Talk:Pokémon Legends: Arceus

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harlemc 5 (article contribs).

Gameplay section wording

Hello! In the last sentence of the gameplay section it says this, "This makes Pokémon Legends: Arceus the first mainline game to feature starter Pokémon that have previously been starter Pokémon in a different region as starter Pokémon in a different region." The wording is a bit weird here and I'm trying to work out how I could make it make more sense. Any ideas? Cause I had to reread that sentence a few times to understand what it was trying to say. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to simplify it based on a Screenrant article. I hope my edit didn't make the information innaccurate or misleading instead. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's much better wording! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

change Players can initiate battles by releasing their capture Pokémon near a wild Pokémon. to Players can initiate battles by releasing their captured Pokémon near a wild Pokémon. The present tense adjective is used when it should be the past tense. Bxsically (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, nice catch. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviews a few days before the game releases?

I'm a bit confused. How on earth are there reviews for the game when it hasn't even released yet? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Publishers will often send out advance copies to media outlets so that they have time to play and write a review before the launch.--Alexandra^IDV 23:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: Ah ok that definitely helps! Thanks for explaining! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This... is actually the most common and normal thing ever, and since forever. Same thing goes for movies. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Neocorelight: I'm not used to it since I usually don't pay this much attention to a game or movie before it releases ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Pokémon Legends: Arceus a prequel?

This article states: "It is part of the eighth generation of the Pokémon video game series and serves as a prequel to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (2006), Pokémon Platinum (2008), and their remakes Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl (2021)." Can Pokémon Legends: Arceus be considered a prequel to any of the previous games that take in the Sinnoh region even though Pokémon Legends: Arceus does not explain anything that happens in the previous titles or relates to them at all? The only thing that Pokémon Legends: Arceus has in common with the other games that take place in the Sinnoh region, is that enough to justify its status as a prequel just because it takes place in the same location and nothing else? 2600:1009:B044:CD7C:69B3:B054:EF74:BB2E (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The origins of Team Galactic maybe? But yeah, it’s not really a prequel. It’s a time travel story. To put it in terms of another piece of media, TMNT 2012, Tales of the Yokai (the turtles are sent back in time to the inciting incident of Yoshi and Oroku Saki’s falling out) is not the same as Lone Rat and Cubs (a story set entirely during the early days post-mutation)--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Many Vandalisms are Editing This Article. It was Protected. 💻HACKER (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arceus' actual role in the story (Spoilers)

So in the article, it mentions that "The Mythical Pokémon Arceus will play a major role in the story" based on information from one year ago. Having actually played and finished the main storyline, Arceus does not even appear at all nor does it feature prominently in the game's story. It only appears in post-game content after some completing some tedious tasks. Is it safe to say we can remove this line altogether? - PritongKandule ^Talk. 14:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

Change: "At the start of the game, three starter Pokémon options are available: Rowlet (the grass-type starter Pokémon from the Alola region), Cyndaquil (the fire-type starter Pokémon from the Johto region) and Oshawott (the water-type starter Pokémon from the Unova region)."

to: "At the start of the game, three starter Pokémon options are available: Rowlet (the Grass-type starter Pokémon from the Alola region), Cyndaquil (the Fire-type starter Pokémon from the Johto region) and Oshawott (the Water-type starter Pokémon from the Unova region)."

According to official Pokémon media, the types are actually capitalized. 174.207.102.84 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:SENTENCECAPS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain please--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: What more do you need explained? Did you read MOS:SENTENCECAPS at all? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can’t pull up the passage that directly addresses a case like this, the part that actually says Wikipedia policy overrides what is essentially the franchise’s manual of style, how would one know what to look for? There’s a difference between citing policy (what was claimed to have been done) and namedropping policy (what was actually done)--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: I see what you mean. I"ll do some digging through Wikipedia's policies to see if that's mentioned. Otherwise, ask at WP:TEA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And I will clarify, I did read MOS:SENTENCECAPS, but none of what I was directed to seemed to actually address it. At least when someone uses NOTAFORUM on a talk page comment, it’s pretty self-evident and explanatory. Here, the policy used is not--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower case and without special stylization such as italics (with the standard exceptions, e.g. capitalize proper names, italicize non-English words): football pitch, pool cue, queen of diamonds, infield fly rule, triple Lutz, semi-massé, spear tackle). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I think they understand that, but don't see anything that says Wikipedia policy overrides official stylization. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

