Talk:List of Pokémon anime characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I think that if you wanted to merge the characters, that you would have to merge all of the characters, not just some, as well as all of the info about each character. That would be a lot of merging that I just don't think is worth all of the effort.Planet X42 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The characters do not require separate coverage. This list will cover each important character and the more important Pokémon. The hundreds of minor characters will be covered within the episode summaries on the lists, and the minor Pokémon will be covered on the Pokémon lists. TTN (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF dawn is a main character just like misty, brock, and may. and team rocket doesnt need to be merged, it has enough to stand on it own -_- --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG you have got to be kidding -_- you want to merge people that have been in over 250+ episodes? and one person who has been in every season except the second?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read over WP:N. "It's a main character" and "It's been in hundreds of episodes" are not indicators of notability. They don't have real world information, so they need to be merged. TTN (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you are going to get a lot of people that hate you for doing this. misty, may, dawn are notable--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
before you even think about editing again look at WP:POINT--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not notable, and plenty of people are already angry at me anyways. There is nothing pointy about trying to get some articles that fail core policies and guidelines merged. Though, something pointy would be removing some merge tags that I don't agree with. TTN (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dont be a fag, i removed them because you are merging ash into here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 17:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ash does not assert notability, so he belongs here. TTN (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes he does, now stop merge everything you fucking see--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:N, you'll see that he currently does not. You're free to search for reliable sources, though. TTN (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what do you call the anime and manga?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ash = Ash Ketchum#References.
Absolutely not Ash and the others should not be merged. The merging will cause alot of information to be removed. TNT just stop! You merged all of the Pokemon articles (except Meowth and Pikachu 2 out of the 493) into a crappy list that has less information about the Pokemon. Now you want to merge all of the major characters from the anime? Just stop. It seems Bulbapedia has more information and a better source for Pokemon instead of Wikipedia. (Taiketsu (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(un-indent): The problem, Taiketsu, is that there are few to none verifiable third-party sources that contain information on the characters. The reason why all of the individual Pokémon articles were merged (with the exceptions of Pikachu, Meowth, and later Bulbasaur) is because there is no real-world, out-of-universe information on the Pokémon (with the exceptions of the three mentioned, and even then Bulbasaur is hovering on the borderline). The articles fail Wikipedia guidelines. It's as simple as that. The individual articles can always be demerged if the relevant information is found. But take a look at Ash Ketchum. The section Creation and Conception is completely blank, and has been for months. The article isn't meant to be mainly a list of all of the Pokémon that Ash has caught. Until relevant and meaningful information like that can be found, sourced, and added to the article, what point is there in having an article? If it fails policy, why should it be kept? This isn't about what fans want. This is about following established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For these reasons, I say to merge all of the articles that have been proposed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why have already been discussed. If you'd read the deliberation up to this point, you would know why it has been proposed. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe because this guys been in 400 episodes? If this gets merged, you can just go merge all the other main characters in other things. There is a reason they call it list of MINOR, yes MINOR characters in pokemon series. Now, the word minor means a lot here. Dacheatcode (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Also, can you think of a way to fit that entire article into one iitty bitty section? Cause i cant. Apply for the world record books if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacheatcode (talkcontribs) 01:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is List of Pokémon anime characters, not List of minor Pokémon anime characters. It doesn't matter how many episodes the characters have been in, since they are still characters. As has been said repeatedly, most of the detail in each character's article is about their Pokemon. That is not needed. Every article fails WP:LEAD, WP:Notability, WP:IINFO, WP:Fiction, and WP:VERIFIABILITY (If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it). I see no reliable, third-party sources in any of these articles. These are just five policies that all of the articles (including Ash Ketchum) fail; I can find more if you'd like. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Main characters deserve their own pages Markcambrone (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Give a reason. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are main characters. And common sense.Dacheatcode (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if they are main characters, what your all saying is "IN-UNIVERSE" importance. The articles are largly in universe. It Does NOT MATTER if they are the main character, out of the pokemon universe, ash and his "God Pokemon" do not honestly matter, he just got Famous cause he's in the now crappy anime. Give me outside refrences, from a 3rd party, not the manga, the creators, the anime, but websites that arn't fan and arn['t first party. --Jakezing (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article should be merged. There is enough info in it for it to be it's own article. Misty is an important character in the Pokémon anime, so she is notable enough. C Teng [talk] 02:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've read this entire discussion and still haven't found any good reason why you want to merge every Pokémon-related topic into only a few articles. According what others have said, many articles have been deleted and merged into a very small section in a list of characters. Why should we give less info? C Teng [talk] 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it[edit]

Woah BEGD, I don't appreciate that kind of language on this site. If you wanted to go into a PUBLC resturant and say things like that, I don't think that you would get a good reaction, and if there's a cop, maybe even a serious warning for profanity in public. I am also posting this to your talk page so you can get the message.Planet X42 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BEGD, you're stepping out of line here. Take a few minutes to calm down and stop swearing. That doesn't accomplish anything except for a loss of respect. Search for reliable third-party sources instead if you are so desperate for the characters to have their own articles. TTN, I have a quickquestion for you. You say that This list will cover... the more important Pokémon. What criteria do you use to say how "important" a Pokemon is? MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why should i, people dont respect me here or in real life, what have i got to loose if i keep going?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The important ones will probably be mostly the ones that play a generally significant role. The specifics will be worked out later, but I'll just say that it'll be for the ones with more than a paragraph of information available for now. TTN (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you are going to merge them dont merge them here make a new page like "List of Major Pokémon anime characters"--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just integrate the information into List of Pokémon anime characters? No need for a rename. Besides, I don't any of the characters (except for Ash, possibly) merit a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Cleanup before Possible Merge[edit]

Unfortunately all of the pokemon character articles suggested for merge do fail the requirements for maintaining a respective separate article. A lot of the information discusses the pokemon of each character and not the character themselves. While it is important to note several key pokemon specific to the character, the bulk of each article should not focus on their pokemon nor should it list every single one the character caught. As such, a merge would be necessary. However, considering the immense popularity of the Pokemon franchise and the main characters, an abundance of out-of-universe information can be collected and a significant revamp of each article is certainly within. Instead of jumping into a merge that undoubtedly causes heated arguments on both sides, it would be best to perform major cleanups of the article to see if at the end the article is worthy of being independant of a list. If it can't, or the cleanup isn't taken seriousely and not done, then we can go ahead and merge the articles. This would give a chance for editors to do their thing and bring articles to standards...even though it should have been done in the first place. Though what's done is done so this gives editors a second chance so to speak and saves everyone from spending useless energy arguing. A time-table of say a month can be set on each article, then a review, and if it doesn't pass then a merge can be performed as agreed. It's certainly better than tagging merges on everything, though that would be a great way to get people's attention in saying this needs a big clean if you want to keep it. Fox816 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure cleanup has already been tried (evident by the empty creation and reception sections), and nothing has actually happened. There is no real point in waiting any longer at this point. If information is found, they can be split again. TTN (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if you merge it please dont mess it up like they did on the naruto articles--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this information to be important, I suggest copying them over to Bulbapedia if they don't have it or another relevant wiki. TTN (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though true, that would be a waste of time to go back and forth between list and splits. As I said earlier, while it should have been done in the first place this adds more incentive for editors since they basically have it all risked. When under pressure, people generally do a lot more work and commit. I agree that the time given was far too lenient yet even an extra month won't hurt if its going to be merged anyways. It's far more better to use the energy spent on mindlessly pleading and arguing back and forth with editors and channel it into shining up an article. The article was only tagged today and already we've seen a fair share of wasted energy. It's only a little longer and if no progress has been made then a merge will have to be accepted by everyone since basically guilt would be to blame for not trying. Fox816 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, bringing everything together, and then expanding is a much better way to improve things than cutting them down piece by piece. It gives us perspective of what's important, and it allows for gradual improvement. I'm really not even going to pretend there is information for any of the characters (maybe, at the most, Ash has a little smidge), so giving time for improvement seems rather pointless. If someone can provide actual sources, I'll change my mind. TTN (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving time either way you go. Whether merged or not, time for improvement is there...with the only restriction being that separate articles have a limited time-frame to improve while in a merged list it's almost indefinite. Considering the volume of information already present in each character's article, it's better to improve them now while they're whole. That way you already have existing information in which you can slice out that which is unimportant. In a merge, major trimmings are done and often info pieces needed or can be elaborated upon are accidently taken out. Here whether merge or not, a cutting down will happen. Better to improve the whole now while it's there. Fox816 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the case of the individual Pokemon being merged into lists, there were several months in between the start of discussions and the majority of the actual mergings, were there not? It seems a bit presumptuous to say that nobody has searched for third party sources when the merge discussions have only begun today. Also, the "Character reception" sections haven't even been on the pages for that long. I know that I, for one, haven't contributed anything to these sections simply because I assumed that the creator of those sections would add information later, as opposed to just leaving them blank. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between 493 articles and 14 articles. This should go on for about a week or two at most. I'm pretty sure people have searched, given that the Pokemon project was pretty adamant about getting these up to our standards. If you can find some basic sources, I'm fine with leaving them for a little bit, but we really shouldn't pretend like improvement is really that likely. TTN (talk)
I'm fine with an article called List of Pokémon, but I think characters such as Ash Ketchum warrant their own page. Useight (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? (Just playing the devil's advocate) MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creation and Conception..hum lets see MelicansMatkin, the characters (insert name) are based on THEIR GAME CHARACTERS, which were designed by Satoshi Taijiri and Ken Sugimori. It won't be that hard to add that on ALL OF THE MAIN CHARACTERS pages. And besides the key word is Main Character, so the main character deserve a separate page. Also i agree with Useight, Ash Ketchum warrant their own page. THe main characters of Sailor Moon, Digimon, InuYasha, Naruto, Dragon Ball series, Chrono Crusade and even Yu-Gi-Oh! have their own respectful separate page, and your telling me that the most popular anime cartoon doesn't deserve there main characters have their own separate page? (18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiketsu (talkcontribs)
You misunderstand, Taiketsu; all of the character pages are currently orientated on the anime characters, but let's not forget that they (with the exception of Ash and a few anime-specific rivals) were first created to relate information on the game protagonists/antagonists. How did the final designs of these game characters come about? Why did the game designers chose to implement them into the storyline?
This is the kind of information that is needed to develop the articles. All of the articles are filled with cruft, speculation, and there is no out-of-universe information present whatsoever. There is still no information on the reception for each character. Fact of the matter is, they fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have not yet seen a single Pokémon character article that passes WP:Notability, WP:IINFO, or WP:Fiction. Even WP:Lead is failed!
You only want the articles to remain demerged because a) you are approaching this as a fan and not as a serious editor, and b) you dislike the fact that the articles for the individual Pokémon were merged and are determined that TTN's suggestion to merge the character articles does not happen. The articles all fail Wikipedian policies. If I were to go take the Ash Ketchum page and strip away all of the cruft, trivia, and useless information to leave only hard fact, the article would be no longer than a couple of paragraphs. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what. All of you just get a life, all of you are so called Wikianerds..... Bulbapedia is much better. Also MelicansMatkin, why not you go ask Satoshi Taijiri and Ken for How did the final designs of these game characters come about? Why did the game designers chose to implement them into the storyline? , their isn't going be any information about that. oh wait i know BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO <_> :-; (Taiketsu (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
So what. All of you just get a life, all of you are so called Wikianerds..... Bulbapedia is much better. - If that's the way you feel, stop editing Wikipedia. By resorting to petty namecalling, people will take your opinions less seriously. What little respect I had left for you has now vanished with your childish remark.
Also MelicansMatkin, why not you go ask Satoshi Taijiri and Ken - 1) I do not know any of the Japanese language, either written or spoken; 2) I am a student saving up to university and cannot afford the price of a plane ticket.
their isn't going be any information about that - You'd be surprised what you can find with a little effort.
oh wait i know BECAUSE THEY WANTED TOO - 1) Work on your spelling; 2) Source it ;)
Back to the topic at hand please, everyone. MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been well over a month since discussion started and the articles have been hardly touched for appropriate cleanup despite notification to the Pokemon Project. As much as I would like for the articles to remain separate, unfortunately we have to face the facts that they can't even hold a candle to it. It would be best to cleanout and merge right now. Going back on what Melican said, taking out all the cruft hardly leaves anything at all. Most of the article information is centered around the Pokemon, not the character themself. I'd support a merge. That way we can have atleast one respectable article concerning the characters. Fox816 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it simply make more sense to just leave the pages of the main characters on their own, and merge the minor/supporting characters into the List of Pokémon anime characters page? Every one of those listed as the main characters are notable for their long-running appearances in the show, movies, action figures, etc. I believe they have enough notability and information on their pages, but I do believe that the minor/supporting characters don't exactly warrant their own pages. --Antoshi~! T | C 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have enough notability on their pages? You're kidding, right? Show me the references on the main character pages that establish their notability, and I'll eat my hat. The pages are filled with absolutely nothing but cruft. There are no reliable third-party sources anywhere, and I've lost count of the number of policies that just one of the articles fails. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly half of each article is about their Pokemon and not about the character themself. Taking a look at the article for the central character of the series, Ash, majority of the information is about the backstory of each of his Pokemom. The articles were given enough time for a salvation cleanup and nothing was done. There's basically nothing else to do but merge since we can't just leave this mess as it is. Fox816 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is dawn, may and max considered not a main character or not as improtant (as in not having thier own pages)? they should have thier own pages again, clean this up! signed by: can't sign in again! this mac in the school cant use the sign username! can anyone sign for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrariguy1000 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist[edit]

