Talk:List of Pokémon (650–721)

Where's the sources?

Ok someone notified me about this so first of all, my goodness, where are the sources that verifies these Pokemons? And as in the editor actually imported some things from Bulbapedia. Either delete this or find some wikipedia:RS.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the entries across the English and Japanese websites. The English website does not allow for linking that easily.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Forme

Mewtwo's new transformation is a Forme not a form. Heres Why

• A form is something like say Deerling, which changes with the seasons. Or Basculin which has a stripe variation. Or shiny forms. This shows no purpose in stats other than the look. Keldeo can't change at will, which is why his is simply a form difference, which does boost stats, but can't be changed at will.

• A Forme is a legendaries transformation that can be changed at will. As shown in the video, Mewtwo can change at will. It is not simply a new look or unwilling change.

This is the proper change. Meanwhile Ryu Please dont

• Revert me to simply add the same thing back
• Revert to make an edit
• Or cuss and get overreact.

You keep saying "that I added" when you give the reason for adding back. I also remind you that Its not my page as you seem to thank. BlackDragon 16:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This reasoning you are putting forth is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It might pass on some fanwiki, but unless you can find a reliable source that specifically calls "Awakened Mewtwo" a "Forme" then it should not be referred to as such on Wikipedia. I've shown sources (in Japanese) used in the article that refer to it simply as a "form" or in Japanese sugata, rather than a "Forme", which in Japanese is Forumu.

And even then, a "Forme" is still a "form". Using the latter terminology is more general and the former is still a silly little piece of game jargon that should only be used as part of the name of the form rather than making it something completely unique amongst forms. "Giratina has an alternate form called Origin Forme" is a perfectly valid sentence. There is no need to change "form" to "Forme" in that sentence.

So, based on these two very valid reasons, the word "Forme" should not be used in conjunction with discussing "Awakened Mewtwo". Unless it is revealed that "Awakened Mewtwo" gets some new unique name in Japan like "Myūtsū Kakusei Forumu" then "Forme" can be used, and even then it's not necessary to refer to "Awakened Forme" as "an alternate Forme" because that's just bad English due to the fact that Game Freak decided to go with the French word "forme" (フォルム, forumu) instead of the English word "form" (フォーム, fōmu).—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you seriously are overreacting. Its not that big of a deal. It is his Awakened Forme and it doesnt matter. Why are you making such a big deal. You dont know everything. It doesnt bother me if its not there, it will when the games come out. I dont know why it "giv(es) (you) aggravation". BlackDragon 19:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, learn how to indent to make threaded replies. Second, it is never referred to as "Awakened Forme" so we should not use the word "Forme" on Wikipedia. That's it. I don't know why you are so pressed on saying "form should be written as Forme because it's a Legendary". If it gets called something with "Forme" in the name then we can say "This is Mewtwo's X Forme" but not say that "This is an alternate Forme".

Also, stop removing the valid and reliably sourced statement regarding the Japanese phrase "Awakened Mewtwo's form".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

They are many articles that use Forme. Who says we cant use it? But either way I Dont care. It doesnt bother me. But Dude your source does not mention Awakened Mewtwo or anything other than talking about the Prologue Special. It does not mention Awakened Mewtwo's form. It is only Awakened Mewtwo and Mewtwo's Awakened Forme. BlackDragon 19:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We can't use "Forme" because no reliable source or official website has referred to it as a "Forme" yet. And I can read Japanese so I know that it says 覚醒したミュウツーの姿 ("Awakened Mewtwo's form") on the first line and ミュウツーの覚醒した姿 ("Mewtwo's awakened form") later on. Stick those into Google Translate or learn Japanese before saying that I'm wrong. Yes, the page is primarly about the "Prologue" movie. But it does mention the Genesect movie.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, Maybe you should learn Japanese because: 覚醒したミュウツーの姿 ミュウツーの覚醒した姿 means "Figure which was awakening of appearance of Mewtwo Mewtwo which aroused." Not what you said. I translated the page and CTRL F the page and it has NO mention of what you said. BlackDragon 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Indent your damn comments already. You've been told multiple times to do this but you refuse. And Google Translate is never perfect so let me break the parts down for you.