jargon, and other terms relating to... games... are given in lower case

Seems pretty clear. It's jargon related to the game. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve also looked at other Pokémon-related pages such as Togepi and List of Pokémon characters. The affected terms are capitalized as they should be. There was no reason to decline this request. Pool cue is never a proper noun. Fire-type is.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: Just because your edit request got denied doesn't mean you can make the edit when you become autoconfirmed. That counts as going against consensus. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't my edit request. I've been autoconfirmed for months already. Therefore you reverted me under false pretenses and are going against consensus.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah my bad. For whatever reason I thought you were the one who made this edit request. Regardless, you are still going against consensus since people have clearly said this shouldn't be done with a valid reasoning. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Only one person has anything resembling a credible reason. Again, namedropping policy doesn't cite policy.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to revert you again (I usually go by a 1RR not ending in a ban, just with me not reverting again so that another editor can revert if I am correct and if I'm not the edit will remain) but if another editor reverts you then I would suggest asking them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm marking this request as closed while it is under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife I rejected IP request because this goes against MOS:CAPS in particular MOS:SENTENCECAPS and/or MOS:GAMECAPS and also footnote A of MOS:CAPS#Notes. Unless, you have a valid reason or discussion in other Wikipedia space to show that MOS can be overriden because of "There is no actual evidence it goes against the MOS. The claim was debunked", otherwise, don't revert it as you have done so for more than 3 times. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As recommended by Blaze Wolf, you can ask at WP:TEAHOUSE or WT:MOS — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Paper9oll So it seems you have not read the discussion that took place, you're not making a case, and your insistence that this is about Wikipedia's manual of style is completely off base. And so is the idea that fulfilling an editor's edit request is unconstructive. I don't know what else to tell you, except maybe read Gameplay of Pokémon.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife I did read the entire discussion above, I agreed with both Blaze Wolf and also ScottishFinnishRadish explanations. I also get what you are referring to, in which Gameplay of Pokémon is also a problem as it's going against MOS:CAPS. Hence, if you're insistent on fulfiling the edit request submitted by IP, I recommend you to clarify it at either WP:TEAHOUSE and/or WT:MOS on whether MOS can be overriden. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

But it doesn't override MOS, which is the entire point.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife It does, MOS:CAPS is the one since changing from for example "grass" to "Grass" is violating sentence case. Anyway, I don't see this discussion going anywhere, if you want further clarification, you can ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE and/or WT:MOS. Thanks and goodbye. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I may be a little late but I did find the official Pokémon website capitalizing Pokémon type names here: [1]. Since this is official stylization I think this page should use it, especially because other Pokémon Wikipedia pages use it too, such as this page: Gameplay of Pokémon. 174.207.98.173 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No. That goes against the Manual of Style. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, how it is shown on that page is completely different. On that page it is describing each type. If someone thinks it should still be made lowercase then go right ahead. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Grass-type", "Water-type", and "Fire-type" are all proper nouns. MOS:SENTENCECAPS does not apply here because none of the examples listed are ever proper nouns. It's not just game jargon, game jargon would be something like "super effective" or "same-type attack bonus". Those would go in lowercase; the types would not, because they are proper nouns. Some good comparisons are Laws of the Game (association football), which is a proper noun and so is capitalized in that article and in the Association football article, and Test cricket, which is capitalized in that article and the Cricket article. Unless you're suggesting that those pages are also in violation of the MOS.

Alternatively, if you don't buy that argument, then I submit that we should deviate from the manual of style here in order to clarify the meaning of the phrases. In the lowercase, those phrases would mean "similar to or having the characteristics of grass/water/fire", which is obviously not what we mean. We are referring specifically to the Pokemon types. Mlb96 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was saying the entire time.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Mlb96 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to open up an RFC over this... but those tend to be messy from my experience. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, nearly every other Pokemon-related page on the website puts types in uppercase. At Pikachu, it says Pikachu were the first "Electric-type" Pokémon created. Mew (Pokémon) says Mew is a small, pink, Psychic-type Mythical Pokémon. Mr. Mime says In Pokémon Sword and Shield, Mr. Mime received a Galar-regional form of the Psychic/Ice type. I could go on, but you get the picture. While I did see two exceptions at List of generation IV Pokémon#Staravia and List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof, those seem to be a typos, as both of those entries have other typos in them as well, and that page has other entries which do capitalize the types. Clearly the prevailing style across the site is to capitalize Pokemon types. Mlb96 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I know Togepi had Fairy-type and Normal-type capitalized as should be. Heck even Poké Ball was written properly ("Ball" would most certainly have been hit by claims of MOS violation). Shiny Stone? Also properly written.--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, I just noticed the sentence The Mythical Pokémon Arceus plays a major role in the story in this article, which is definitely incorrect because "mythical Pokemon" is not a proper noun. That's a good example of when MOS:SENTENCECAPS actually would apply. Mlb96 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So from what I'm seeing is that there were no MOS violations by making the change, despite prior claim--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I would honestly discuss this more at WT:VG where people can truly decide if MOS:SENTENCECAPS would apply here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to know why the incorrect ruling is the default that has to be fought against further when the claim has already been found to be incorrect.--CreecregofLife (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Other users have disagreed with the ruling that the MOS doesn't apply in this case, so it's best to see if other users agree with the ruling it doesn't apply. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Games has been notified. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly game jargon and should not be capitalized per the MOS. Reading through all this, I don't even understand the argument as to why the MOS wouldn't apply in this case. --Torsodog^Talk 03:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The MOS disagrees--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, explain how the MOS disagrees.--Torsodog^Talk 04:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"(with the standard exceptions, e.g. capitalize proper names..." Pokémon types are proper names, proper nouns. I thought you said you read the discussion--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I told you that I didnt understand your argument and asked you to explain it. I didn't realize that you are incorrectly trying to call an adjective a proper noun. It's not a proper noun because... it's not a noun at all, it's an adjective. So that isn't a valid argument at all. No capitalization. --Torsodog^Talk 05:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I said proper names. You are now deliberately misreading what I say in order to call my argument invalid. And proper adjectives do exist, so it wouldn't invalidate my argument. Yes capitalization, and that's final--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Pokemon typings are, at best, common nouns and definitely border on game jargon. They should be uncapitalised. CrimsonFox ^talk 10:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the Pokémon video games, Pokémon types are indeed proper names when referring to that case. For example, the Pokémon ability Overgrow states that it "Powers up Grass-type moves when the Pokémon is in trouble." Thus Pokémon types should be capitalized. I agree with the original request. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