People have even written academic papers on the darn things:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22037604_ITM

Geni 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what exactly does that have to do with the characters? That's an article on the metaseries that mentions some of them as examples (not relevant ones, though). TTN (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say that use as an examples in scientific papers isn't significant? That would be say Drosophila melanogaster's main claim to fame. Another example would be GOTTA CATCH ‘EM ALL Structure, agency and pedagogy in children’s media culture.Geni 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both are analyzing the series and metaseries. If you want to add them to Pokémon and Pokémon (anime), that'd be fine, but they have no real relevance here. TTN (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and Charles Hadfield's The Canals of Southwest England is talking about all the canals of that area. Are you suggesting that we delete the article on the rolle canal?Geni 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. TTN (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okey you appear to have carried out a Reductio ad absurdum on your own argument. Impressive but probably a fairly solid hint you need to rethink your position.Genisock2 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just don't feel like responding to your totally irrelevant comparison. It's the same thing that you always do. TTN (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reductio ad absurdum is a standard technique in logical debate. If you have to reject logic for your position to hold together it is probably best that you adopt a different position.Geni 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I won't be responding to you anymore. TTN (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided are good to use on the general Pokemon series article, not the character articles themselves since the main focus is the series. It's possible to maybe pull out one or two things from that regarding the characters yet that wouldn't be enough. In terms of sources, we need ones that are specific to the character. Some examples would be: director/creator/voice actor interviews regarding the character in question, character designs, influences on design/behavior of character, character impact on the real world, etc... If you could say find a notable study paper entitled "Ash: The Boy, The One, The Catcher" or something like that then you could use that for Ash's article. Fox816 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what the fuck do you think we watch the anime for?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that that even a cursory search shows that there shear amount of material availible means that it would result in an unacceptably long article.Geni 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's all in-universe information. We need out-of-universe info. I'd ask that you please refrain from using disruptive language against other editors. You have been warned appropriately...and it's not helping in trying to cleanup and keep these articles. Fox816 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Fox. Cooperation is far more likely to lead to action and accomplishment than antagonism. MelicansMatkin (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i still think that this will totaly fuck up the page, your "help" sucks and you dont deserve those banners--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Play nice now, Blue eyes gold dragon, take MelicansMatkin's advice. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article quoted above does indeed talk extensively about how the very main characters (Ash, Misty, Jesse, James) affect the real world and real children. Have you even looked at it? That certainly meets the notability guideline to which you cling so dearly: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And if that article doesn't contain "real world information", then I don't know what does. —Celestianpower háblame 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a good start, but one source doesn't exactly qualify as "significant coverage". More sources than this will need to be found. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if there's one, there are bound to be others. We're under no obligation to do it now. We've proved that sources do exist, so that's all that's required. No sense in removing all the valuable information. —Celestianpower háblame 23:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now, a full month later with no additional sources or information provided to any of the character articles. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already outside articles and real-world references included in the topic about Jesse and James. The names "Jessie" and "James" link directly to "Jesse James", the outlaw and backrobber of the 1800s. The article I am against merging also gives their Japanese names and their connection to famous samuari. How is this failing the Wikipedia guildlines? It is not failing at all, and in fact, has way too much information to be simply merged. I did not know the facts about these Team Rocket members, and I really enjoyed the article about them. It has many subtopics. It compares the TV shows to the movies, and the games. It is very focused, and divided rationally. It was also informative, interesting, well-written, and everything I expect when I come to Wikipedia. There is no reason the list of characters can not simply link to the more indepth topics already presented.Amirrah (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no actually, there aren't. Out of the 25 references in the article, 22 are from episodes, 1 is an action-figure pack on Amazon, 1 is a fan-translation of an episode, and the final 1 is a footnote, not a reference. All of the articles on the English Wikipedia for characters that originated outside of English-speaking countries provide the characters original name.
To quote what you said: The names "Jessie" and "James" link directly to "Jesse James", the outlaw and backrobber of the 1800s. The article I am against merging also gives their Japanese names and their connection to famous samuari. How is this failing the Wikipedia guildlines? It fails Wikipedia guidelines because the information is not referenced. Because it is not referenced, we have to assume that it is original research. There's two of Wikipedia's most integral policies blown straight away. All of the other detail can be easily compressed or removed altogether, because most of that information is just plain fancruft.
This is why these articles are being proposed for merge; if you'd read the numerous arguments above, you would see why they are proposed for merging. What readers expect when they come to Wikipedia is often different from what the strict standards that Wikipedia itself tries to maintain. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Guidelines vs Common Sense[edit]

WP:N is a guideline for editing, not a policy. The reason many separate articles exist for individual characters is that their prominence within a setting warrants attention. This is particularly true of characters for which a good deal of encyclopedic content can be gathered. It's for this reason I oppose the merge as suggested. The Pokemon series in particular has dozens of characters. Merging the prominent characters back into the fold would imply a perceived reduction of importance, or greatly extend the length of the article, depending on how the merge was handled. I propose two alternatives:

  1. Retain the separate articles and let things be.
  2. Merge the outlying articles into a list of main characters, and remodel the existing list as a list of minor characters.

Both formats have worked well for other settings—it will work here, too. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles related to fictional characters that do not always have to assert notability are character lists. Single characters can always be condensed to a reasonable point, so they will never be able to have an article without asserting notability. This list will be managed well, so there will only be a need for one. TTN (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I misunderstood a bit. I thought the merge was going into the main Pokemon list, rather than this separate Anime list. The former is simply too large by any standard. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why must people assume that, just because Misty doesn't have any OUT OF UNIVERSE sources, it gives them the right to merge HER and the rest of the main cast of Pokemon into a list? under that token, we should merge Son Goku's article with List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball Z, Link's article with List of characters in The Legend of Zelda, and many other things. Heck, why don't we merge EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE IN EXISTANCE into one super article, while we are at it.

See, this is the problem with this WP:N thing, It would mean that we have to merge every single article on this site into one super article, thus creating an even bigger mess than before. So I say we should keep this article, and NOT MERGE IT, and the same goes for the rest of the articles that you are proposing to merge.

