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)

Unrelated but shouldn't the info box be styled Owner(s) Pikachubob3 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pikachubob3: That's a good point. {{Infobox media franchise}} currently does not do this, but it can easily be changed. I've made a thread at the talk page. - Manifestation (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Implemented by User:Favre1fan93. - Manifestation (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Bulbagarden" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bulbagarden has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Bulbagarden until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 11:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:TheFlamer2024 has made a number of frivolous edits to this article. Some of them made the article worse. To his credit, he reverted part of them, but others have remained.

One thing I dislike is that he conflated the introduction of Pokémon in North-America and the Pokémania fad:

−

===1998–2000: International expansion===

+

=== 1998–2000: International expansion and Pokémania ===

And:

−

===1999–2000: Pokémania===

+

==== Pokémania ====

The enormous marketing effort of NoA and 4Kids to bring the phenomenon to the Western world, and the massive craze that resulted from it, are two completely different things which definitely shouldn't be lumped together. I know the time frames overlap, but that isn't a problem per se. If you're describing history, it is not unusual for events to overlap with each other. As long as you clearly separate the info into different paragraphs, this won't confuse the reader.

Here are other changes I don't agree with:

1

−

However, it later turned out that the term ''Capsule Monsters'' could not be [[trademark]]ed, and it was subsequently decided to call the game ''Pocket Monsters'', which became ''Pokemon''. According to Tomisawa (2000), the phrase "Capsule Monsters" was already registered.<ref name="Tomisawa_(2000)_p65-66" /> According to Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), the word "capsule" could not be used in the trademark.<ref>{{Harvp|Hatakeyama|Kubo|2000|p=99-101}}.</ref> Tomisawa (2000) states that the Game Freak staff then came up with several alternatives, before someone within the team suggested "Pocket Monsters".<ref name="Tomisawa_(2000)_p65-66" />

+

However, it later turned out that the term ''Capsule Monsters'' could not be [[trademark]]ed and was already registered. According to Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), the word "capsule" could not be used in the trademark.<ref name="Hatakeyama_Kubo_(2000)_p476" /> Tomisawa (2000) states that the Game Freak staff then came up with several alternatives, before someone within the team suggested "''Pocket'' ''Monsters''",<ref name="Tomisawa_(2000)_p65-66" /> and it was subsequently decided as the final name for the titles.

The two sources don't entirely line up here. So it seems logical to me that both are presented to the reader, to display the ambiguity. I don't understand why one should be removed while the other should stay.

2

−

However, as development progressed, GF's ideas and ambitions for ''Pokemon'' grew.

+

However, as development progressed, GF's ideas and ambitions grew.

Their ideas and ambitions *for Pokemon* grew. Not their ideas and ambitions in general. At the time, Game Freak had just one game, Quinty. Development of their second game, Pocket Monsters (then known as Capsule Monsters), was halted due to a lack of know-how. GF was in no position to be overly ambitious. For their next project, they created Yosshī no Tamago, a simplistic puzzle title. The idea for the game came from Tsunekazu Ishihara, who was hoping that it would generate money for Game Freak and Pokemon (see Hatakeyama & Kubo (2000), p111-p115). From the start, Yoshi was a very *un*ambitious project, which GF was basically doing for a paycheck.

Yoshi was a smash hit, selling about 2 million copies (source). Both Tajiri (source) and Masuda (source) have stated that the revenue allowed GF to survive. This in turn allowed them to take on more ambitious projects such as Pulseman (1994).

3

−

This resulted in ''Pokemon'' having three legal owners

+

This resulted in the franchise having three legal owners

I have my doubts here. At the time of the release of Red and Green, there were only one pair of games and one manga. I'm not sure if that counts as a franchise. Maybe the correct term here would be property?

4

−

Upon founding, the company was housed in the same [[Kanda-Sudachō]] office building as Nintendo, located in Tokyo.

+

Upon founding, the company was housed in the same office building as Nintendo and Game Freak.

AFAIK, Game Freak was never housed in the same Sudachō, Chiyoda office building as Nintendo and Creatures. According to this waybacked snapshot from 7 July 1997, GF was in Setagaya at the time, which is some kilometers west of Chiyoda.

5

−

''Blue'' would not receive a normal retail release, but would be made available only through mail order for a limited time as a special offer.<ref>{{Harvp|Hatakeyama|Kubo|2000|p=212-213}}.</ref> It was announced in the November issue of ''CoroCoro'', which explicitly stated that ''Blue'' was not a new game, but rather a special, limited edition to celebrate the sale of 1 million copies of ''Red'' and ''Green''.

+

''Blue'' would not receive a normal retail release, but would be made available only through mail order for a limited time as a special offer,<ref>{{Harvp|Hatakeyama|Kubo|2000|p=212-213}}.</ref> as also explained in the announcement for Blue in the November issue of ''CoroCoro'', to celebrate 1 million sales of ''Red'' and ''Green''.