These should be lower case. Alexandra IDV said it best over at WT:VG:

Games capitalize or otherwise stylize Important Gameplay Terms all the time for the sake of clearly communicating with the player that it's an Important Gameplay Term. Wikipedia isn't a video game, though, and "fire", "ghost", "steel", etc, are all regular words used with their usual meanings - I just cannot see a case for capitalizing them.

-- ferret (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Those words don't have their usual meanings at all, though. The word "fire" means "the rapid oxidation of a material (the fuel) in the exothermic chemical process of combustion." The term "Fire-type" means "a Pokemon type which is weak to Water, Ground, and Rock, but resists Fire, Steel, Fairy, Grass, and Bug." The word "steel" means "an alloy made up of iron with typically a few tenths of a percent of carbon to improve its strength and fracture resistance compared to other forms of iron." The term "Steel-type" means "a Pokemon type which is weak to Fire, Ground, and Fighting, but resists Grass, Bug, Fairy, Rock, Flying, Normal, and probably some other types I'm forgetting, and is immune to Poison." The word "ghost" means "the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living." The term "Ghost-type" means "a Pokemon type which is weak to Dark and Ghost, but resists Bug and Poison and is immune to Normal and Fighting." These definitions quite literally have no connection to each other at all. Mlb96 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean: the flame on Charmander's tail is fire, and one could even say that it is of the fire variety, or in other words, it's fire-type. But it is not Fire-type. Charmander itself is Fire-type. But it is not fire-type, as it does not have any characteristics of fire (aside from being hot, I guess). It can spit fire from it's mouth and has fire on its tail, but it's still a lizard. So it's not fire-type. The use of the word "fire" in "Fire-type" is not merely its ordinary meaning, the phrase "Fire-type" has a distinct meaning which is separate from the real-life concept of fire. Mlb96 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying they're game jargon? And jargon, per MOS, should be lowercase. -- ferret (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, "I can’t see a case for capitalizing them” is an explicit admission of restriction and bias and therefore should not have commented--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it just means that I very strongly disagree with your view.--Alexandra^IDV 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to look at capitalization in other video game articles to see if the MOS actually reflects the prevailing style on the site, and it turns out that it does not. In almost every single case when a video game capitalizes a term, the Wikipedia article also capitalizes that term. Looking at the first six good article nominees listed in the header at WT:VG, I found the following: Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle capitalizes the phrase "Skill Orbs." The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game) capitalizes "Gamma Gauge." Ravenholm capitalizes "Gravity Gun." Need for Speed: High Stakes capitalizes "Single Race, Hot Pursuit, Tournament, Knockout, and High Stakes." Metroid: Samus Returns capitalizes "Teleport Stations" and "Grapple Beam, Power Bombs, and Super Missiles" and "Sound Test" and "Fusion Mode." D.Va capitalizes "Public Test Realm" and "Defense Matrix" and "Micro Missiles." So there are three possibilities here: almost every video game article on the entire website is in violation of the MOS; you all are misinterpreting the MOS; or the MOS does not properly reflect common usage and should be changed. In my opinion, the second possibility is the likeliest, followed by the third, and then the first. Mlb96 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
And to reiterate my point from earlier that no one responded to, let's not forget how we do this with actual sports: Association football capitalizes "Laws of the Game" and Cricket capitalizes "Test." The origin of the phrase "Test match" is because Test matches are "mentally and physically testing." So the term is directly related to the normal, non-proper word "test." Yet despite this connection to the regular word, we still capitalize it. Why? Because in the context of cricket, Test is capitalized. Same thing applies here. Mlb96 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also say there’s vast misinterpretation, with a bit of cherry-picking. Notice the oft-quoted part of the MOS mentions exceptions, but they leave those off when pointed out they apply, or the pointing out is deliberately misread as has been demonstrated in this very discussion. I find the invocation. It is clear they’re not actually considering the arguments they disagree with.--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I give up. This discussion is going absolutely no where with us just repeating our same arguments and not coming to any conclusion whatsoever. Do what you want to the article. If you get blocked it's not my fault. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another take that doesn’t actually describe what transpired and paints the ones doing all the work as wrong, with no actual counter.--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the sort! I'm getting frustrated because no one is agreeing on anything! Do not twist my words to mean something different than what they actually mean! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather we come to an actual consensus here, but I can see that none of the participants at this page have any intention of changing their minds. Perhaps an RfC is warranted. Mlb96 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I started an RfC below. Mlb96 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Legends Arceus sources