~~Weedle_McHairybug~~

What happens in one article has no bearing on this one. We don't care what other Projects do, we're trying to decide how to best improve this one. What happens with the Zelda character articles has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what we do with this article. And by the way, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But they are part of the same wiki! See, if it was wikipedia vs. bulbapedia, I can understand, but they all are in the same wiki, meaning, that they have the same exact rules as us. So, even if they are different projects, If they aren't doing that, then we aren't either, if they are doing it, then we are as well. Want to know why? because they have the exact same rules as us due to them being on the same wiki. Since you're an elite moderator, you should know that like you know the back of your hand. no offense, of course.
~~Weedle_Mchairybug~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not a moderator. What happens on one page has no bearing on what happens with another. Wikipedia has over 2 000 000 articles. Pokemon is completely unrelated to Mount Everest, and that has no connections whatsoever with MLK (song). Different wikiprojects, different perspectives, different articles. Talk it to the WP:PCP if you're so upset about what is trying to be discussed. Besides, precedence is one of the worst forms of judgement.
Those other articles could all have notable third-party sources discussing them. The Pokemon articles didn't, and the main characters sure don't. We follow policy, not the preferences of a few unregistered users who don't even know the policy to begin with.MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that they aren't exactly 100% related, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't follow the rules. I mean, if we have to do it, they should as well. I mean, if they are related in one way, it's that they are all part of wikipedia, and thus subject to it's laws. Thus, if one project has to follow the WP:N, they All should as well. If one project doesn't follow the WP:N, none of them should either. I'll sum it up with a quote from President Bush:
You're either with us or the terrorists.
Ok, so it isn't as far as siding with terrorists, but the point of this quote is either All projects follow these rules, or None of them do, there IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. Basically, it is a very absolute thing.
Also, in regards to 3rd party sources, What, do you want it to be BLARING like, oh, i don't know, a televised NEWS REPORT?! Honestly, I have checked them thoroughly, and as far as I can find, There aren't really ANY notable 3rd party sources (Stuff like IGM, IMDB, and other review places do NOT count as reliable sources since, if they won't count them as reliable sources in something like The Little Mermaid III, Ariel's Beginning, for example, what Makes you think that they are reliable in any of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weedle_McHairybug~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.230.174 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing of the kind. It's the responsibility of each project to make sure that their articles follow the guidelines and policies, and if there are too many articles in one project (such as WikiProject Music), or no project at all (The Animals of Farthing Wood), it is the responsibility of individual editors to maintain the articles at the expected standards. What you are saying is patently ridiculous. Imagine if that was how the real world worked. Oh look, that guy didn't pay for a chocolate bar! I know, I'll take money out of this cash register or Dearie me, that man just shot a police officer. Does that mean I can stab my best friend?. George Bush is not the best example to use. But look, I have a quote that shows why I am right too! Lead, and the others will follow. See the point?
Ever heard of something called a featured article? They all follow the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I guess that nullifies your point. If you're going to say something, make sure it makes sense and make sure that you know what you're talking about. And please remember to indent when responding on a talk page. I'm getting tired of doing this for you. You can do this pressing : the appropriate number of times. Also, please sign your comments by pressing four tildes in a row, like this: ~~~~
What counts as a reliable third-party source? Oh, a news report isn't necessary. An article from Macleans or Time would suffice, anything from the AP, APP, or CP, a University paper, the list goes on. You're quite free to search for those sources yourself. For the definition on what constitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. A third-party source is one that would not profit in any way from the franchise. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically character articles aren't supposed to be personal biographies as if they were real. Information contained should be of the sort that reflects the character as a work- not an individual- for the most part. In-universe information should be written in the same manner, yet there is a certain degree of leniency. For all cases, notes about the character design, personality, voice actor selection, etc...from the director, author, artist, seiyuu, etc...would be prime pieces. However, it doesn't have to be strictly just that. The character's popularity and possible impacts on society are also great informational bits, and if possible any articles of notable source that focuses on analyzing the character in question would be interesting to include. In particular to anime, magazines like Newtype USA are among the best places to gather information since they often include interviews with series Staff and seiyuu's. If you own any official release DVDs of a series, bonus material sometimes has Staff interviews and the likes there. Note that citing bootlegged material wouldn't pass as good. Sometimes you'll see an article in your local newspaper, or a nationally circulated magazine (or any published material is alright) about an anime and such. I'd suggest going over Serial Experiments Lain to get the feel for how a general article should be like. Though it's not a character article, the same basic principles are applied. ADDED: Or you can look at the Naruto character articles such as Sakura. Fox816 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem *I* see with merging the articles is that Misty isn't only in the Pokemon anime. There are several different versions of her: the one in the games, from Pokemon Adventures, from Electric Tale of Pikachu, etc. This article covers all of her media appearances. Merging her into a list of anime only characters would imply that she only appears there or that her role in the anime is the one of utmost importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Naruto characters articles the best examples are the first fours. About creation and conception the most important information is saying that the characters are based from the videogames versions but with a source.Tintor2 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final merge decision[edit]

So... what does everyone think? I say yes.--72.208.190.234 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm indifferent either way, it's nice having different character articles, but not important. A clean up should be done first, see if they should stay after being cleaned up. If they fail to meet the criteria after that, merge them. If not, keep them.

Also, when I read this "why should i, people dont respect me here or in real life, what have i got to loose if i keep going", it just sounded like BEGD is a spoiled little brat who has nothing better to do than be a hateful jerk on the internet because nobody shows him any respect on the net or in real life. 87.102.20.45 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep civil here. On the points about the articles, yes it's nice to have them but alas they fail criteria. After the initial cleanout we'll see what's left. From the looks of all of it, there won't be that much so a merge is very likely. Fox816 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... If that's what you want, then you should do that with every single article here on wikipedia. Please don't tell me that they have different projects since, really, it doesn't even matter anyways, since every single article/project is bound by the laws set by wikipedia, and thus should ALL follow it and make Wikipedia nothing more than just one big super article as a result. If I am ousted, go on ahead, but if it ends up becoming nothing more than one super article, don't say I didn't warn you. Besides, there are writers notes AND a VA's blog that deals with Misty, and thus, should be enough for it to be kept as an article.
Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all the articles in Wiki were as bad as these ones there probably would be one super gigantic enormous massive article so big NASA would classify it as a planet. That'd be something to try and edit. Indeed there are alot of articles that are in heavy need of attention...if only every person had an extra pair of arms and heads. I'm sure evolution would select for that in the species Wikis editorius. Anyways, no one's holding you back to improve an article. If you have information, then add it. The responsibility falls on everyone editing or wanting to edit an article, not just those guys with registered usernames. Wikis can be edited by anybody and everybody, so why not help out a bit? Fox816 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Not every wiki. Some wiki's can't allow anyone to edit the article unless that person is a registered member. Bulbapedia is an example of that kind of Wiki. but I will try. And anyways, I know of Mayumi Iizuka's blog (Which IS an outside source, plus it's a VA blog, which is reliable. [though it's still being erased just because "She meant specials and not a return to the main cast".), there are also concept arts on Misty, and I know that Mayumi Iizuka talks about Misty quite a bit and was one of her renowned roles (Heck, the reason why she even got the part was because she acted like herself.)
Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just add stuff making sure to cite and if it gets reverted then start a discussion and we'll help out. If this is information about Misty's character production coming straight from her voice actress and stuff, that's jackpot information. The only thing I'm not sure is translation, if the blog is in a different language, how that would be handled. If that's the case, avoid direct quotation and paraphrase making sure to cite as well. They key is citations, like an old English teacher says. A hefty bit of edits often get reverted because no citations to back it up. Fox816 (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've added it in, and I also made absolute certain that I ALSO added in the blog translation from the Bulbanews article related to it. There does seem to be an error though: when I added in the info, for some strange reason, it moved a significant portion of her personality sub-article to the source area. I don't even KNOW how I even did it, all I know is that I somehow accomplished that.

Weedle_McHairybug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.196 (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it and added a Seiyuu section for that type of material pertaining to the voice actress. Just for future reference, we can't cite other Wiki's or unofficial translation pages for reasons concerning accuracy, fact-checking, etc... I also had to reword the edit to make it sound less like speculation. I widened it out too much I think and will try to narrow it down a bit more specifics. Check the ref tagging used when you need to cite. The problem was the citing format which caused that weird stuff to happen. Otherwise, thanks for the material. The more the better. Fox816 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge and I would also state I would prefer the Bulbapedia link stays. My opinion is because I feel that since some of the articles on Wikipedia are rudely deleted in terms of fancruft a better way is to keep the fancruft material on another wiki (The material that can be proven to be true) and convince unhappy editors that it is where they have to go to find the material since wikipedia can only use the basic material that isn't too large. An alternative is for the Pokemon characters there is also a. Remove the summaries to all the characters' pokemon and let the links to the list of Pokemon stay where those pages will have minor details on that Pokemon's role in the plo in addition to trimming the characters summaries' of any non-vital details. Then there is b. Trim the character and Pokemons' summaries together and find a way to make it work. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87.102.20.45 here. (dynamic IP addresses and all that. Anyway, I was just thinking, if the articles are merged, they could at least keep the pictures and set it out nicely, kinda like how they had the list of Frontier Brains, Gym Leaders etc. Makes it easier on the eyes than the wall of text that the character list has at the moment :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.115.27 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL the Bulbapedia can't be linked too. Anyone needing more indepth in-universe info can find that wiki on their own. Inclusion of links in these articles isn't permitted. In terms of pictures, a group shot is best, rather necessary actually. Considering the number of characters we'd probably be looking at 2-3 photos: one with all the trainers, one with the supporting characters, and then one for Team Rocket. If anyone can provide photos that contain all these characters it'd be great to upload. Fox816 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out an observation and not making a direct insult to anyone, but unless if more of a way to convince dissatisfied editors or people stressed by Wikipedia's strict standards by introducing these separate wikis are a good way to avoid a waste of talent, because after all I have experienced I understand that because alot of resentment towards removal of pages due to lack of a completely necessary reason in numerous case using terms of fancruft as an excuse to remove a page. So unless if there is a way to both follow Wikipedias rules and help make sure that the more indepth information stays on the separate wikis on various fictional subjects then it will just create a better wikipedia and help with it's appeal that will reduce the chances of people turning their backs on Wikipedia and avoid a waste of talent since alot of wikis are undeveloped and require alot of attention and these kind of wikis should never be linked to this site until they are better developed. At the moment I am finding Wikipedia to become more corrupt and arrogant and the deletionists and mergists are in some part responsible for these problems. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I really don't like this. The bios are just too condensced for my tastes, not to mention they're too short and even a bit confusing. I say, we should restore it to the way it used to be with separate articles for different characters. Really, folks, let's not turn Wikipedia into one huge 'super article'. :/ --Super_Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's not have all of them squished in one huge article that really don't show as much detail as their actual separate bio articles. signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is good information about Ash Ketchum on Veronica Taylor's official website. (Veronica Taylor was the voice actress for Ash in Seasons 1-8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.237.143 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a latecomer to this debate, I would say no, don't merge them. The characters of Ash, Misty, Brock and Team Rocket, at least, are the main characters of one of the most popular TV shows of all time, and have expressions well beyond that show. I'd put Ash at the identifiability level of Homer Simpson, Jean-Luc Picard, and Tony Soprano at this point. I'd say that these three at least are definitely notable and verifiable. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ash, Misty, and Brock have their own separate articles, and it should stay that. Everyone else however, should be merged. Artichoker[talk] 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I'm reading about Pokemon for the first time on wikipedia. As a user. I find the merge confusing. Pokemon characters have different name in each languages and having one page for each is less confusing. I had to go read on the french wikipedia because the english version was much a mess. When I click on a character's name I expect a picture but I get a whole article of several characters. As a kid, the names were different so I can only remember by pictures. I'm not a content writer on wikipedia. Just a user and that's my experience. Don't merge. It's not worth. Let one article for each character.

