Talk:Pokémon (universe)
Maybe we should start talking on this talk page, since the Pokemon Universe is a very large topic and so.. yeah. - BigJohnno
- Well, one thing I'd like to point out: I don't think it's a great idea for each of the Smash game sections to have one list of Pokemon subsection for several reasons, one being that the full List of Pokemon is supposed to be the big comprehensive supplement to this page that makes smaller lists like these not necessary. Erik, Lord of Universes 00:15, December 30, 2007 (EST)
Chimchar was seen as a trophy in a Japanese training video, a possible Poke Ball Pokemon or just a trophy?
I think in the next few days Sakurai may or probably will, put something on about the commercial leak characters. BigJohnno
General discuss in the FORUM! ~Crystal_Lucario 07:04, January 25, 2008 (EST)
Where did you get that picture of Lucario from, can you get it with the whole body please and put it on his smash page until its on the dojo. sorry can't sign off gtg.
Eevee and Darkrai and Cherrim confirmation.
Confirmation for above Pokemon.
Gulpin confirmed
Jirachi
I was on youtube and I found this video about Classic mode. After you complete it, there are the credits. As it goes on it shows who did the voices of the Pokémon. Then when looking at the faces of the Pokémon you can see Jirachi's face.See here for yourself.
== Trophies, etc. ==
The trophy sections on here need to be tidied up a bit, I suggest putting them in a table rather then a long list of links.--MysteryHeff (talk · contributions) 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Trophies, etc.
The trophy sections on here need to be tidied up a bit, I suggest putting them in a table rather then a long list of links (This message is mainly asking for permission to do that).--MysteryHeff (talk · contributions) 06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"Expected"
Until we have any concrete, confirmed examples, it's blatant speculation to claim that Gen V and VI Pokemon will appear. That's like saying Yoshi is expected to appear based on the fact that he has in all three prior games. Is it likely? Probably. But is it confirmed enough that we should be saying so in the mainspace? Not yet. Miles (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It isn't really speculatory when something is, in essence, guaranteed to happen. It would be speculation to say that Gen V/VI Pokémon will have a playable appearance (which makes this a different scenario than your example with Yoshi) or that they will be Pokéball Pokémon, but not just that they will appear in some form, which nobody would really claim they won't. That brings me to my next point: the article isn't stating that "Gen V/VI Pokémon will appear" or that they're "likely to appear". It says they are expected to appear, which is a fact, because practically every person who plays Smash is "expecting" them to appear, and in that way, it isn't really speculatory, but reporting on what the community expects will happen. DoctorPain99 12:55, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It's not "guaranteed" in the context of discussing an unreleased game unless you've got some sort of official statement that guarantees it. There's really no way around that. We should never use what the "community expects" as a basis for a claim like that. Miles (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It's guaranteed. Pokémon is arguably Nintendo's largest franchise. How the hell would new Pokémon not be included? It's not even really a question in any way. I believe this is a case of following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In most cases, statements like this one are bad, yes, but in this case, there isn't a chance that the information presented will turn out false, and even if it somehow does, all the wiki has stated is that they were expected to appear, not that they would. There may be no official source yet, but again, that's a technicality; there's not any reason why we should abide by it in this case. DoctorPain99 13:12, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Not necessarily, we could just get Meowth and the return of Mewtwo. They're not Gen V/VI. Toast
ltimatum
13:17, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It would be speculation to say that Gen V/VI Pokémon will have a playable appearance (which makes this a different scenario than your example with Yoshi) or that they will be Pokéball Pokémon, but not just that they will appear in some form, which nobody would really claim they won't. Actually read what I post before responding. I never claimed that Gen V/VI mons would be playable, just that they would make some appearance. DoctorPain99 13:19, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It's speculation either way, though. You're making an exception on the idea that "making an appearance" has less of a requirement for evidence than playability/Poke Ball appearances. It doesn't. Miles (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Yes it does, because making an appearance is a more general than trying to say they're going to be in a specific role. And why do we need "evidence" from an official source to say that people expect Gen V/VI Pokémon to be in the game in some capacity? It's more than a reasonable expectation, and that expectation exists, there's no denying it. Trying to argue that this is speculation is unnecessarily pedantic. DoctorPain99 14:10, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- We are not in the business of explaining fan predictions. Mainspace articles like this need to be factual and report on what is known, not what some fans "expect". Miles (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- We are not "explaining a fan prediction"; that's a strawman. All