Talk:Pokémon

Order of the company names in the infobox

Hey, Master106 and StarMan98.

You have reverted each others edits: [1][2][3][4].

But instead, maybe we should discuss this and try to sort this out?

I do feel that StarMan98's order may be better: "Nintendo, Creatures, Game Freak". This is how it's written on the franchise's copyright notice. The likely reason for this is that Ishihara, the founder of Creatures, was the leader of the dev team that made the original Red/Green. Tajiri worked under him at the time. Nintendo had financed the game's initial development phase in 1990 and '91 and, according to one source, also purchased the Pokemon property after it was finished.

So that's probably why the firms are in that particular order in the legal info. Then again, in terms of actually creating the content, Master106's order of "Game Freak, Nintendo, Creatures" would make more sense. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be in order of importance to the franchise and order of content creation. Which would be:

Game Freak

Nintendo

Creatures Master106 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

In terms of importance, the order would probably be: "Game Freak, Creatures, Nintendo". Because Creatures develops the card game. The card game was inspired by the video game, but it plays a similarly pivotal role in the franchise. Creatures also developed some spin-off video games.

On the other hand, the infobox clearly says "Owner", not "Creator". - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I found that Game Freak owns 36% and Nintendo owns 32%. Which means Creatures owns less than 32%. If this is the case, it should go Game Freak, Nintendo, Creatures. But this needs some verification. Master106 (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Do you remember where you read that?

I googled on this, and found this quote from Junichi Masuda: "In terms of genuine ownership, Masuda says it’s one-third each for Game Freak, Creatures, and Nintendo."

I also found this: "Let’s drop the big point first: The Pokemon Company does not own the Pokemon brand. They manage it, they license it, they publish/co-publish games and are directly involved in the development of any products carrying the license."

Because of this, I've decided to undo the edit I made. I suggest we follow the official legal info, because apparently this is what the three companies contractually agreed upon. - Manifestation (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Who can name all main series games (remakes to)?

Do you know your pokemon games? 2603:7080:E7F0:8380:9496:20C7:5FC5:C69 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! What exactly is your question? If you're looking for an overview of all Pokémon games, you may want to look at Pokémon (video game series)#Games, List of Pokémon video games, or see this page at Bulbapedia. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I just thought it would be fun to see how maney people could name all the main series games😀 2603:7080:E7F0:8380:9496:20C7:5FC5:C69 (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. Note, however, that Wikipedia Talk pages are meant for discussion about improving articles. They are not intended for playing games, fun as they may be. For more information, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Have a nice day! - Manifestation (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

OK sorry I thought you could talk about lore and other fun stuff thank you! 2603:7080:E7F0:8380:9496:20C7:5FC5:C69 (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

With or without acute accent

A user came along and changed all instances of "Pokemon" to "Pokémon". This is a common mistake, which I have reverted.

The events described in the article's "History" section are, obviously, written in chronological order. Before circa 1998, the term "Pokémon", with acute accent, did not yet exist. During this time, the Japanese people did not use this spelling, which was officially introduced in 1998 by Nintendo of America, with the North-American launch of the franchise. The original, shortened form "Pokemon" is written *without* accented e. With the release of Ruby/Sapphire in 2003, the Japanese also started using the accented version.

The article has a separate "Name" section that clarifies this. It also has an invisible comment that states "name is coined (*without* acute accent)". I honestly thought that was enough, but I've added another hidden comment at the beginning of "History" for further emphasis. - Manifestation (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, at least change it to reflect the entire "before 1998" thing because almost all of them were from things that were after 1998 or just talking about it in general. Also, why is this page different from all the others? its not like the page "Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow" uses "e" instead of "é" for any of the terms. CheeseyHead (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but you reverted ALL of my changes, not just the ones with the acute accent. CheeseyHead (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"because almost all of them were from things that were after 1998 or just talking about it in general"

No, you changed *all* instances of Pokemon to Pokémon, including those in "1989–1995: Development of Red & Green" and "1996–1998: Rise in Japan". The events described in these section take place before Pokemon became Pokémon.

"you reverted ALL of my changes"

Yes, because none were very good. I don't know why you would bold Pokémania in the lead, because this article is not about Pokémania. It is about the Pokémon franchise as a whole. Also, linking WiFi and changing "grey" to "gray" is cosmetic at best. I will admit, however, that changing PokeGear to PokéGear was correct, so I've put that back. - Manifestation (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Poké Sources is now offline

This is not really a thread. More like an announcement.

As of today, poke-sources.info has been shut down. However, the website is archived at the Wayback Machine. So its contents can still be viewed, and if you want to verify statements made in this Wikipedia article, you still can. Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Good thing it was archived. Timur9008 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Best-selling toys at retail

User:Manifestation Can this source be incorparted into this page? [5] I would update myself but I'm not sure where to put it. Timur9008 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also these two [6] and [7] Timur9008 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Timur9008!

The first source is a sales report from July 2000. It would be better if the Wikipedia article says something about the sales of a whole year, not just one month.

The third source is some PR talk from 4Kids. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.

The second source about Pokémon in India is an amazing read! I didn't even knew that Pokémon was only introduced there in 2003. It reminded me how America- and Europe-centered this Wikipedia article is. I knew that right from the start, and pointed it out when I submitted the first version of the article (see here, 10th point on the list).

I researched little beyond 2001 or so. I mostly studied 1996 – 2000, and the years leading up to that era. That alone was a massive undertaking which took me years. Pokémon's formative years were the most important, of course. But to document Pokémon's history further, including its reach throughout mainland Asia, would be an even more colossal project. - Manifestation (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The 2001 4Kids retail report mentions the $10 billion figure. (revenue for the franchise up to that point). I haven't really checked for other sources for Pokémon in mainland Asia.

There was actually two Pokémon in India articles here on Wikipedia but they were deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon anime in India and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon in India. Timur9008 (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What *may* be possible is Pokémon in Asia, with a section for each country (#India, #China, #Vietnam, #South Korea, etc.). The same would apply to Pokémon in the Middle East and North Africa, Pokémon in South America, Pokémon in Europe, and so on. But I don't think such articles would ever be created. I'm not even sure the sources for it exist.

I'm a bit wary about citing press releases for sales figures. I only cite them for release dates and such, because a company is unlikely to lie about that. Also, phrases like "Game X made 10 million" and "Franchise Y made 100 million" sound abstract and hollow. I prefer to state the amount of units sold, the amount of households that were watching, that the first episode was the most-watched premiere in Kids' WB's history. Those are more concrete statements which actually give the reader an impression. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)