At 22 opposed to merge and only 4 votes for merge, I'm going to remove the 7-month old "merge" tag from the Ash Ketchum article.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Danny Pokemon.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Danny Pokemon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

may and max have seperate bios, now what about the blue haired one? (dawn)[edit]

Max and May have separate bios, dawn is missing still. signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn doesn't have a page to herself; and May, Misty, Brock, and even Ash are being tagged for a possible merge. What's next? "List of characters in fiction"? StarBP (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that Dawn should have her own page, especially since she's a main character Wikigirl16 (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A main character for maybe one or two seasons. I believe any information about her can be amply covered in this article; I don't believe she needs an individual article all to herself. Artichoker[talk] 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept art found[edit]

I found some concept art on Ash Ketchum on this website. It has lots of other things like that about Pokémon on it too. StarBP (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this art will be needed for Wikipedia. Artichoker[talk] 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Ketchum[edit]

According to Sarah Natochenny's myspace she plays Delia,Johanna,Staravia,Staraptor and Roselia Matthew Cantrell (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace is never a reliable source. Artichoker[talk] 14:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::I spoke with Knotz on her website and she says she never played Deila and said Sarah had done it since AG191 Matthew Cantrell (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Oak[edit]

I edit Gary Oak and then it is back to the way it was before. Who is doing this?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.174.126 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul[edit]

We do not know that Ninjask is at Reggies farm/daycare, unless someone proves me wrong, I'll change it Friday. BaconBoy914 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misty and Brock vs. May, Max, and Dawn[edit]

Just a general query here, but why do Misty and Brock both have articles seperate from this list when May, Max, and Dawn don't? As all five characters were/are main cast members and (with the exception of Max) figure in their respective generational games, it stands to reason that either they should all have a seperate article, or none of them should. It strikes me as odd that this is not the case. Your thoughts? MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about Misty, but given that Brock was taken off air because of American audience and then reput back on because of complaints from Japan and America, there is bound to be real-world information somewhere on that.じんない 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Mortiego?[edit]

Since when did Giovanni's surname become "Mortiego?" I've never heard this name used in the anime, or any other media, for that matter. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure he's never been referred to as anything but "the Boss" in the anime, at least in the dub. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right on that. I've removed it from the article; good eye! MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jose?[edit]

Ok...I haven't watched the show for years but seeing as how it is still running as strong as ever, I don't think there is a character named Master Jose that ends up leading Ash to his death after Ash defeats him during the so called "last battles of Ash." Dariex (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Dariex[reply]

Dawn's Crush[edit]

I've often criticized the almost autistic way Wikipedia wants their sources, almost even to the point of being annoying, but from what I've noticed from various sources is that none of them actually mention Dawn's so-called crush for Ash. Neither the Pokémon Wikia as Bulbapedia actually mention anything about it, and if it was actually true that Dawn developed a crush on Ash, it should probably have linked to a Serebii episode summary. Do note that "probably" is bolded, as to highlight the fact that it wouldn't suffice as a good source, but at least it would be something.

I'll be removing the particular line(s) that mention it for now. --GaryCXJk (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed since it's completely unverifiable and unencyclopedic. However Serebii is not a WP:RS as you note, so it couldn't be used anyway. There's been a lot of trouble with this article, which I've brought up at WP:PCP. It needs a massive overhaul. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New layout?[edit]

Apparently in this edit by User:MegaHL90 on 23 October 2009, there was a new layout implemented. Does anybody agree with this change? I personally think it makes it look messy and disorganized. Keep or revert? (obviously we cant revert, because more edits have come, but you know what I mean.) Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping this discussion. This change destroyed alot of redirects. It needs to be changed back as soon as possible. Who is willing to do it? Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bumping yet again. Nobody wants to change the list format back to sections? :/ If not then the redirects need to be fixed. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and be bold if you preferred the old format. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added hidden section titles, (<span id="May"></span>). I think the current layout will be fine now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kotone[edit]

Kotone has been a traveling partner with Ash and friends from DP143-DP147 in Japan. I think it would be good to have a section on this list. Maybe we could even find sources for her replacing Crystal/Kris and create a whole page? But for now, we just need a section on the list. Because people will be wanting to link her Pokemon's appearances to her, like I did with Marill. Currently the only information on her is at List of Pokémon characters#In the video games, which isn't much. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Why's there randomly a picture of Professor Birch but no one else? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Iris"[edit]

Please see Talk:Pokémon: Best Wishes!#"Iris" for discussion as to why the name "Iris" for the fictional character is WP:OR and should not be used unless a reliable source is provided.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Jenny[edit]

Megan Hollingshead confirmed she never voiced Officer Jenny she only voiced Cassidy, Nurse Joy and the other Hollingshead characters Darren Dunstan confirmed that Officer Jenny was voiced by Lee Quick before Jamie Davyous Owens and Behind the Voice Actors has proof to back this up Matthew Cantrell (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give us reliable sources to back up this information. Private emails are not reliable sources.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've removed all of the damn English voice actresses for these characters because there is so much confusion over who voiced who and there are no sources to back any of it up.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and I quote: According to Megan Hollingshead herself, she never voiced Jenny. Darren Dunstan confirmed that Lee Quick was the original English voice of Officer Jenny before Jamie Owens took over mid-Advanced. Personal E-Mails should count since they were sent by the actual actors Matthew Cantrell (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Private e-mails are not reliable sources because they were never independently published. That is the rule.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Portrayal[edit]

It says in the article that Ash is "loosely" based on Red, but since in one of the mangas Red, Blue and Yellow are all seperate people, then isnt Ash represented as Yellow? (As I play Pokemon Yellow) Please correct me If I am wrong,but i still am not sure... It says nothing about Yellow so far as I am researching this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:21FF:1EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate Team Rocket off?[edit]

I kinda feel that the Team Rocket trio meets notability requirements. Of 820+ episodes of the dub, they've been in what, 800 of them? They're important enough to the series to be given at the very least a single article covering the three of them. If Ash, Misty, and Brock get their own articles (despite the fact that Team Rocket's been in far more episodes than Misty and Brock), then so should Team Rocket. It's common sense, people, and after all, they are the main villains of the series. --156.110.82.222 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode appearance statistics don't make one notable, but I agree. Team Rocket can have their own article, we just need to make it right. Blake (Talk·Edits) 06:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any responses should go to my talk. I am that anon above, I just made an account last week. What exactly was wrong with that article? Quite frankly, the revision by SpikeToronto, which was the last one pre-redirect, covers both the organization Team Rocket and the trio. We can restore that and revise it to make it up-to-date, we can write a new article just about the trio and keep the organization as a whole being a redirect, or we can have an article about the trio and the old Team Rocket article with a link to the trio article for more info under their heading above the content itself, which is what I would do, considering the organization has influenced a lot. At the very least we should have an article on the trio in some form. --DarthNightmaricus (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my best to combine the old Team Rocket article, the content now at List of Pokémon characters, and the content now at List of Pokémon anime characters into a new article that can be found here. --DarthNightmaricus (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Should Kiyotaka Furushima really redirect here? He just voices one character, but it's not an article about the voice actor. 131.191.95.56 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting list[edit]

The list is trying to do too much by covering every character that appears in all of the different anime series. It should be split up into individual lists based on series and allow those lists to describe the characters as they pertain to those series. —Farix (t | c) 11:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFarix: I agree, Pokemon is a metaseries anyway, so listing every single character with plot summaries on the same page is only bound to get out of control.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suggest that we should split this article into a "Team Rocket" page because a we all know Team Rocket has been around since the firt release Pokemon: Indigo League. Also, Team Rocket is not you would call a "minor" series of characters, because Team Rocket have been in what, about 1,000 episodes? And also, if I may, why are there Misty and Brock pages. If there are pages for the both of them, then there should also be one for Jessie, James, and Team Rocket's Meowth.

-TechnoBladeSPX (talkcontribs) 8:41, 14 September 2020 (Pacific Time Zone)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Somebody PLEASE semi-protect this article indefinitely. IP addresses are persistently adding unsourced information to it, such as English voice actors. Homechallenge55 (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the material may or may not need to be removed, it should not be removed by using the undo feature that many times, it makes the history harder to navigate, and it makes it difficult to figure out exactly what has changed. I would also recommend getting some people from the pokemon wikiproject to help figure out what information is accurate and to collect sources. Gamebuster (Talk)Contributions)

Merger proposal[edit]

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.