New text is definitely worse, and fails to emphasize that Blue was primarily offered through CoroCoro. That magazine was the primary marketing channel for the Japanese Pokemon franchise for many years.

6

−

The offer was a surprisingly big success: 300,000 units were expected to be sold, but over 600,000 were ordered.

+

The offer was a surprisingly big success: 300,000 units were expected to be sold, but over double was ordered.

"over double was ordered" sounds iffy. Perhaps "more than double the amount was ordered"?

7

−

The original set of the ''Pokemon card game'' would be titled the [[List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets#Pokémon Base Set|Base Set]] in English.

+

The original set would be titled the [[List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets#Pokémon Base Set|Base Set]] internationally.

No, in *English*. Not internationally. You can see the box of the original Pokemon card game here: front, back. As you can see, it was titled ポケモンカードゲーム, Pokemon Card Game. That's where it all started. The expansion sets came later. In English, the original set would be named Base Set. In other languages, it had different names. In Spanish, it was Edición Básica. In German, it was Grundset. And so on.

8

−

====Anime production launched====

+

==== ''Pokémon the Series'' ====

This suggests that the section is about the first season as a whole. It is in fact about how the production of the anime was officially approved, prepared, set up, and eventually launched. It is still ongoing to this day, as new episodes continue to be produced.

9

−

In the end, all council members agreed that Pikachu should be one of ''Pokemon''{{'}}s central icons. They expected Pikachu to appeal to both boys and girls, as well as their mothers.

+

In the end, all council members agreed that Pikachu should star in the franchise, as they expected Pikachu to appeal to both boys and girls.

"central icon of the franchise" sounds better than "Pikachu stars in the franchise". Also, the two sources cited both state that Pikachu was chosen because it was expected to appeal to both children and their mothers. From the perspective of marketing, this is important.

Allison (2006), p226: "As he [Kubo] told me in an interview, the overarching objective [of the anime] was to extend the audience of Pokémon to girls, younger children, and even mothers (as important in the marketing of children’s entertainment as children themselves). ... [Pikachu's] huggable look makes children happy and mothers feel safe."

Allison (2006), p244: "In Japan, Pikachu had been the center of the Pokémon craze ever since the pocket monster’s role was expanded for the cartoon in an attempt to widen the audience base (to include younger children, girls, and mothers) from those drawn to the game (mainly boys aged eight to fourteen)."

Pokemon Business Study Group (1998), p196: 「ピカチュウ」は今ほどの人気はなかったが、あどけない可愛らしさがあり、子供はもちろん、母親にうけるのではないかと判断されたのである。Pikachu was not as popular as it is now, but it had an innocent cuteness, and it was judged that it would be popular with mothers as well as children.

10

−

''Pocket Monsters'' premiered on April 1, 1997.

+

The anime premiered in Japan on April 1, 1997.

Of course the anime premiered in Japan. You don't have to state that.

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Heard your feedback, edited those parts you wanted to. 👍 TheFlamer2024 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheFlamer2024: You again made some mistakes.

−

The anime premiered in Japan on April 1, 1997. By November, it had become the highest-rated program on TV Tokyo.

+

The anime first premiered April 1, 1997. By November, it had become the highest-rated program on the network.

You changed "TV Tokyo" to "the network", making the sentence ambiguous. By the end of 1997, Pokemon was broadcast by 37 different Japanese TV stations. Aside from TV Tokyo, this included 5 affiliate stations, and 31 non-affiliated stations who bought the program from the copyright holders (source). The cited source says that Pokemon became the most-watched show *on TV Tokyo*. It says nothing about other broadcasters.

Also:

−

At the time, Ape was housed in the same [[Kanda-Sudachō]] office building as Nintendo, located in [[Tokyo]].

+

At the time, Ape was housed in the same [[Kanda-Sudachō]] office building as Nintendo, located in [[Setagaya]], [[Tokyo]].

And:

−

Upon founding, the company was housed in the same office building as Nintendo and Game Freak.

+

Upon founding, the company was housed in the same office building as Nintendo in [[Sudachō]], [[Chiyoda]], Tokyo.

If you lack the necessary knowledge/skills, you shouldn't try to improve an article. That's like tweaking the engine of a car without knowing what you're doing. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheFlamer2024 I am not going to comment on the discussion directly, but please do not revert talk page comments such as these without reason, especially while they are still ongoing. They are still important for historical reference, and in the case of this discussion, is still an actively ongoing discussion regarding the article's content, which is unviable to be removed given it is still an actively discussed issue. Unless you have a proper removal rationale, please refrain from removing talk page comments for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I second that. How can I respond to a threat if you delete it, TheFlamer2024? After a while, threads are auto-archived to "/Archive_" subpages. So you don't have to delete them. Deleting a thread only rarely happens on Wikipedia, e.g. when it's purely disruptive material. - Manifestation (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)