Talk:Unown

Main Image

The official images for all the Unowns is up on the pokemon.com pokedex maybe that should be the main image?

I like this idea. Not that the "F" isn't working. JayyTeaa (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

PKMN Crystal

According to translated text in Pokemon Crystal (stuff that related to the Mobile Adapter and was translated, but later removed from the English versions of the game), the ancient Pokemon puzzles were "signals" that summoned the Unown to the Ruins; the letters in the back of the Unown chambers were caused by the radio signals that appeared after the building of the Pokecom Center. Two quotes:

The patterns on the wall appear to be words!

And those sliding stone panels seem

to be signals of some kind.

I think they make POKéMON appear,

but it's not clear yet...

According to my research...

Those mysterious patterns appeared

when the POKéCOM CENTER was built.

It must mean that radio waves have

some sort of a link...

(My apologies for excessively lengthening the talk page...) 67.54.145.95 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Article claims that Unown has the same cry as 'M from Pokémon Red and Blue, and no citation is needed. And while I can't prove that false, I'm reasonably sure that 'M always sounded like a Zapdos, Rhydon, or Nidoran Male, depending on the circumstances. If anyone has information proving this is or is not the case, the sentence should just be omitted.

- Jish

ash and his super pokemon beaten by..MAX?!

at the end ofItalic textpokemon battle frontier ash will catch an unown shaped like a ? that he gives to max. max names it chojita and heads to johto alone to start his pokemon journey. max later shows up in shinou also owning a powerhouse of a gligar named maximillian which actually DEFEATS ashs aipom. Although, it is not confirmed that these episodes will air in the u.s.

Nope. False. Unown does not appear in the Battle Frontier, nor does Satoshi catch one and/or give it to Masato. Masato also does not appear in Sinnoh. Teamrocketspy621 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

number unown!?

There is an article called Unown (1-9) that looks similar to this page. Are there really Unown that look like numbers, or is this the work of some complete retard?Squareenix 19:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Already deleted or something. And no, there aren't any numerical Unown.—ウルタプ 01:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i heard there is a unown planned that looks like a comma.--65.54.154.16 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where'd you hear that? --Brandon Dilbeck 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign

Is it me or does the unown look alot like the Einstürzende Neubauten logo? 72.83.236.53 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a coincidence and not appropriate to mention in the article. --Brandon Dilbeck 04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

yes it does --Mhart54com 14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are both based on ancient cuneiform writing. Dude1818 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hidden Power Link?

Should the mentioned Hidden Power move be linked to that attack's page? I don't want to get "link crazy."— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayyTeaa (talk • contribs)

This is not Bulbapedia, and each move does not have its own page. I will explain the move a bit more in the article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

i know why it's called unown

As soon as you catch it,you'll want to un-own it. Masterball2 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It unknown why they are called unown except for those who know the unwon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikavoom (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Unown'" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Unown'. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17#Unown' until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The main image here

I'm sure that if you've seen this article, you'd know that the main picture needs to be fixed. (I'm not technologically skilled enough to do it, tho.) Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Source

[1] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Will review this in the next few days, looking forward to reading it!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Concept and creation

• "It is generally not used in battle due to its low stats and limited move pool." - This sentence is weird, and weirdly placed here? Can it be expanded, but it also feels like it belongs more in the appearances section since it's more about Gameplay.

Appearances

• "Twenty-six forms of Unown were added" - This feels like it'd be better to say or be clarified that it's covering the basic letters of the alphabet unknown. I mean it feels like a given with the 26 but it still count slip someone up when translated.
• There's also a problem of "they" and "it" used interchangably, and they is probably the better option for most cases as we're talking about the species with multiple forms, or in some cases where that wording wouldn't flow well just say Unknown instead of a pronoun.
• Did some fixes with the anime/manga paragraph, but small thing, the TCG title should be italicized.

Promotion and reception

• Did a few small tweaks on my own here, but one thing to bring up, when condensing a sentence, use [...] instead of the trailing elipses, as it indicates that better.
• I need to check what the MOS is about the prize money, if we should use "2000 USD" or "$2000". If it's the former wikilinking USD may be a good idea.

Basic pass is looking good thus far though, it's a strong article about one of the game's more misaligned species.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man I believe I've hit up all of the points you've addressed. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, did a spot check on 11, 22 and 34, all are looking good. Passing, nicely done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reasons for My Proposed Deletion

I proposed that this article be deleted and I wanted to more clearly explain my reasoning for this decision.

1. Unown is not very relevant within Pokémon, only appearing as part of side quests in Gold and Silver and Legends: Arceus. It did appear in a movie, sure, but it is not like that movie is that relevant/remembered. Unlike other movies in the franchise (Mewtwo Strikes Back, Lucario and the Mystery of Mew, I Choose You) it is never referenced in anything not even within the main anime like some other movies. Even speaking anecdotally I have never heard the movie mentioned at all. I heard Pokémon 2000 mentioned, Rise of Darkrai but no one talks about this movie and no one talks about Unown.
2. Other more relevant Pokémon don't have Wikipedia articles. Take Greninja, for example, who regularly tops popularity polls including a worldwide one conducted by Google and The Pokémon Company in 2020, has appeared in two Smash Bros. games, had a special demo for Sun and Moon centered around it, was one of Ash's most notable Pokémon, and was even in the first live-action Pokémon movie. Yet Greninja does not have a Wikipedia article. Now do I think Greninja needs one? Not necessarily. I am only saying that if one of the most relevant Pokémon ever does have an article then a Pokémon who has only appeared in a handful of Pokémon games should not get an article either.
3. Finally, the article does not really bring anything noteworthy. Take the Reception section, for example. It mainly just talks about how people really dislike Unown. It is, in fact, disliked but so are many other Pokémon. Miltank, Embroar, Watchog, and Druddigon are all Pokémon that people repeatedly say they dislike but that does not make them relevant. People dislike Unown but to be honest I think most people just don't even remember it exists.

Here are my reasons for proposing deletion. To clarify, I am not proposing this because I hate Unown or think the article is poorly written but simply because I feel like this is a character that is not relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article, especially when a lot of more notable Pokémon do not have articles. MewtwoRBGY (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

the main reason it has an article is because, unlike pokémon like greninja, the cosmog line, and blaziken, it has significant coverage (as defined by wikipedia), despite how consistent tpc is in not doing anything meaningful with it. there have been discussions about keeping greninja's article, which resulted in it being merged with the list of gen 6 pokémon specifically because it had little actual coverage beyond sources going "hey it's that wacky frog again, isn't it marketable"

its reception is overall negative, but it's still concrete, well-documented reception. while pokémon like druddigon, garbodor, and miltank are (or at least were) not that well received (i blame ptsd for the latter), sources don't tend to care about them a lot. it's more or less the same reason klefki and chandelure get their own articles while arceus doesn't cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Echoing the above, as the one who put a lot of work into making this decent recently, Unown has significant coverage that discusses it, while your other cited examples don't. Additionally, it has some angles beyond just negativity, such as the phylogeny study. Relevance in a series does not determine a subject's notability overall, with notability being based around the amount of sourcing that exists discussing the subject. Your arguments here boil down to Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT arguments (What sources have determined this to not a noteworthy subject? What says the third movie is more forgettable than other movies beyond personal preference?) and to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments (Why does x not have an article while Unown does?) None of these are policy-based arguments. Please review notability-based policies before making deletion requests, as none of your above criteria are grounds for deletion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)