Formal request has been received to merge Team Rocket into List of Pokémon anime characters; dated: January 2018. Proposer's Rationale: there is a section that covers the antagonists sufficiently. The Team Rocket article is barely sourced and mostly plot and trivial information. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jimmy Zoppi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Oak Redirect[edit]

I came to this page after looking for "Gary Oak", the tree. It's actually spelled "Garry Oak". I'm of a mind to redirect "Gary Oak" to that article instead of this one because that one links back here and this character is clearly named after that tree. Of course I don't want to do that immediately as that would be an insult to the BEST RIVAL EVER. Cheerfully Hamster Drink (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of AmourShipping references[edit]

Hello There.

I have noticed that, out of all the different ways AmourShipping (The ship of Ask and Serena) could possibly be on Wikipedia, a passing reference in a list article is not what I would expect. And it is also not what I want. AmourShipping warrants a full-fledged article, complete with sources. Having one of, if not the largest ship only referenced in passing in a list is not a good thing.

However, the ship to get a full article would possibly be a great addition to Wikipedia, so people would not have to look at Pokémon-oriented or Shipping-oriented wikis or Dictionary.com to look at the ship. I mean, sure, they are very useful if you want to dive into the rabbit-hole of research and building a full opinion on the ship. We could provide extra links to those sites in a "Further Research" section in the article, and have several sources from The Pokémon Company and other places across the net.

But, you do not have to. AmourShipping, at best, needs a sub-section in the Shipping (Fandom) article, shared with how shipping spread out from the sci-fi and live action genres.

Please consider listening and providing your opinion.

--TheSNerd (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)u/TheSoftwareNerd[reply]

If you can help me. I created a draft article about Serena. Maybe you can help improve it: Draft:Serena (Pokémon) F1fans (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                       Note: I am happy someone added a little bit more info to the article, so thanks. --TheSNerd (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that I disagree to be honest. It isn't really notable enough and it's more of a fandom thing. One that should be include in Pokemon encyclopedia websites such as Pokemon Wiki or Bulbapedia instead. Fab1442006 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table is way too big for article[edit]

I have come to realise that the table showing characters apperances has been getting bigger lately. An ip user has been adding almost every single character to the table making it too big. I'm up for opinions but in my opinion, I think the table should either be scale back and only include specific character or remove it all together.--Fab1442006 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having removed the table, and then gotten reverted I'd like to ask 124.13.25.19 why they think it should be in the article, as they didn't include a reasoning in their edit summary. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Even though tables like this in fan cruft articles are often opposed by experienced Wikipedians, I am usually pro table, on the condition that they are small and dense. This one is neither. This table is too wide (taking up 5 screen widths and 8 screen heights on my computer), and has way too much whitespace. Surely there is a better way to present this information. Perhaps a two column table with column 1 characters, and column 2 list of appearances (containing a bulleted list of appearances). Or a two column table with column 1 TV show, and column 2 list of characters (containing a bulleted list of characters). –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment: Is it even necessary to say what character appears in what work of the series? Maybe in their character bio if they had a big role, but a chart like that seems pointless. Link20XX (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do we remove it now or do we just scale-back. The ip user is still adding stuffs to the table. --Fab1442006 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fab1442006. Seems like most people want to remove. Maybe I'll leave a message on their user talk page so they're aware of this discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Novem Linguae Ok, sure thing Novem. Fab1442006 (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split[edit]

Hello, as this article is over 50,000 words long, I think it would be reasonable that it is split into multiple articles. Here are some ideas:

Split by name: Split into articles titled List of Pokémon anime characters (A-M), List of Pokémon anime characters (N-Z), etc. Pros of this method are simplicity, though it may become harder to navigate, as related characters are no longer grouped together.

Split by introduction: This would include the article being split into several articles titled List of Pokémon anime characters (seasons 1-3), List of Pokémon anime characters (seasons 4-6), etc. Pros of this are sorting characters by when they were introduced, and thus were likely the most notable, though cons could be that many of the most notable characters are from season one, and related groups are not together.

Split into categories: This would be splitting into articles like List of Pokémon anime antagonists, List of gym leaders in the Pokémon anime, etc. Pros are that related characters are all together, though cons are that characters may need to neatly fit into one category. However, this is my preference.

Please do tell me your thoughts.

DecafPotato (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to split by individual season instead. Although it's a shame we can't have a structured central database of characters and display them in different orders. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting by series is far better, as it is inline with Japanese and English dub. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a significant trim would be much more appropriate. Currently, most of the article is original research, talking about minor characters no publication has ever mentioned and who may have appeared in only a handful of episodes each. It is silly for Wikipedia to host a whole paragraph of fictional biographical information on each gym leader Ash Ketchum has faced; that's what fanwikis are for and such content isn't helpful for general readers. Rewriting an list like this based on reliable secondary sources is really hard, though, and I don't feel up for it. I'm quite happy with the trim I had given the video game equivalent list, though it's still 99% original research there too and might require a much more significant trim too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think splitting by series would be much better.
List of Pokémon anime (Original series) characters or List of Pokémon anime (The Beginning) characters and List of Pokémon anime (Gold and Silver) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Advanced Generation) characters or List of Pokémon anime (Ruby and Sapphire) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Diamond and Pearl) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Best Wishes) characters or List of Pokémon anime (Black and White) characters, List of Pokémon anime (XY) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Sun and Moon) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Journeys) characters, List of Pokémon anime (Horizons) characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to using the Japanese or English series when it comes to naming the articles, as I hate it when people mix and merge the two together, like Bulbapedia with their episode codes. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So which one do you prefer, Japanese name or English name? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As its a Japanese series, I prefer Japanese over English. So Black & White become Best Wishes!, XY becomes XY&Z, Journeys becomes 2019 series and Horizons become 2023 series. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XY series's Japanese name is XY not XY&Z. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is XY and XY&Z according to various media, such as TV Tokyo and Amazon, as they have separate pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Bulbapedia XY series is divided into two seasons (XY and XY&Z) in Japanese version. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TV Tokyo and Amazon Japan don't split Best Wishes by season, indication that XY and XY&Z are two interlinked series. Not everything that Bulbapedia says is correct, however. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing voice actors for the English dub[edit]

Lee Quick and Jamie Davyous Owens voiced Officer Jenny in the 4Kids dub, Lisa Adams voices Vivian and Lillian in the same dub and Shannon Conley replaced her as Vivian when PUSA took over.

Lee Quick has a website confirming that she was Jenny and Lisa Adams has a résumé listing her voice work. I figured this would be helpful since the mods can be stubborn and also rude and unprofessional. 2001:5B0:2560:E488:5132:6BD:696:3832 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

http://leequickvoiceover.com/Index This is a source for Lee Quick
http://www.jamiedavyous.com/home.html and here is the source for Jamie Davyous Owens, while Owens doesn't have a voice over reel for Jenny it is listed, and I doubt she'd falsely claim a role on her own website. 2001:5B0:2568:9068:DCE8:90CE:D15F:18E9 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe isn't a protagonist[edit]

