Pokémon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 23, 2004 Peer review Reviewed December 18, 2005 Good article nominee Listed January 7, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted June 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 22, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 18, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 14, 2007. Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:PCP Video games: Nintendo GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Nintendo task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Anime and manga GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

Archives

Archive 1 (October 2003 - April 2006) Archive 2 (May 2006 - February 2007) Archive 3 (February 2007 - December 2007) Archive 4 (December 2007 - December 2008)

Please can someone put " Pokémon games for PC " into a section for the Pokemon Main page (like video games, a redirect thing), I can't edit it because I am new, but that's definitely a section that's missing. The URL is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_games_for_PC --Atmatic (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are so right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvinz0 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article no longer exists and has been merged with List of Pokémon video games; this article is linked to under "See also". DKqwerty (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Pokémon has since become the second most successful and lucrative video game-based media franchise in the world, behind only Nintendo's own Mario series" is using as reference a GameSpot article which references a The Independent article with a list of best-selling video game franchises. However, as I explained in the past, The Independent used Wikipedia information to build that list (the list is in fact a textual copy of the list the week before the article was published). So, it should not be used here. You can, however, use one of the media articles that state The Sims is the third best-selling video game of all time, second only to Mario and Pokémon. While reaching that conclusion is trivial by comparing the press releases of Nintendo and Electronic Arts, building a list of 20 games and ending with the same list we had (including the mistakes we had, like not adding Tetris, Fifa or others) passes the duck test. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pokémon wikiproject already merged all of its episodes and characters and whatnot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, thanks for clarifying this. This used to be the number one example that editors who support merging and deleting would point too. Ikip (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's usually Family Guy, which has 200+ articles, most of which are built around creator commentary and offhand mentions and blog posts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Starter Pokemon incorrectly states that there is only one exception to the rule of three choices, when in Coliseum you start with Espion and Umbreon, and in Xd, where you get Eevee. --Knowledgeabletome (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at the wrong talk page, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so?--Knowledgeabletome (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean. For future reference, "article" refers to the page of that name, not a section in the article. However, it doesn't seem like either article (this one or the Gameplay of Pokémon article) concern themselves with the Stadium/Coliseum series, only the main series (R/B/Y, G/S/C, R/S/E, D/Pe/Pl), likely because the gameplay is radically altered. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to say so if Yellow was included in the explanation?80.229.163.140 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Well, that is right, cause you get a Pikachu (pika pipi? pika!) and Blue (rival) gets Eevee (he'll evolve it due to the outcome of the battles, try it for Vaporeon! Listed on Bulbapedia: Blue) Arceus493 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) HGSS[reply]

In the United Kingdom, the "Christian Power Cards" game was introduced in 1999 in response to these claims of Pokémon to be Satanic, the game being similar to the Pokémon TCG but using Biblical figures.

This line from the article, and it's source on BBC news seems a little more slanted than I feel comfortable with. I would like to hear feedback about this from more experienced editors and maintainers since I really only pitch in occasionally when I feel there's something that doesn't fit. To me, the source article sounds a bit too slanted. Could we perhaps find a less biased source? I know I seem bold by challenging a source like BBC but then again I've always been hypercritical of the media's NPOV. Darkmaster2004 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for bringing this up, Darkmaster. I think the BBC story is a good reference, but I agree with you that the sentence in which the BBC article is referenced should be rewritten. After reading the BBC article, I noticed Mr. Tate doesn't say anything about Pokémon being Satanic, he simply wanted an alternative game for his students to get excited about. So, as a Sunday school teacher, he chose to create a Bible-themed card game.

Before I rewrite the sentence, I should ask: exactly what about the BBC article you feel is slanted? -Sesu Prime (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite 100% sure exactly what it is that bothers me about the article..I think how the article opens up makes it seem like the writer isn't covering something that he/she should...but I dont know what. The article itself is ok but I wonder what they omitted? An additional reference might be handy here but I couldn't find anything I'd deem reputable enough. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places? Anyhow, I think my main issue is how that line in the wiki article says 'Satanic' when there's no mention of such in the BBC article.

To be honest, I'm starting to doubt the neutrality of the whole 'Morality' section of the article because I saw a reference to epinions, [26], which is...an opinion site.

--Darkmaster2004 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just read through all the references in the "Morality" section, and I agree the whole section needs to be rewritten, complete with some new references. Some of the references are okay, but others are questionable, especially the epinions.com one. Thanks for bringing this issue front and center, Darkmaster. -Sesu Prime (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and tagged the section with the Template:Unbalanced tag so we can get that section worked on.--Darkmaster2004 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone did remove the dubious reference from the article and yanked the tag without taking a gander here...Ah well..as they say: "So Fix it!" (I didnt just slap the tag back on, I just removed that reference to pokemon being satanic)

And I did --Darkmaster2004 (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding here first. In any case, I agree with your removal, as the line seemed like original research as nothing about the Satanicity of Pokémon was mentioned in the article. Artichoker^[talk] 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rrrrrrrrrrRrRrRrRrRRRRRRrRRRRAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! WHOEVER MADE THAT BOGUS UP SHOULD TAKE THAT BACK! RRAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Plus, I'm nearly 10 and I call myself a PokéManiac.Arceus493 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)HGvs.SS[reply]