I think I have some sources for Legends Arceus:

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GSbn7_v4j9EpwoFsEMLInH_UeLAE1LEhYGlo-HfGIlU/edit?usp=drivesdk

(Used Google docs since I can't post more than one links) THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219: What prevents you from posting more than one link? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it just deletes it self. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 19:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't appear to have triggered any edit filters (besides in your own sandbox). I think it's jsut because you're a new user. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mmh ok THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you only triggered the edit filter because it seemed like you were trying to game autoconfirmed by making multiple edits to your sandbox. BUt it doesn't seem like that's the case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to learn how to edit THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 20:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pizzaplayer219: I suggest checking out WP:TWA then. If you have any questions ask them at WP:TEA. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 20:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Updated the sources. Hope this helps you guys. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate summary of Ars technica review

Ars Technica disliked the graphical style and lack of new Pokemon, but felt the battle system and open world exploration mixed well together, "And when the battle is over, you can go right back to exploring or catching other Pokémon, with no pauses for level-ups or learning moves... once you learn the ropes, it's easy to lose yourself in the rhythm of sneaking, catching, battling, and exploring"."

As far as I can tell the statement about the art style isn't accurate to the source. The author does say "the aging Switch hardware sometimes struggles to make it look good" and "The game could look great, but, thanks to the Switch's aging hardware, it mostly just looks fine", but their comments on the "art direction" is actually: "Appealing art direction inspired by Meiji-era Japan". The rest of it is accurate though. Perhaps the "disliked the graphical style" bit can be removed and if necessary replaced with "felt the graphics were constrained by the console's hardware" or similar. Techhead7890 (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2022

In the artist parameter in infobox, there's the word "take". What's that? Stray word, or someone's name? I propose to just remove it. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be "Nakatsuitake", but for whatever reason there's a space in there. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah it appears it's actually "Nakatsui take" so there needs to be a non-breaking space (Unless Google is wrong) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that's part of his name. [2]. It appears that he doesn't even work on Legends: Arceus! [3]. I'm starting to doubt the accuracy of the infobox credits. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC), Neocorelight (Talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, can you tell me how you've come to the conclusion that it's "Nakatsui take"? Sources maybe? Neocorelight (Talk) 00:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neocorelight: I simply just googled it. Although from what I"m seeing Google is pulling that info from Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Although I"m thinking it may be wrong since even Bulbapedia (which is the best Wiki for Pokemon, even though it's UGC) has him listed as "Suguru Nakatsui" (see Staff of Pokémon Sun and Moon on Bulbapedia where he's credited as "Suguru Nakatsui"). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, here seems to be the only place where it says "Nakatsui take". I wonder who added the "take" part? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The name "Nakatsui take" was added in this edit and oddly enough the person purposely put it on a separate line. I don't see any real reason as to why though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well then it need to be reverted. Why does it need to be fully protected for one damned week for such a petty capitalisation disagreement... pinging @El C: to maybe carry out the edit. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neocorelight: You could request the page to be unprotected. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I did. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done although you could've done it yourself now that the page is no longer full protected. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 February 2022 (2)

In the lead, Although a departure compared to the series usual gameplay formula, it should be series's (or series', depending on English variant). Mlb96 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Page is no longer fully protected so the edit can be made. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the article fully protected?