I mentioned in edit summary that "Chloe isn't a protagonist, she is a major recurring/supporting character" but then why are you keep reverting it @Evoboost488 ? Why are you keep adding her in "Protagonists" section? You're not even writing edit summary. Yuugone (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, Why is not Chloe put has a character in any point of this article? 83.32.185.27 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe is there in Supporting characters section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Master106: Chloe isn't protagonist, here is a source, stop adding her in protagonist section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fan wiki. Not an official source. Master106 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no official source that she is protagonist. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why Chloe is a protagonist and not a supporting character. There are many episodes focused around her and her character development. She is on Ash's side. A supporting character is a character that has little affect on the plot and are only there to advance the main characters. Chloe has her own purpose of being in the anime. Maybe we can compromise and change it from "protagonists" to "main companions" which would still include Chloe? Master106 (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe isn't protagonist, she rarely appears in the anime. She has character development doesn't mean she is protagonist. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From her debut she has appeared prominently throughout the anime. Her character fits the definition of protagonist set by Wikipedia. "The protagonist makes key decisions that affect the plot, primarily influencing the story and propelling it forward, and is often the character who faces the most significant obstacles. If a story contains a subplot, or is a narrative made up of several stories, then each subplot may have its own protagonist." She affects the plot, influences the story, she faces some of the most significant obstacles, plus she has her own subplot going on making her the main protagonist of that subplot. Rotom Pokedex is on the top list and does not fit the definition and fits more with supporting character, so I think the two characters should switch places. Master106 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish article seems to call the section "Companions" and has Chloe in the list without any problems. Do you think that would be better? Master106 (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please go by what reliable sources commonly label her as. A lot of what both of you've described is original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This Dexerto article labels her as a protagonist: https://www.dexerto.com/pokemon/leaked-pokemon-anime-poster-teases-new-adventures-for-ash-goh-and-chloe-1973751/
Serebii also labels her as a protagonist along with her father. Bulbapedia says she is a supporting character, though I wouldn't say fan wikis are that reliable. The official Pokemon Twitter and Pokemon's website considers her important enough to highlight her along with Ash and Goh, but I could not find a confirmation for either way. For me, I think she should be labeled as a protagonist based on all of this or move her up into the section and rename it "Companions". Master106 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons why I believe that Chloe isn't protagonist:
1. All the characters that are listed in the protagonist section has travelled with Ash and has appeared in almost every episode unlike Chloe.
2. Look at the posters of Pokémon Journeys, in some posters she is in back side and in some posters she isn't even there. (both Ash and Goh are there in posters) Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe travelled with Ash and has appeared in almost every episode of Pokemon Journeys.
The posters do not say "Chloe is a supporting character". I see posters without Ash, is Ash not the protagonist? Master106 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe temporarily travelled with Ash, they are many temporarily travelling companion of Ash and there are only 16 episodes which is focused on Chloe. And which posters are without Ash? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more episodes that have Chloe in it. Tracey Sketchit had 14 episodes mainly focusing on him; 5 of which are special episodes. Master106 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracey is the protagonist of Orange Islands arc, he appeared in the all episodes of Season 2 unlike Chloe who rarely appeared in Journeys. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rarely? She shows up in almost every episode of Journeys.
I think we should come up with a resolution for this. Are you fine with me renaming the section "Companions" and moving Chloe up? Master106 (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe physically appeared in less than half of the episodes in Journeys (53/136, which is roughly 39%). That's definitely not "almost every episode" and She was never referred to as a protagonist on the official website or in any other official material, therefore, she is not a protagonist. Also I don't agree with renaming the section to Companions. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was never referred to as a supporting character on the official website or in any other official material, therefore, she is not a supporting character. Since you do not agree with renaming it "Companions", I think we need to resolve this dispute. I'll contact 3O. Master106 (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, no one has provided any reliable sources on the matter. (Bulbapedia and Dexerto are not even close to reliable sources.) Stop wasting both of your time with this bickering and find some reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Master106: @Sergecross73: I found some source that lists Ash and Goh as Journeys series Protagonist but not Chloe. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Until someone finds a source calling Chloe a protagonist in a similar manner, it should not be applied to her. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest should be applied to her for now? Because there isn't any sources stating she is a supporting character either. I'll try to find a source for anything. Master106 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say leave her in "Supporting characters" section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter anymore because I found an official source stating she is a protagonist along with her father, this is probably where Serebii got it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221205021550/https://www.pokemon.co.jp/tv_movie/anime/ Master106 (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what Sergecross73 says. Master106 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source only lists Ash and Goh as Protagonist under the heading "Introducing the main characters and Pokémon", not Chloe and her father. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down. It says Dr. Sakuragi and Koharu. Master106 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I scrolled down, It doesn't. It lists them under the heading "characters" not "Introducing the main characters and Pokémon". Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to introduce every Journeys character Chrysa and Ren among others would be on there. They are obviously meant to be listed as main characters. Master106 (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are alot of Supporting characters beside Chloe and her father such as Leon, Raihan, Quillon, Danika; they can't introduce everyone at once. Pinging @Sergecross73: If they wanna say anything about the source you provided. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where the source is saying Chloe is a protagonist. Please copy/paste the part you think verifies it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20221205021550/https://www.pokemon.co.jp/tv_movie/anime/
It says in the page they are introducing the main characters meaning protagonists, and it lists Koharu and Dr. Sakuragi as main characters. Master106 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section is labeled 主人公・ポケモンの紹介
It lists Satoshi, Gou, Dr. Sakuragi, and Koharu as protagonists. And then lists Team Rocket as the antagonists. Master106 (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't list them under "Introducing the main characters and Pokemon" section, they are three sections in first section they are introducing Ash and Goh under "Introducing the main characters and Pokemon" section, in second section they are introducing Chloe and her father under "Character" section and in third section they are introducing Team Rocket under "An evil organization that targets Satoshi and Pikachu" section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "character section" was clearly a mistake in the Javascript code, the coder forgot to take it out. They only listed those characters because they are the main characters. Master106 (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying anything to make your claims right, I provided two sources that only lists Ash and Goh as protagonist also the source you provided only lists Ash and Goh. I have wasted too much time in this discussion, If you can find any reliable source that lists Chloe as a protagonist then show us or leave her in Supporting characters section and end this discussion. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of things, those are my genuine thoughts. I do not think she is a supporting character so, I am not willing to leave her in the section I believe is wrong. Master106 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a huge stretch. You need a better source that states "protagonist" directly and literally. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the official website would be enough to prove, but I'll continue searching. Master106 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through reliable sources for several days to see if I could find something with direct confirmation of what she is. Most of them allude to her being a protagonist, but they do not explicitly say it. The only reliable source deemed by WikiProject Anime that says what she is is Behind The Voice Actors in which they say that she is a protagonist. https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Pokemon-Journeys-The-Series/characters/ Nothing says that she is a supporting character. I looked through pretty much everything. What should be done? Master106 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a reliable source it even lists Ash and Goh's all Pokémon as main characters. Also they listed Team Rocket trio in recurring characters section who has been appearing since episode 2 in the anime. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources Master106 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have assessed this, and I have determined the source I found is enough. The source is deemed reliable by the WikiProject's standards. So as the only reliable source I found that explicitly says what role Chloe is. I am adding Chloe back as a protagonist until something comes up that says otherwise. I think that is fair. Master106 (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one source you provided that says that Chloe is a protagonist (which I believe is non-reliable) and I provided two sources that doesn't list her as a protagonist, so don't add her back in protagonist section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is reliable according to Wikiproject Anime and Manga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources Master106 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You sources do not say she is a supporting character. I actually provided a source that lists her as a protagonist. So far there was no source I have seen that listed her as a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources I provided are only introducing main characters (so it's obvious that she isn't main character). Ajeeb Prani (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the sources provided by you fits with your narrative, none of the reliable sources you provided says she is not a main character. What you were doing is Original Research. Master106 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also didn't provide any source from official website I'm pinging @Sergecross73: let's see what they have to say. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need positive confirmations here - sources needs to be stated outright. The absence of sources mentioning something is not helpful in trying to positively confirm something. That's falling into original research again. Sergecross73 msg me 11:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you say about this source @Sergecross73?: https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/tv-shows/Pokemon-Journeys-The-Series/characters/
It puts Chloe into the main characters section and is a reliable source according to WikiProject Anime and Manga. Master106 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say protagonist, it says main characters. It's also lists 19 characters. If you think something has 19 protagonists, you need to rethink your understanding of the word's definition. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia's definition of a protagonist, it is a main character of a story or subplot that affects the plot. Chloe is the protagonist of her sub plot. The source only list 3 main human characters, it also lists all of the Pokemon in their parties. A main character is a protagonist. Master106 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two terms are similar, but not interchangeable. The protagonist is generally the leading "character". Note singular, not plural, in definitions at Merriam Webster Dictionary or Dictionary.com. Beyond that, this discussion should not be so long and difficult. If Chloe was truly/commonly considered a protagonist, it should not be this hard to prove it. A five second Google search should have been able to confirm this for you with a very direct "(character) is the protagonist of (video game)". Please stop wasting time on this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hard that is the thing. Many articles say that she is a protagonist. But I need specific sources that are reliable according to you and the WikiProject which is far few. Many reliable articles imply she is a protagonist, but you want a direct affirmation that specifically says "protagonist". I'm sure if I tried this with the rest of the characters in the protagonists section, about half of them would be the same way. Chloe is not a supporting character. She is not in the accurate spot on the list to begin with.
On further research, the rest of the language versions of the articles names the section simply "Main Characters". That is what a lot more reliable articles puts Chloe in actually. The section was actually originally named "Main Characters". Chloe was in the section since the start, even after it was renamed, until Ajeeb Prani moved her into the "Supporting Characters" section. She was moving back and forth between both sections ever since, and by that I mean Prani was moving her back to the "Supporting Characters" section whenever someone moved her.
By that, I suggest the section should be renamed back into "Main Characters" and have Chloe moved back into that section. Master106 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanna change the section name then you will have to move up Jessie, James and Meowth in "Main characters" sections cause they have appeared in almost every episodes ever since their debut (episode 2). But Chloe is neither a protagonist nor a main character so just stop wasting your and our time. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is a main character, there are reliable sources that says that including the one I linked. I'll do that. Master106 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that source doesn't list Jessie, James and Meowth as main character which means it's non-reliable source, please don't move her up again unless you provide a reliable source and I or Sergecross73 agree to move her up. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just said they should be moved up. Jessie, James, Wobbuffet, and Meowth are not main characters in Journeys, but they are in other Pokemon series, so I agreed with you. The source says Chloe is a main character of Journeys. The source is reliable according to the WikiProject. Master106 (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what I said, I didn't say to move them up I was just suggesting because you wanted to re-name the section, I actually moved once but it was looking weird so I reverted. Also Jessie, James, Wobbuffet, and Meowth are main characters in Journeys series too that's why I can't trust the source you provided. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Jessie, James, Wobbuffet, and Meowth are just reoccurring characters in Journeys. They don't play an active role in Journey's plot; unlike previous series. I presume that is why they aren't listed as main characters. But them being in the antagonists section is fine as well since they are antagonists. Chloe does not fit anywhere unless the "Protagonists" section is renamed back to "Main Characters". So I think it is necessary to rename that section back and to move Chloe back into that section. That is not to say she is not a protagonist, as I believe she is, but to not complicate things, I think it is necessary. Master106 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73 How do you feel about changing the name of the section back to "Main Characters" and moving Chloe back up? Since she does not fit anywhere else. Master106 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, She is fine in Supporting characters section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is NOT a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only you believe that. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think I am the only one. So far you have not provided any and I have not found any reliable sources that state that. Master106 (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia. Every addition or change you make needs to be supported by reliable sources. There's no way around that, if you're going to edit, you'll need to abide by that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just found another reliable source that labels Chloe a main character. https://screenrant.com/pokemon-main-character-names-explained/#chloe-cerise-koharu-sakuragi Master106 (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reliable source, none of the source you provided is reliable. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Behind The Voice Actors and Screen Rant are considered reliable sources according to this Wikipedia Page's WikiProject. Master106 (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant is a fan wiki. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP, Screenrant is considered "marginally reliable". Its barely usable, and it's advised to not be used for contentious things. So...not ideal in a situations where it's hard to find a source for something.
Per WP:VG/S, BTVA is considered "inconclusive". So again, you've got two exceedingly weak sources being used here. Not great or persuasive for hinging your entire argument upon. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about them? Are they reliable source? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Definitely Oricon, they're a major publication, one of the biggest Japanese authorities on music. Corocoro I've heard of and it's likely they're reliable. PRTimes I've never heard of, so hard to say. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use sources from Wikiproject Video Games? I might find more sources there. Wikiproject Anime and Manga has very few sources that pertains to anime. Master106 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be less concerned about where she's placed and more concerned about what her entry says. Nothing in her current entry indicates any really importance or prominence in the shows. The whole article is in terrible shape. You cant's see the forest for the trees. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, the article clearly establishes that all the 10 characters are main characters. That is 2 reliable sources that I pasted here that claim she is a main character. Master106 (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that you dont have your priorities straight. You're so worried about whether she's main/protagonist that you don't seem to be bothered that her entry is poorly written. It's very short, vague, and unsourced. And beyond that, much of the entire article suffers from similar problems. Yet you're stuck wasting all your time arguing about a trivial detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want her in the wrong section on this Wikipedia page. I find putting things in the accurate sections on pages important to Wikipedia. Master106 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't in wrong section cause she isn't a protagonist/main character. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She is not a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided two reliable sources that doesn't list her as a protagonist/main character but you couldn't provide any reliable source. If Chloe was really a protagonist/main character then it would not be this hard to prove it. So just stop wasting everyone's time about arguing it. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have established already that what you were doing was Original Research. I provided 3 reliable sources that stated she was a main character and 1 of them is in the green now. The only reason it was hard for me was that I was looking through the same sources over and over, I wasn't aware that I could expand my options. So far you have found no reliable sources that supports your side at all, that is 0. But 1 of the reliable sources that I have put here is in the green now so, it does not matter. Master106 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read what Sergecross73 said? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did YOU not read what Sergecross73 said? Master106 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were telling to both of us. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this source work? Famitsu is a green reliable source so it works right? This page says Koharu is one of the main characters. https://www.famitsu.com/news/202001/24191024.html Master106 (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article title is Original goods such as W main characters Satoshi & Go, Pikachu, and Hibanny from the TV anime "Pokemon" are now available at Village Vanguard!, this source isn't listing Chloe/Koharu as a protagonist/main character either. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the article and not just the title... Master106 (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Famitsu article good @Sergecross73? It states that Koharu is one of the main characters. https://www.famitsu.com/news/202001/24191024.html Master106 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think @Sergecross73? Master106 (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop edit-warring, none of the source you provided are reliable, just leave her where she is. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, accidentally edit warred. Let's pretend you did not do it too.
This source is reliable: https://www.famitsu.com/news/202001/24191024.html
It lists Koharu as a main character. Look at this page, the source is colored green. That means it is most reliable. Do you understand?
If not I'll contact the noticeboard. Master106 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source doesn't look reliable to me and Sergecross73 already confirmed that the sources I provided are reliable so please just leave her where she is. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is Original goods such as the double main characters of the TV anime "Pokémon" - Satoshi & Go, Pikachu, Hibunny, etc. are now available at Village Vanguard! but under the article it says From the latest work of the popular anime "Pokémon", the double main characters "Satoshi", "Go", "Koharu", "Pikachu", "Hibunny", and "Wanpachi" are now original goods of Village Vanguard., the article itself is not sure about Chloe that either she is main character or not. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources does not say what her role is.