I'm guessing you're referring to the vandalism I just removed. I changed it back to the far more relevant text that was there before. --Evice (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, could we add {{wikia|pokemon|The Pokémon Wiki}} (link) to the External links section?--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikia Pokémon wiki really isn't notable or large. Adding a link to Bulbapedia (link) would be more reasonable. I think there used to be one in the past, not sure why it would have been deleted. 58.174.97.22 (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed/consolidated this section so I wouldn't have to make a new one. "Official Site" link in references is dead (prolly thanks to Nintendo reworking the site) and "TCG" should probablly be renamed as they cover a lot more than cards now - like live action real-time video game battles across DS. VulpineLady (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the official site link is fine now, and the TCG link does seem to focus exclusively on the TCG. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 07:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!! Note, there are mentions to 'penis pokemon' on this page. I can't update it because I'm new, but if someone could fix the vandalism, please do, it's significant! Ibnzintzo (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "pokédick" to "pokémon"... and "penis basher" to "pikachu"

Jokes like this are messed up. Kids read this page. Gojiracuda (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot had gotten that by the time you posted the editrequest. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 14:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently is you search for "Pokemon" in the wikipedia search it comes up with a "did you mean Pokémon?" page. It is obvious what people are searching for so why not just redirect straight to the "Pokémon" page? I would change this myself, but this is the first time I have contributed ANYTHING to wikipedia and I don't now how :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.65.213 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pokemon" does redirect to "Pokémon". -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 18:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get from this article that the first ever Pokémon-"thing" to ever be created and released was the green edition of the classic Pokémon-game. Is that right? I mean... It did all begin with the GAME? The anime is based on the game? The game is NOT based on ... whatever? I don't know why, but I always thought the games were based on the anime... But maybe that's just me!? So there was first the game and then came the anime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.112.55 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The game preceded the anime, but I'm not sure if the manga (the third part of the metaseries) came before or after the game. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The manga was designed after the game, but whether or not it was made before, after or simultaneously to the anime I don't know. And it's not just the Green Edition - Red Edition was released at the same time. Akata (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The games were made, then the Manga was made based off the games. The Anime was then made loosly based off the manga. Like some personalities of characters from the manga were probably put in the Anime, while some people were completly different. --Blake (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Satoshi Tajiri originally came up with the concept for Pokemon as a child, and sketched it out as a comic titled "Pocket Monsters". It was released with a short run, and is very difficult to come across. Even screens are scarce on the Internet, and have led many to believe it's a myth.

The games brought the concept to public attention with Green version, which was then adapted individually into the manga, Pokemon Special (or Adventures in Japan), and the anime. Development of the manga and anime began at relatively the same time, and are different interpretations of the game with zero crossover. Simply put: Tajiri supports the manga, he does not support the anime. Jackal Killer (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1999, the Jewish civil rights group Anti-Defamation League also pressured Nintendo to edit the image of the Pokémon trading cards for Golbat and Ditto because the cards depicted a left-facing manji"

The card in question is Koga's Ninja Trick. Not Ditto or Golbat; they're just ON the card. 67.175.28.48 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and the manji managed to resemble a swastika which is what all the hullabaloo was over. The card was reprinted with a new design in place of the manji for Japan, all other countries recieved the edited card as a first run. Collectors vie for the 1st edition and for the Unlimited edition unedited form, often referred to as "Swastika Golbat". VulpineLady (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for asking, but was the Bulbasaur article deleted? I thought it was one of the best Pokemon-related articles? Or was it just shortened down into a redirect? Evilgidgit (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pokémon discussed it briefly on their talk page and moved it to the project space, replacing it with a redirect. I have restored the article. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone cheer for ownership issues. TTN (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone cheer for deletion obsession. —Celestianpower ^háblame 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been re-made in to a redirect. Celestianpower, please do not violate consensus with your bold, but uncalled for moves. Instead, please take it up at WT:PCP or WT:VG. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that it says the game was invented sometime around 1995 at the beginning of the article, then a few sentences later says they celebrated their 10 year anniversary in 1996. Something seems strange about celebrating 10 years, after a year. 71.105.2.24 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, that was my mistake, and it's been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out though! It's much appreciated. -sesuPRIME 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously people, why do you keep putting Pokemon was created by Satoshi Tajiri IN 1996. Thats when the game was RELEASED. It didn't take a month to make the game, it took 6 YEARS so technically you people should say it was created by Satoshi Tajiri in 1990 and say something like it took six years to make the games and/or its been AROUND since 1996 and blah blah blah. Its starting to annoy the hell out of me. 2009/9/12 1:24/1:28 AM バンギラス —Preceding unsigned comment added by バンギラス (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon is a metaseries, Bangirasu. If *any* aspect of the series (anime and manga count) precede the games, then we can mark it as then, but technically Pokémon wasn't created per se until any of the metaseries was. It's like saying the Statue of Liberty was built while it was still being constructed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a photo next to each pokemon and create a masterchart of all pokemon ?-- 20:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

No. We have to be extremely conservative with copyrighted images on Wikipedia. For more information, see WP:Non-free content. Cheers. -sesuPRIME 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, and Arceus should get a merged article. They're important Pokemon. Alpha CuboneKing! Bone bone bone! 02:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PCP is the place to bring that up. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a list of all original 150 pokemon, becuase it deserves to be onthe actual Pokemon page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.139.59 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that would clutter the article unnecessarily. We already have List of Pokémon, and see Category:Lists of Pokémon for more detailed lists. BlazerKnight (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need an infobox? --GorillaWarfare ^talk 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of items should it contain? Useight (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been speculations that Pokemon could maybe become a 'new religion' in the future. Should we include this? I promise this NPOV is not silly in anyway, thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Where is the reliable source for such a claim? Given that this is an exceptional claim, exceptional sources are needs. —Farix (t | c) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure, but this might give some indication:

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/pokemon.htm

http://digg.com/comedy/A_Pokemon_Religion

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]