There are some content disputes, yes, but nothing seems to be particularly out of the ordinary for a newly released video game. Feels like extended-confirmed or semi protection would have sufficed. Juxlos (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There was some edit warring earlier and extended-confirmed would've been useless since it was between 2 extended-confirmed users, so I requested temporary full protection. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

However I do agree that at this point the full protection can be removed for extended-confirmed or semi-protection since the arguing seems to have died down. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, will go with blocks next, np. El_C 00:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Pokémon types be capitalized in sentences (Fire-type, Water-type, Grass-type) or not (fire-type, water-type, grass-type)? Mlb96 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes for multiple reasons. First of all, Pokemon types have distinct meanings from the words used in them. As an example, the flame on Charmander's tail is fire, and one could even say that it is of the fire variety, or in other words, it's fire-type. But it is not Fire-type. Charmander itself is Fire-type. But it is not fire-type, as it does not have any characteristics of fire (aside from being hot, I guess). It can spit fire from it's mouth and has fire on its tail, but it's still a lizard. So it's not fire-type. The use of the word "fire" in "Fire-type" is not merely its ordinary meaning, the phrase "Fire-type" has a distinct meaning which is separate from the real-life concept of fire.

Additionally, when a video game or real-life sport generally capitalizes a term, the Wikipedia article generally does so as well. The section of the MOS that people keep citing to in opposition to capitalization only applies to words that are not normally capitalized in the context of the game. Every other article on Pokemon that I could find capitalizes types; this page is the only outlier. This applies to other video games as well. For example, Metroid: Samus Returns capitalizes "Teleport Stations", "Grapple Beam", "Power Bombs", "Super Missiles", "Sound Test", and "Fusion Mode". Need for Speed: High Stakes capitalizes "Single Race", "Hot Pursuit", "Tournament", "Knockout", and "High Stakes". I found dozens of examples of this, and can name more if anyone wants more. And this applies even to sports: Association football capitalizes "Laws of the Game" and Cricket capitalizes "Test". The latter is an especially useful example, because the origin of the phrase "Test match" is because they are "mentally and physically testing". Yet despite being connected to the normal word "test", we capitalize it anyway, because in the context of cricket, the word Test is capitalized. The same idea applies to Pokemon types. Mlb96 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to add that reliable sources prefer capitalizing Pokemon types by a more than 2-to-1 margin, as I show in the discussion section below. This alone basically requires us to capitalize them in our articles. Mlb96 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I've put together a source table and put it in the Discussion section. Mlb96 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• No - they're not proper nouns. It's literally as simple as that. This is a waste of time. Find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  They are proper nouns in the context of Pokemon, though. The same way that Test is a proper noun in the context of cricket. Mlb96 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thats irrelevant. We don't write from the perspective of fictional universes, and we use standard English capitalization. See WP:INU. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Then could you explain in what way Pokemon types are different from Test matches in cricket? Surely we can't say that the MOS applies one way to one and a different way to the other unless there's an actual difference between them. Fictional or non-fictional is irrelevant; they're both games. Mlb96 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  And speaking of WP:INU, it states there that we should not "describe aspects of the work as if they were real." The primary argument for not capitalizing is that grass, water, and fire are normal words. But they aren't normal words in this context, they describe fictional concepts. Capitalizing them reinforces that it's a fictional concept from a fictional universe; putting them in lowercase suggests a connection to real-life fire, water, and grass. So it seems to me that WP:INU actually supports capitalizing. Mlb96 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is fiction. Writing about fiction one way or another will include uses of fictional terms (it can be argued that they're also game mechanic terms). It's not about "perspective". The article is already in real-word perspective. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  They are not proper names in the context of Pokemon. They define classes of Pokemon, types of Pokemon, groups of Pokemon, not globally unique individual entities, right? See the explanation at proper name. The capitalization argument seems based on significance here, not the linguistic concept of a proper name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• No - There's no reason they should violate the MOS. - Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yet it’s been demonstrated they don’t violate the MOS. You can’t keep making that the default in the face of greater evidence. All evidence points to lowercase being the actual violation--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Where has that been demonstrated? What consensus are you referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Again with the non-reading. I didn’t mention a consensus.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Then it hasn't been demonstrated; it violates the MOS. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  How odd, there's an extraneous semicolon in your comment, because the violation hasn't been demonstrated either--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:COMMONNAMES for one. But I'm not interested in debating with someone who resorts to petty incivility when they lack facts to back up their claims. There will be no further response from me. - Aoidh (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• No and the other Pokémon pages should be fixed to follow suit. While they may be capitalized in game, we are writing outside the game for a general audience and as these types are otherwise all common English words, should follow normal case approaches. --Masem (t) 20:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  If hundreds of Pokémon pages have to be “fixed” to follow suit, then maybe it’s not the writing or the pages that’s broken. What’s broken is your interpretation. Normal case approaches means approaching it as it is written normally, which is where it’s capitalized.