The title says "such as the two main characters" while within the article it says "the main characters", it is clear that the article considers Koharu a main character. The title makes sure to say that it is listing a few of the main characters. While the body makes sure to say that it is all the main characters that it is listing. Master106 (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided says double main character in both title and inside the article meaning it is referring to Ash and Goh only and the source I provided doesn't list Chloe as a protagonist meaning she isn't a protagonist. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again we have established multiple times that you are doing Original Research with your sources. Just because they didn't say she was a main character does not mean it is saying that she is not one. Master106 (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you know what double main character means? Sergecross73 were telling to both of us that we are doing original research because our sources were non-reliable before also the reliable source you provided says "double main characters" not just mine and you need to read Wikipedia:OR this article says Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists., the sources I provided are reliable meaning they are not original research. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latest source you provided is reliable but it says double protagonist (as I mentioned above) also the reliable sources I provided says The new series of anime “Pokémon” has double main characters: 10-year-old boys Satoshi and Gou go on an adventure journey and Satoshi & Gou's double protagonists explore the world! The key visual for the new series of anime “Pokémon” has been released!! meaning only Ash and Goh are protagonist/main character of Journeys series, so please leave Chloe in recurring characters section and I don't want any more discussion in this topic. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm glad you agree the source listing Chloe as a main character is reliable. Now, can you put her in the "Main Characters" section now? Please. So we can end this. Master106 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do that because the sources doesn't say so. One more thing if you wanna get permanently block again then go ahead and move her up again when your current block expires. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that she is a main character. Master106 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging @ValenciaThunderbolt: and @DecafPotato: since you guys edit Pokémon related articles, what do you guys think Chloe should be listed at "Protagonist" section or "Recurring characters" section, they are reliable sources that only introduces Ash and Goh as double main characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Japanese fluently, so I can't really evaluate the sources on my own other than Google Translate, but I will say that from my own perception of Journeys (as someone who hasn't really watched it), the character isn't a "main character" like Ash and Goh, but is a "protagonist" in the sense of the other characters included in the section (like Sophocles in Sun & Moon). DecafPotato (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you believe that Chloe isn't a main character then you shouldn't call her a protagonist cause according to Wikipedia's protagonist definition A protagonist is the main character of a story. moreover I think comparing Chloe to Sophocles is unfair to him because Ash wasn't traveling in Sun & Moon series he only travelled to other islands of alola region. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely say that she is a recurring character, as she has only been on a handful of excursions with them. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think maybe it would be best if she were moved to the protagonists section. Master106 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reliable article in the green that says Chloe is a protagonist. It says she became a protagonist in Master Journeys which lines up with my thoughts. What do you think @Ajeeb Prani:? https://www.hobbyconsolas.com/noticias/anime-pokemon-habria-confirmado-nueva-evolucion-eevee-1028815 Master106 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Master106: I haven't looked into the latest source you provided because you're keep coming with new sources besides If Chloe was really a protagonist/main character then it wouldn't take this long to prove it. Moreover till now you have only provided one reliable source which is from famitsu but this source is in my favour because the source says Original goods such as the double main characters of the TV anime "Pokémon" - Satoshi & Go, Pikachu, Hibunny, etc. are now available at Village Vanguard! and From the latest work of the popular anime "Pocket Monsters", the double main characters "Satoshi", "Go", "Koharu", "Pikachu", "Hibunny", and "Wanpachi" have become original goods of Village Vanguard. also the sources I provided says Satoshi & Gou's double protagonists explore the world! The key visual for the new series of anime “Pokémon” has been released!!, Surprisingly, it has been announced that this time's Anipoke will be a double protagonist consisting of Satoshi and the new character Gou!! Let's introduce the two protagonists right away! and The new series of anime “Pokémon” has double main characters: 10-year-old boys Satoshi and Gou go on an adventure journey, all the reliable sources have listed Ash and Goh as double protagonist/main character and you have been saying two things about my source You sources do not say she is a supporting character. and Again we have established multiple times that you are doing Original Research with your sources. Just because they didn't say she was a main character does not mean it is saying that she is not one. so let me tell you per WP:OR my sources are not original research in fact what you are doing is original research and my source doesn't say what Chloe character is but it does say "double protagonist" or "double main characters", so just leave her in recurring characters section. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is completely wrong. I keep coming up with sources and you keep rejecting them, I have already long proven my claim. While you have never proved your claim. You keep holding onto your Original Research claims. The latest source specifically claims Chloe is a protagonist. The Famitsu article lists Chloe as a main character so, it supports the idea that she is a main character, not a supporting character. None of the sources you provided says that she is anything. Interpreting articles in a way that favors you without the article explicitly saying what you have interpreted IS Original Research. I am not doing Original Research because I am going off of what the articles actually say. She does not belong in the recurring characters section, she belongs in the protagonists section because my latest source claims that she is a protagonist. It is very clear that she should be in that section, but you would not let that go.
Also the messages I sent to you on the talk page wasn't pestering, I was following the Wikipedia rules on what to do when someone does not respond.Master106 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't refactor the meaning of "Original research" to justify your claim and read WP:OR what you are doing is original research because your sources are non-reliable ([1][2][3][4][5]) and I'm saying it again that famitsu lists Ash and Goh as double main characters (same as the sources I provided) which means Chloe is not a main character and I don't want any more discussion on this topic. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajeeb Prani Nothing what I am doing is Original Research. What you were doing actually was. The Famitsu article literally lists Chloe as a main character.
Also you still have not said anything about my latest reliable source, which states outright that Chloe is a protagonist: https://www.hobbyconsolas.com/noticias/anime-pokemon-habria-confirmado-nueva-evolucion-eevee-1028815
Again, it is very clear that she should be in the protagonists section. Now I ask again, do you agree that she should be moved to that section? Master106 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that she should be moved to protagonists section and never will per my comments above so stop wasting your time and energy here. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not agree even after I provided clear evidence, then maybe I should ask the other editors then. Master106 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? You shouldn't count non-reliable sources and original research. I have another reliable source from PR Times that simply lists Chloe and her father as new characters and Ash and Goh as double main characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your source does not say she is a supporting character. Also this source is from Journeys. From my latest source, it states she became a protagonist in Master Journeys. Master106 (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source is from Japanese company and in Japanese version Pocket Monsters (2019) isn't divided into multiple seasons (Journeys, Master Journeys, Ultimate Journeys). Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ValenciaThunderbolt: and @DecafPotato:, I found a source that directly states Chloe is a protagonist: https://www.hobbyconsolas.com/noticias/anime-pokemon-habria-confirmado-nueva-evolucion-eevee-1028815
Do you agree she should be moved to the protagonist section? What do you think? Master106 (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They already disagreed with you.[6][7] Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation they agreed with me. But, something new popped up since then, I found a new source and I want the go ahead and make the edit. So this is a different response entirely. I also want their opinions because you clearly are ignoring a reliable source that clearly goes against your argument and would not back your defiance with evidence. You know, if you provided to me a source that stated she was a supporting character, I would have agreed with you. But you did not, and in my search for sources I found many articles that supports my claims and 0 articles that supports yours. So I think it is best for her to be moved into the section where she rightfully belongs, the Protagonists section. Master106 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying anything they completely disagreed with you, even Sergecross73 disagreed with you whom you contacted through Wikipedia:Third opinion and they rejected your first four sources and I don't wanna discuss on this topic anymore cause you're a time sink editor. Also I already proved my claim all the reliable sources lists Ash and Goh as double main characters/protagonist, you are clearly ignoring the word "double", If Chloe was a protagonist then the reliable sources would have listed them as "triple protagonist" or simply "protagonist" without using the word "double". Ajeeb Prani (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you said You know, if you provided to me a source that stated she was a supporting character, I would have agreed with you., I searched for it and found a source that says Chloe (Japanese: コハル Koharu) is a major supporting character who appeared in Pokémon Journeys: The Series., now let's put end to this conversation because there's no point of discussing it any further. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't, they disagreed with you and Sergecross73 was neutral in the conversation. So no, Sergecross73 did not disagree with me. Also you can't claim I'm a "time sink editor" when you ignored my reliable source in the green that completely goes against your side.
Also is this source that you provided a reliable source in the green? Can you provide me a list to confirm. I won't accept just any source since my source claiming she is a protagonist is a reliable source in the green.
I'm going to contact Editor Assistance. We'll see what they say about this. Master106 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it again ValenciaThunderbolt and Sergecross73 disagreed with you, I have already provided you links and you're saying anything that's why you are a time sink editor and don't expect any more reply from me here because this is last reply. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajeeb Prani Look, I think we need to come up with some kind of consensus that fits both sides of the argument. I was thinking of changing the page to just have 3 sections "Companions", "Antagonists", and "Other Characters". Companions would list Ash, Misty, Brock, Tracey, May, Max, Dawn, Iris, Cilan, Serena, Clemont, Bonnie, Lana, Kiawe, Lillie, Sophocles, Mallow, Rotom Pokédex, Goh, Chloe, Liko and Roy. I think that is a good compromise. Do you agree? If not then we'll have to come up with something else. Master106 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree with this cause Chloe is a temporarily travelling companion (same as Todd Snap, Cheryl, N, Alexa, Sawyer etc). All the characters are fine how they are listed currently and I won't change my decision ever so just stop caring where she is listed (that's what Sergecross73 and Xavexgoem told you). Ajeeb Prani🦜✍🏻 08:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that she is temporary since she was a companion throughout 3 seasons of the anime. Can you propose a consensus now and cooperate with me? Master106 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "propose a consensus"? What are you wanting Ajeeb to provide, here? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus. I read your response on your page and thought this would be the best course of action going forward. Ajeeb is probably going to continue to avoid my sources no matter what despite how reliable they are. I figured we maybe could come to an agreement. I believe Chloe should be moved up with the rest of the main characters like she should be. I want to know what Ajeeb is okay with. Master106 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comfortable with the idea that you may never come to an agreement, and that there is no solution? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd be more comfortable if there is an agreement and Chloe is moved up with the rest of the main characters; where she should be. Master106 (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the consensus you seek is that he agrees with you, and you want him to make that proposal? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want some kind of consensus. It does not matter who purposes it. As I've said, I want Chloe to be moved back up with the rest of the main characters, where she belongs. As long as we have a consensus that fills that criteria, I'd be more comfortable. Master106 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the consensus you seek is that he agrees with you? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus I seek is something we can agree on together. Master106 (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 136 episodes Chloe has travelled with Ash and Goh in 28 episodes which is 20% so she definitely is a temporary traveling companion. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28 episodes is a lot of episodes to be considered temporary. That is even more episodes than Tracey Sketchit. Master106 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracey has travelled with Ash and Misty in 33 episodes which is more than Chloe and 92% of Orange archipelago arc/season 2 and Tracey was a protagonist only in season 2. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 02:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chloe still was in a considerable amount of episodes and was featured in 3 seasons. Master106 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Members of Rising Volt Tacklers have appeared and travelled with Liko and Roy in all 27 episodes of Pokémon Horizons (same amount of episodes as Chloe) and they will keep appearing in the series, so what do you think are they protagonist too? Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 09:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they are. Can we just come up with a consensus that we can agree on? Master106 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, both Pocket Monsters (2019) and Pocket Monsters (2023) has double protagonist, 2019 has Ash and Goh & 2023 has Liko and Roy. Also as I have already said that I'll never agree with moving Chloe in protagonist section because she isn't a protagonist so it's better for us that you end your argument here. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 09:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to my sources, Chloe is indeed a protagonist. Master106 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two more sources that lists Chloe/Koharu as a supporting character and I also found one more reliable sources that list Ash and Goh as dual protagonist of Pocket Monsters (2019). I hope you will agree with me now. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First 2 sources are unreliable. Third one does not even say she is a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the third source says that Pocket Monsters (2019)/Pokémon Journeys series has only dual/double main characters/protagonist (that's what all other reliable sources say) and you are keep ignoring this. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say Chloe is a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it again, but it does say that Pocket Monsters (2019) has only double protagonist/main character which means Chloe is not a protagonist also I have provided three sources that says Chloe is a supporting character. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 03:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Ash and Goh are protagonists does not mean Chloe is not one. I have not seen a single reliable source from you that says Chloe as a supporting character. Master106 (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Chloe was a protagonist then the sources wouldn't have used the word "double protagonist". Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 08:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering Chloe is a protagonist according to other sources I have provided, it would have and it did. Master106 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are non-reliable and original research. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 09:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually checked. The sources I provided are highlighted green as most reliable according to Wikipedia. My sources also actually directly says the things that I am saying. Master106 (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a response of my talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Someonewhoisusinginternet, how about I edit the page so that the characters are sorted by just their debut generation instead? Will you be fine with that? I noticed some other anime character list articles are listed like that, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. Master106 (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Someonewhoisusinginternet, is it okay if I edit the page so that the characters are sorted by the series they debuted in instead? Master106 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea but I can't agree with this because many characters have appeared in different series/generation than their debut series such as Ash, Team Rocket trio, Ash's travelling companion etc. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I had a lot on my plate in the past week.
@Someonewhoisusinginternet, how about I specify that they debuted in the series? So section titles like "Debuted in the Original Series" and "Debuted in the Diamond and Pearl Series". Master106 (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you wanna replace the section titles from "Protagonists", "Rivals", "Gym Leaders" etc to "Debuted in the Original Series", "Debuted in the Diamond and Pearl Series" etc? Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Master106 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No cause it'll just create confusion. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it will. Master106 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is so confusing about having characters grouped in by their debut series? Master106 (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current listing lists characters by their role in series so I think it'll be confusing. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting to change it, so that it lists the characters by their debut series instead of by their role in the series. Master106 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Master106 You need to stop reverting or you'll find yourself blocked. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reverting my edit that we agreed on? Master106 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said it shouldn't be named "Original Series" so I changed it to "the first series". What else is the problem? I want to make this massive edit so, please provide me with ways you think the edit should be improved. Master106 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did I agree with you? Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago. Please provide me with ways you think the edit should be improved. Master106 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are thinking that I've agreed with you, I clearly disagreed with you however the problem with your edit is you mixed Japanese and English names of the series. You used "Advanced Generation" which is Japanese name of the second series & "Journeys" and "Horizons" which are English name of seventh and eighth series respectively. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for the English title. It is apparently called "Ruby and Sapphire". Would you prefer I edit it so it says "Ruby and Sapphire" instead of "Advanced Generation"? I do not think the other series had the Japanese names. Master106 (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC) I think you should ask other editors about making this big change too. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Master106 What about Gym Leaders, Antagonists and other sections; are you not gonna move them in series-wise section? Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all organizations. So, I feel it would fit better for them to be separate to the series sections. The Japanese article does the same thing. Master106 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could make the same change but move the organizations into the sections as subsections. So Rising Volt Tacklers in Horizons, Team Galactic in Diamond & Pearl, Hoenn Gym Leaders in Ruby & Sapphire, etc. Master106 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with that though, some members of certain organizations did not debut in their organizations respective series. Master106 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I narrowed it down to just antagonists as separate. Master106 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the current listing looks terrible actually I agreed with you to see how it will look like so I'm going to revert it so I request you to don't revert it back. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look terrible. We need a consensus. This is a consensus. I will revert it back. And I suggest to edit it in a way you like instead of re-reverting it. Master106 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Master106 It will be counted as edit warring if you do so. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it won't. Stop being difficult. Master106 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section simply labelled Pokémon Trainers? Take all the trainers from the other sections as well and put them in that section. Master106 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Four Section[edit]