it says is that "Pokémon from Gens V and VI are expected to make an appearance", which is true, it is expected, you can't refute that and it's also a very reasonable expectation and they're essentially guaranteed to appear, and you can't really refute that either. DoctorPain99 14:32, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Calling an argument you dislike a strawman doesn't make it one. You were the one claiming "practically every person who plays Smash is "expecting" them to appear", but now you say it isn't a question of a fan prediction? You say that official confirmation would be needed for anything except this? You're sidestepping the point: you're making a faulty exception for a case where it is not fitting with the standards for appropriate reporting on an unreleased game. If it's about an unreleased game, we need confirmation, period. It's a simple case of us needing to wait until we know for sure one way or the other. Miles (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- I've lost interest in continuing this discussion because you're failing to do anything beyond repeat the same points over and over, but I have to clarify what I meant when I said you strawmanned. The issue is not whether or not it's a fan prediction; it inarguably is. However, just because we mention one quite obvious "prediction" does not somehow make it true that we're all of a sudden in the business of "explaining fan predictions". We're not even explaining; we're stating, and this is a single isolated case.
- Also, a couple users on IRC wanted me to mention the fact that Sakurai did mention he was considering Mewtwo's new form for a playable appearance. I didn't think that qualified as a good enough example and figured you already knew about it, but there you go. DoctorPain99 15:01, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Complete with links= http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/34700 MegiBeelzebub
15:04, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Complete with links= http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/34700 MegiBeelzebub
- Calling an argument you dislike a strawman doesn't make it one. You were the one claiming "practically every person who plays Smash is "expecting" them to appear", but now you say it isn't a question of a fan prediction? You say that official confirmation would be needed for anything except this? You're sidestepping the point: you're making a faulty exception for a case where it is not fitting with the standards for appropriate reporting on an unreleased game. If it's about an unreleased game, we need confirmation, period. It's a simple case of us needing to wait until we know for sure one way or the other. Miles (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- We are not "explaining a fan prediction"; that's a strawman. All it says is that "Pokémon from Gens V and VI are expected to make an appearance", which is true, it is expected, you can't refute that and it's also a very reasonable expectation and they're essentially guaranteed to appear, and you can't really refute that either. DoctorPain99 14:32, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- We are not in the business of explaining fan predictions. Mainspace articles like this need to be factual and report on what is known, not what some fans "expect". Miles (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Yes it does, because making an appearance is a more general than trying to say they're going to be in a specific role. And why do we need "evidence" from an official source to say that people expect Gen V/VI Pokémon to be in the game in some capacity? It's more than a reasonable expectation, and that expectation exists, there's no denying it. Trying to argue that this is speculation is unnecessarily pedantic. DoctorPain99 14:10, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It's speculation either way, though. You're making an exception on the idea that "making an appearance" has less of a requirement for evidence than playability/Poke Ball appearances. It doesn't. Miles (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It would be speculation to say that Gen V/VI Pokémon will have a playable appearance (which makes this a different scenario than your example with Yoshi) or that they will be Pokéball Pokémon, but not just that they will appear in some form, which nobody would really claim they won't. Actually read what I post before responding. I never claimed that Gen V/VI mons would be playable, just that they would make some appearance. DoctorPain99 13:19, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- Not necessarily, we could just get Meowth and the return of Mewtwo. They're not Gen V/VI. Toast
- It's guaranteed. Pokémon is arguably Nintendo's largest franchise. How the hell would new Pokémon not be included? It's not even really a question in any way. I believe this is a case of following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In most cases, statements like this one are bad, yes, but in this case, there isn't a chance that the information presented will turn out false, and even if it somehow does, all the wiki has stated is that they were expected to appear, not that they would. There may be no official source yet, but again, that's a technicality; there's not any reason why we should abide by it in this case. DoctorPain99 13:12, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
- It's not "guaranteed" in the context of discussing an unreleased game unless you've got some sort of official statement that guarantees it. There's really no way around that. We should never use what the "community expects" as a basis for a claim like that. Miles (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2013 (EDT)