• ミュウツー is "Mewtwo"
• 覚醒 is "awaken"
• した is something you add to nouns to turn them into verbs and say it is the past tense of something
• 覚醒した then means "awakened"
• 姿 is "form" or "shape"
• の is the Japanese particle that indicates that the first item is the possessor of the second item

Under these basic bits of information 覚醒したミュウツーの姿 means "Awakened Mewtwo's form" and ミュウツーの覚醒した姿 means "Mewtwo's awakened form". Just because you don't understand Japanese does not mean I am not correct. I am living in Japan right now. I have to know how to read the language and in this case it is this simple.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please note that websites such as Serebii.net, Bulbagarden.com, Pokebeach.com, Filb.de, etc., are not reliable sources per WP:RS. While they do occasionally post information that does come from a reliable source, usually CoroCoro Comic, they always post this information from "leaks" which is their word for "Someone in Japan found an early copy of the new issue of CoroCoro and took low resolution photographs of the pages and posted them to 2ch and now we're deciphering them". As these magazine issues are often not yet released, for example the information that Serebii has posted about in the past 6 hours of my writing this post, comes from the September 2013 issue of CoroCoro Comic which will not be available for sale until 12 August 2013. As the book is not out yet, the information within cannot be independently verified per WP:V and is therefore ineligble for inclusion on Wikipedia. Unless the Japanese or international websites update with the new information within the next couple of days, nothing about any new Pokémon or new evolutionary mechanics can be posted on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This IGN piece, this Siliconera piece, and this Nintendolife piece all source from Serebii which means none of them can be used. This is not an issue with WP:SPOILER either. If information cannot be verified in reliable sources, then it should not be added to Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Moon Force

This move is officially known as Moonblast in the English versions. Source.--Helioptile: Fully charged! 18:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Later edit: Could I also remove the part stating that Moonblast is Sylveon's signature move, as Xerneas used exactly the same move in one of the new trailers, so the move isn't exclusive to one Pokémon anymore. Source at 0:23. --additional comment from: Helioptile: Fully charged! —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that it's out...

...can we sort the articles by Pokédex Number and add unleaked Pokémon? Steel Wool Killer / Lanolжeð Renforsdfer Tyklovon (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would help if someone could get one of the guidebooks that list them all rather than going off all of the fragmented reports of people on /vp/ and SomethingAwful or what Serebii and the Bulbapedia people have found. We still need all of the Japanese language names before we can really add the rest of them.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (650–) → List of Pokémon (650–718) – This list currently holds the Pokémon from numbers 650 to 718. Therefore this would be a more accurate title. If there are more Pokémon to be unveiled by Nintendo, the page could simply be moved to 719 or 720, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so "650-" is inappropriate. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose: Having it open ended is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For all we know players simply haven't explored every nook and cranny yet, nor has anyone put forward a guide book that says "yes, there are these 69 new Pokémon and only these 69".—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes it is, because you are anticipating that more Pokemon will be revealed or discovered in the future but the fact is that we simply don't know. Even if there are more, there are no verifiable reliable sources claiming so. Therefore, this list should say "(650-718)" not because 718 is the total number of known Pokemon but because the content of that article currently lists numbers 650 to 718. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Any future ones would be placed in a future article. Red Slash 18:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  If there's new games, yes, we can fit all ~70 on this page, but we do not know how many there will be because no one can go through the games to tell.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  The thing is, the number of Pokemon currently known is 718. The Pokemon listed on this page are numbers 650 to 718. Explain how (650-718) would be less appropriate than (650-). Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  I have not said anything about it being appropriate or inappropriate. I simply believe that because there are no reliable sources that say "718 is the final number" that we should include it on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  I never said 718 is the final number, nobody's saying that. The point is that this list, this current list is 650-718. If (or when) additional Pokemon are revealed, you can simply move the page to 650-719 or 650-720. Also, since there are no reliable sources saying that more Pokemon are to be revealed in the future, the title should not be open-ended. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, if the page expands it can be moved again. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Well apparently, three new ones were recently revealed, *ahem* leaked.[1] But I suppose you would want to say that there aren't any reliable sources for including those in the list, right? There won't be any reliable sources claiming the true total number of Pokemon until Generation VII so a move to either (650-718) or (650-721) would be more appropriate than just leaving it "open-ended" for 3-4 years. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • How about where we show what actor voices characters, or something similar? We show "2010-", which lets the reader know that it is currently happening. You could say it is WP:OR to say that the actor may still voice them in the future past this year, but that's just how we do it. I think a similar thinking could be applied here. Leaving it open ended is not OR, and does not suggest anything. It just allows for future-proofing, and we don't have to continually move the article every single time a new thing gets announced. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Except in this case, the list currently lists Pokemon from 650-718. How would that not be more accurate than "650-"? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