I think for the Elite Four section, they should be separated by regions like Sinnoh and Kalos. Because if one of the Elite Fours from the previous region appeared in Horizons, for example Glacia, Phoebe, Sidney of Hoenn Elite Four (all of which failed to debut in the Generation III anime), they should be catalogued under each region. I know you won't like it, but this is a suggestion I had in mind. 2604:3D09:992:4200:E0BC:94EC:DF8D:54FE (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary because in some region only one member of Elite Four has appeared in anime so a section for a single character doesn't look good. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay then. It is a shame that Kanto (Lance was Elite Four before becoming Champion), Sinnoh and Kalos had all four members of the Elite Four in their respective regions were shown in the anime. But I do think that if the other Elite Four members appear later on in the anime (Glacia, Phoebe, Sidney, Marshal, Grimsley and Shauntal), then I think they should be separated by regions. However, I do understand your reason. 2604:3D09:992:4200:E0BC:94EC:DF8D:54FE (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Horizons updates[edit]

Just found out that the Explorers dub names: Coral is the dub name for Sango, Sidian is the dub name for Onyx, Chalce is the dub name for Agate

Ludlow has a Sharpedo as another one of his Pokemon alongside Quagsire and he does have a superhero alter ego Mighty G, as well as Dot owning a Tinkatink alongside Quaxly. Don't worry they are not complete expositions just some quick additional notes.

Quick notes on writing sentences on Wikipedia[edit]

Make sure when writing sentences, do not leave sentence fragments. 2604:3D09:992:4200:D11D:A128:B34C:C95D (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pokemon Leagues" are proper nouns and that includes mentioning regions (e.g., Johto League). If the word "league" appears on its own, then you can use lower case. 2604:3D09:992:4200:3840:5499:4D11:4A40 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also had to mention that Solar Beam is a Grass-type move as to avoid confusion. Also, if there are more than one voice actor in either English or Japanese, separate with either commas or semi-colons. I had to put in a comma between two of Wobbuffet's English voice actresses. 2604:3D09:992:4200:D99A:F3FD:6FF4:ED09 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also when mentioning characters, try and mention their backstories and what their roles were like in their debut and some of the later episodes. I know you can't really summarize as Bulbapedia does all the work but at least provide an overview of their origins as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:992:4200:4879:6BE6:BDBD:6F8F (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]