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• No. This is game's stylization that has no precedent in the real world. Wikipedia is written from neutral general perspective, which means things invented by fictional works do not take precedence over normal grammar. Here, a fictional work is capitalizing something that would not normally be capitalized. Sure, there are exceptions and occasionally reliable sources will "elevate" some term into "spelled this way" territory. But this is hardly such a case. Replicating their stylistic choice does not help in understanding of the topic. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  This sets dangerous precedent to ignore all proper names in video games, despite it being a very clear exception in the MOS.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Lmao "dangerous precedent"? You'd think we're discussing the fate of a nation with the catastrophizing language you're using here. It's a children's video game. There is in fact no such thing as precedent on Wikipedia. Only consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Citation needed--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Your assertion is that using "standard English capitalization" is going to create a "dangerous precedent"? Come on. Hyperbole doesn't work when you lay it on that thick. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  This would not be setting a dangerous precedent of ignoring proper names in a video game, since these are not proper names. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• No Largely per Masem and HELLKNOWZ, and Alexandra's prior reasoning in the discussion above. (Edited 2/19 to add): Mlb96's table claiming that various reliable sources consistently use uppercase as reason we should as well is flawed. The first four sources they claim are consistent, I found lowercase usage examples. They are not at all consistent. -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is in direct opposition of the manual of style and shatters all precedent--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in replying to the constant badgering of everyone who disagrees with you. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• No. The terms use common words and not proper nouns; it's "fire-type", not "Lental-type" or whatever. Also, I'm seeing a lot of "it violates the manual of style" comments that don't actually link to any manual of style guidance; "Other articles seem to capitalize words" is not an MOS, it's just other articles. MOS:VG, for instance, is silent on this matter, and MOS:CAPS doesn't exactly cover the video game case, though its section MOS:GAMECAPS does say that "Likewise, venue types, sports equipment, game pieces, rules, moves, techniques, jargon, and other terms relating to sports, games, and activities are given in lower case", which while it refers to physical sports and games could be considered to cover video games as well. --PresN 22:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  This basically says that no proper names in video games should be ackmowledged. “Could be considered” is not “is considered”. What would “ceaseless edge” mean when it replaces “Ceaseless Edge”?--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes The lengths such a consensus would extend to would make video game articles incomprehensible--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's definitely not true. Capitalization does not have anything to do with comprehension. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. MOS:GAMECAPS provides for the usage of "occasional, conventionalized variances" from standard English capitalization - that is to say, when specific pieces of sport or game terminology are consistently referred to with nonstandard capitalizations, those nonstandard capitalizations should be followed. Pokemon types are universally capitalized in the in-game materials, and thus fall under the purview of this "conventionalized variances" language. I also second Mlb96's point about the fact that Pokemon types have definitions that overlap - but are not coterminous - with their real-world referents. Many Grass-type Pokemon, for instance, have no connection to grass and are only connected to unrelated types of plant. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. I find Mlb96's explanation at WT:VG convincing. They are in-universe proper nouns and Mlb96 has provided many other examples at WT:VG of video games that capitalise in-universe names. If "ghost-type" isn't capitalised it may mislead readers to think it is a spirit of a dead Pokemon. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'll provide an example, Final Fantasy VIII, a Featured Article, includes sentences such as: Characters can also junction (equip) these spells onto their statistics—such as Strength, Vitality, and Luck— and They are similar to the Desperation Attacks of Final Fantasy VI. I wouldn't be surprised if someone decapitalise them to make a point. They're capitalised because they're game mechanic terms, same thing with Pokemon types. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  I myself won't make any changes to articles until a consensus in determined. If this RfC is closed with consensus that they shouldn't be capitalized then I will make changes to the affected articles and possibly other articles where this is show similarly. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes per the examples given by neocorelight. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Mlb96 and Neocorelight's explanations above. I think that's sufficient reasoning to leave them capitalized. Tymewalk (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• No they aren't proper nouns. They are normal adjectives that describe a Pokémon. --Torsodog^Talk 06:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes As they represent specific categories of Pokemon rather than simply elements they are aligned with. Saying a Pokemon is a "Fire-type" is different than saying they are a "fire-using Pokemon". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No, per my previous post: "Games capitalize or otherwise stylize Important Gameplay Terms all the time for the sake of clearly communicating with the player that it's an Important Gameplay Term. Wikipedia isn't a video game, though, and "fire", "ghost", "steel", etc, are all regular words used with their usual meanings - I just cannot see a case for capitalizing them". I said I wouldn't respond any further, but since an RfC was opened I feel obliged to make this one. (I will be removing this article from my watchlist following this post and will not be reading any further replies).--Alexandra^IDV 11:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• No as they are not proper nouns. Largely, the "yes" category is using the argument that "Fire-type", "Grass-type", etc. have very specific meanings, and are not necessarily associated with the idea of fire, grass, etc. If this is the case, then we are in WP:FANCRUFT territory. I, along with likely the rest of the general audience, do not care that "Fire-type" actually means a Pokemon type which is weak to Water, Ground, and Rock, but resists Fire, Steel, Fairy, Grass, and Bug. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This is not an argument to not capitalize the type names, it is an argument to not include the types at all. Mlb96 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