      There's no reason accuracy has to be the primary criterion here. It's a disambiguator, and as a disambiguator, the open-ended range works better because it tells the reader that this is the last in the series. Your proposed title leaves open the question of whether there's another article that starts at 719. Powers ^T 01:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

      • Actually. Those numbers are not acting as a disambiguator. It was decided that a single article containing the full list of Pokemon was too damn long so somewhere along the point it was split up into separate lists. Another reason was that standalone articles of some Pokemon were considered not notable and were merged and redirected to these lists so some of their content was added to the list, expanding its length once again. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

        If they're not disambiguating, then they shouldn't be in parentheses; "List of Pokemon 500-650" would be fine. Powers ^T 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open another RM then. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greninja

So obviously Greninja is the most popular Pokemon of gen 6 and I think it should have its own article. Its notability is increased due to it being featured in the new Smash Bros. I don't think Froakie and Frogadeir should be included in the article however, since they aren't part of the hype. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless Greninja appears in enough reliable sources to satisfy his own notability, there's not going to be an article on anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Greninja has been the star of the anime for the past year, is a character in Super Smash Bros., and is more currently relevant than Lucario. The Japanese have decided: http://www.siliconera.com/2016/06/08/greninja-takes-top-spot-720-pokmon-recent-japanese-popularity-contest/

You should make a page. It's completely absurd that irrelevant Pokemon like the Oshawott and Nosepass families get their own articles that present no information separating them from the other 700+ without a page, yet the most popular Pokemon and mascot of the sixth generation fails to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.240.197 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

volcanion

there is a new pokemon: volcanion. check bulbapedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valehd (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

please go to talk: 202-251

there, you can find my request Valehd (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs a web address

<ref>{{cite web |title=The Closest You Can Get To Storing A Pokémon In Your Pockets |work=[[Kotaku]] |last=Vas |first=Gergo |date=2014-02-27 |accessdate=2014-03-03}}</ref>

This source needs a url= attached to it in the form of a web address. If anyone could help on this it would be much appreciated, thanks! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Especially in light of the RM above, which established the current convention of changing the number as and when a new one appears. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

List of Pokémon (650–721) → List of Pokémon (650–) – Previously the list had this title, before we knew the total number of Pokémon available. Now we do know that there is a Pokémon with a higher number than 721 (Magearna) which we don't know the number of, and there will surely be other Gen7 Pokémon revealed before Sun&Moon get released. Therefore it's no longer correct to call the page "650-721". We should follow the same approach as we did before Gen6 was released, namely put an open-ended numbering in the title until such time as we get the games and know the final number as of Gen7. Kidburla (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There will be new Pokémon, that's for sure, but moving this page now, to later re-move it when the full list is released is pointless. It is better to wait until the final number is given. Also, there is a possibility that List of Pokémon (722–???) is created instead. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of new Pokémon 722-?

I would like to inform everyone here that there is a new page for all of the Generation VII Pokémon. Any new Pokémon that have been officially confirmed and named (there is a brief shot of an unnamed Pokémon in a trailer) will be put on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErStelz (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)