talking as though anything you say is based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You keep on saying that because Nintendo did not intend for people to know about those Pokémon, we should not be able to mention them. Based on your stance and actions, Nintendo is the only reliable source on the matter, from your point of view - somehow, a source that clearly does not count as a "reliable source" is so, in only this one situation. Nintendo does not set the guidelines of what Wikipedia can observe. That Genesect was not in the article is literally through your desires, not the desires of Wikipedia. The issue comes down to this: what evidence do you have that mentioning Genesect will do harm to this article? Additionally, what evidence do you provide to suggest that normally reliable sources may be lying, or manipulating the information? Wikipedia's intention is to provide information that is verifiable, not information that is necessarily true. IGN, Gamasutra, and 1UP all acknowledge that Genesect exists, and that there are 649 Pokémon. How you can disagree with their use without letting personal bias get in the way is beyond me. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that the point is no longer relevant as all 649 Pokemon have been released now, but for future arguments, here we go: Is Gary Oldman in The Thin Red Line? Hard to say; all his scenes were cut, so no, he isn't in the released version. He was obviously intended to be in it, but things changed and he wasn't ultimately included. The could conceivably happen to Pokemon in the game code. That's why an official release from Nintendo/Game Freak is important. All the press in the world can tell us about the character stats, models and names, but until they actually appear, they aren't anything but code. History indicates that all Pokemon do eventually appear, but that doesn't mean they always will. Hot Coffee mod for GTA: San Andreas is s prime example of excised content that remained in the data files. Mingmingla (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology for Deino, Zweilous, and Hydreigon

Not sure how to source it, but since a lot of the other pokemon descriptions seem to include a folk etymology for English names, (thinking of Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres - including the Spanish for 1, 2, & 3) it might be worth mentioning for Deino, Zweilous, and Hydreigon as well for the German language 1, 2, 3. Lime in the Coconut 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

please go to talk: 202-251

there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)