    How exactly? It can't be fancruft to include them in general because otherwise a lot of stuff wouldn't make sense because of how integral Pokemon typings are to the game. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

    No, describing Charmander as a "fire-type Pokémon" would tell the audience that Charmander is a Pokémon that is somehow associated with fire. Describing Charmander as a "Fire-type Pokémon" would aim to tell the audience that Charmander is a Pokémon that is weak to Water, Ground, and Rock... *things that only Pokémon fans care about*. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

    That is nonsensical, if we wanted to say that Charmander is associated with fire then we wouldn't use the word "type" at all, we would just call it a "fire Pokemon". The only reason to use the word "type" is if you're referring specifically to Pokemon types. Mlb96 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• No - capitalising non-proper nouns goes against MOS, irrespective of the context within franchises. ♦ jaguar 21:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• No per the analysis of sources by Mlb96, these do not meet the MOS:CAPS threshold of being consistently capitalized in reliable sources. The caps are clearly not "necessary" within the meaning of our guidelines, so we default to lowercase. Simple. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• No per Pbrks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak no, as these are not proper names and have not been adequately shown to be very consistently capitalized in WP:independent reliable sources (IRSs). Per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary use of capital letters, and when the IRSs are not consistent, Wikipedia uses lowercase. And I don't buy the argument that capitalization should be used to indicate a special non-ordinary meaning of a word. If we want to explain that a term is a jargon term and thus has a special in-context meaning, we should introduce it using italics or quote marks, not by capital letters. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS and MOS:TERM. The "-type" suffix helps with that as well. To me, that argument for capitalization crosses into MOS:SIGNIFCAPS territory. However, I've added "Weak", since (per Mlb96) the IRSs that use capital letters appear to outnumber those that don't. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Let me give you an example. If you are talking about Cyndaquil, to someone who is not well-versed with Pokémon, calling it a fire starter Pokémon, you might think it was a Pokémon that starts fires. If you capitalize it to be Fire starter Pokémon, it's a little less ambiguous. I mean, capitalized or not, it's ambiguous, but capitalizing it will reduce the ambiguity a little bit. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 06:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes If there is a distinction between "Fire-type" and "fire-type", which Mlb96's comment shows that there is, then yes, for accuracy. Some1 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as within the Pokémon jargon these are used as proper nouns. You can't replace "Ground-type" with "Earth-type", it is not replaceable with a synonym. Pikavoom ^Talk 07:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  No one has suggested we swap words around. -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I’m not sure that’s the best way to frame it. It should probably be something like "Do Pokémon types violate the MOS?". It’s clear Wikipedia has always capitalized Pokémon types as they should be, capitalized element, lower case T. The claims that it goes against MOS are clearly recent and ignore the Proper name exception detailed in the very excerpt they cite against such.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• I just realized that many style and spelling disputes on Wikipedia often follow what reliable sources use, so I decided to search Google News for "pokemon types" and check the first ten results from sources listed as reliable at WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources. The results are: USA Today, capitalizes types; Gamespot, capitalizes types; GamesRadar+, capitalizes types; Polygon, does not capitalize types; CNET, does not capitalize types; Upcomer, capitalizes types; Kotaku, does not capitalize types; USA Today, capitalizes types; USA Today, capitalizes types; and Kotaku, capitalizes types. So that's 70% of reliable sources that do capitalize types, and 30% that do not. Mlb96 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not proving your experiment invalid but, USA Today appeared 3 times and Kotaku appeared 2 times (although interestingly Kotaku is inconsistent according to this brief experiment you did), so that may have skewed things a little. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I would just completely disregard those Kotaku sources since they don't seem to even be information at all but just games. The others I still wouldn't use in an article but at least they aren't games. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that most of these wouldn't be usable to cite information in an article. But if you narrow it down to only sources that you could cite in an article, then the sample size would be too small to be useful; nobody who writes about Pokemon is going to be winning a Pulitzer Prize any time soon. My point was that when these outlets mention Pokemon types, they do so in uppercase. Mlb96 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On a per-source basis, here’s what I found: Polygon and CNET consistently use lowercase. Kotaku varies depending on the article. Every other outlet consistently uses uppercase. That includes USA Today, Gamespot, GamesRadar+, IGN, VG247, Upcomer, Dot Esports, Forbes, Gamerant, Screenrant, and TheGamer, just to name a few. Mlb96 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I countered this below the table but adding here: I found these sources were not consistent at all on further analysis. -- ferret (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please stay WP:CIVIL! I'm seeing a lot of snarky and unprofessional commentary being thrown around, especially some that doesn't contribute anything of importance to this discussion. Remember, we are currently arguing on whether or not to capitalize "fire", so simply shake hands, state your case, and exit. Panini!^🥪 01:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Source table. Green sources are reliable, yellow are situational.

Consistently capitalizes	Inconsistent	Consistently does not capitalize
Dot Esports	Kotaku	CNET
GameSpot		Polygon
GamesRadar+
IGN
Upcomer
USA Today
VG247
Forbes
Game Rant
Screen Rant
TheGamer

Mlb96 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know that Forbes was considered a situational source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Forbes staff articles are generally considered reliable (per WP:FORBES), but Forbes contributor articles are not (per WP:FORBESCON). At first glance, the difference between those two types of Forbes sources may not be obvious. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would check to see how many non-VG sources capitalized it (just to ensure there isn't any bias) however that would probably be rather difficult to do since those sources don't really care about video games unless they do something incredibly significant. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

IGN is not consistent: Uses lower case, as does this one.

Dotesports is not consistent: uses lower case, as does this one.

Gamespot is not consistent: uses lowercase fire/dragon in the article body, only capitalizing in the all caps title, while is lower case.

GamesRadar? Guess what, also uses lowercase sometimes.

I stopped at this point because I found these examples within the first page of searching "fire-type" and "water-type" with site:whicheversite. Anyone saying Yes based on this source analysis that RSes are consistently uppercase needs to re-evaluate. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Neocorelight and Tymewalk: As info as your !vote hinged on the source analysis. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just pointing out that this discussion before my comment was 23,875 bytes and the article itself is 24,529. Good going guys and girls. Juxlos (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Holy crap. All this over one small issue because we can't agree at all. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't care anymore. Honestly, I've decided over the last day that I don't really care about this website in general anymore, everyone is irrational and the rules are either applied or ignored in a completely arbitrary manner. Just close the RfC early, the consensus is clear. Mlb96 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Your interest in the website was contingent on capitalizing Pokemon terms? Really? That aside, per WP:RFCCLOSE, you are free to close it at any point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment So when will this pointless discussion end? THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Whenever the RFC can be closed. I'd prefer if someone not involved in this discussion closed it so that a proper consensus can be determined because I keep seeing good arguments for both options. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't rly have the patience to read this and I'm also a new editor. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll look through the many essays and policies and see if there's an appropriate place to request a close to an RFC. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot Summary Error

I read the plot summary, and I noticed the article states "the player crafts a special Pokéball capable of capturing the other legendary Pokémon". However, in the game itself, the player's "rival" of sorts is the one who crafts the Origin Ball (Either Rei or Akari, whichever gendered player character wasn't chosen at the beginning of the game). I feel the point should be changed from 'the player' to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokelego999 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Changed. Juxlos (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we even need types?

Aside from the rather long discussion above, are the types of the Pokémon really relevant to the article? Other articles, such as for instance Pokémon Red and Blue mention the names but not their types. It feels a bit out of place since the information isn't really relevant - a Pokemon fan would know what types they are, a non-fan would not know what a "type" is. I went ahead and removed it. Also, Rowlet is Grass/Flying. Juxlos (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It may be Grass/Flying but the game considers it the "Grass starter" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning in some capacity to illustrate it as a core gameplay aspect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No strong feeling. Omission may be ok. But we should not replace with "alternative" terms that may be misleading. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Arceus -> Arkoos/Arcoos vandalism

I've noticed that this is a common form of vandalism that occurs on this article, and I wonder if added a comment saying to not change the spelling to "Arkoos/Arcoos" would be appropriate, or would that just invoke WP:BEANS and cause people to do that more? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just a joke/meme thing, not an honest proposal, so I think BEANS applies. I've re-protected the page though, that might be a better approach. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think protection was necessary quite yet since this is the first time the article had been vandalized in about a month but if you think it was then that's perfectly fine. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to lower the bar for when page protection is needed when a page has already needed protection in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 18:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. Also, you are correct in that it's just a joke/meme thing. It originates from the Youtuber MandJTV. It was a joke he created I think because there was no real official pronunciation of "Arceus" that existed (the pronunciation in official sources such as the games even contradicted each other). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

mandjtv

change arceus to arkoos because https://www.youtube.com/c/MandJTV Batboithebest (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No, per: pokemon.com/us/pokedex/arceus -- AxG / ✉  14:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

awwwww 24.143.76.194 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent news

A second Legends game has been announced! And Zygarde's going to be involved! Does anyone think then that Pokémon Legends as a whole will need it's own article as a series? Visokor (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a long standing consensus that there's no need for a series article until

at least 3 entries. There's just no purpose to create one sooner, as anything you could write could easily be placed in the first or second game article. So no, we are a ways off from that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)