User talk:Swil Phift
| Welcome to Bulbapedia, Swil Phift! | |
By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:
| |
Thank you, and have a good time editing here! GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Manectric
Please stop adding that Manectric may be based off a baboon, because Manectric is very clearly not an ape. If you're referring to its snout, that that's a very big stretch, considering other canids also have long snouts. Again, do not add it in, continue to do so falls under edit warring and is a blockable offense. Thank you.--ForceFire 05:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, it's not just the snout, but the stance and prominent head crest are reminiscent of multiple species of baboon. I believe these similarities are sufficient to justify claiming that Manectric may be, at least partially, based on a baboon. In addition, Lickilicky and especially Lickitung do indeed resemble giant salamanders, particularly in their facial structure. Swil Phift (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- There's also the jarring reality that Manectric is not simply an ape or monkey. "Stance" is a vague description and can apply to any other canines, not just baboons, and it's also nothing like a baboon's stance. The crest is also a stretch, having one thing in common is not enough to say that a Pokémon is based on something. Lickitung and Lickilicky are the same, having just one thing in common is not enough to say that they're based off giant salamanders.--ForceFire 04:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The issue here is that pretty much any Pokémon's basis is subjective; some have much more obvious inspirations than others. With Manectric and Lickitung, their designs are vague enough that multiple people can see a different basis. The "Origin" section is ultimately all personal opinion, that's why people put "may be," "resembles," or "is possibly" in their additions to it, because again, we don't know for sure what many Pokémon are and aren't supposed to be, it's up to one's individual opinion. Swil Phift (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, origin sections are mostly speculation, but at the same time, they should make sense. Having simply one thing in common with something is simply too weak of a connection. You could say that Manectric is based of a porcupine because of its spikes, it just does not make sense since everything else about it is clearly canine.--ForceFire 03:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, even what makes sense for a basis is entirely speculation. Manectric may very well have at least some features of a porcupine. While I find it to be unlikely, it's entirely subjective and may make sense to somebody else. Personally, I think Manectric looks like a Sphinx, but while you may not see it, others could. It stands to reason, then, that as many possible inspirations should be included, so that a Pokémon's design can be looked at from as many angles as possible, not just yours. And as a reply to your other concern, Gligar being based off of the Facehugger isn't a very big stretch. In addition to having the behavior of one, its Japanese name is literally just Giger with an "L" in it. Combine this with the fact that Giger's work enjoys significant popularity in Japan, and it seems likely that what we're looking at with Gligar is a reference, albeit one that was mangled in translation, but a reference nonetheless. And this I can draw back to my previous point: I personally see very little resemblance to a gargoyle or a Mecopteran in Gligar's design at all, in behavior or appearance. Again though, the connection is up to personal opinion, and many such connections are likely based off of singular shared features. I don't know why you seem to want to quash all of my suggestions, but I would appreciate it if you would allow me to submit my perspective on things. Swil Phift (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I used the porcupine example as why you shouldn't just take one aspect of a Pokemon and compare it to something else. "Spikes" is not something that is exclusive to porcupines, there are several other animals that have spikes on them. You're not going to say that the spikes could be from literally all animals with spikes on them.
- The Sphinx comparison can work simply because of Manectric's head crest and it being a four-legged creature. But it falls apart because the Sphinx is a feline creature, while Manectric is very clearly a canine. If you're going to use physical attributes, you can only go as far as what we are given, and that is a canine creature, so we compare it to whatever canines are out there. Not a monkey. You can't look at Manectric and say that it is a monkey, it's clearly not.
- Gligar's name matching Giger's is pure coincidence. Also, copyrighted works cannot be used as basis for origin (cause, you know, copyright laws), unless it is specified to be based off of it. Gligar's behavior of latching onto something isn't something that is exclusive to facehuggers, I'm sure that there are insects that latch onto things. Doesn't mean the Gligar is based of an insect.
- Gligar being "based" off a gargoyle makes sense in that it is a Ground type, has wings, and has bat like features. Three things to help solidify the Gargoyle's connection to the facehugger's measly one. You can't just base something off one thing, it's too weak. You can't say that because Gligar is purple, it may be based on things that are purple. Or that it has teeth, so it may be based on things that have teeth. It's too vague and too weak to use as a connection.
- Origin sections are indeed speculation and are from the perspective of many users, but they need to make sense. They need to have some solid evidence to make the claim. One thing in common is simply too weak. It's basically seeing things that aren't there. I don't revert all your edits, just the ones that too vague and are simply large stretches.--ForceFire 05:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that assessment is that a lot of Pokemon basises can be reduced to a single feature. And again, what is and isn't a "large stretch" is still ultimately opinion. And so yes, I could feasibly look at Manectric and say it's a monkey, because to me, and to others as well, it resembles one. And it's entirely possible for a Pokemon to be based off of a copyrighted character, especially in Japan where copyright laws are not as stringent. Just look at Tyranitar. Very obviously a Godzilla reference, by your (flawed) logic, the section of that article stating that Tyranitar may be based off of Godzilla should be erased. Furthermore, I have presented multiple similarities to facehuggers that Gligar possesses, not just one. The name, the behavior, and even its silhouette are all similar to a facehugger, and again, given to popularity of Giger's work in Japan and the other pop culture references in Japan, it seems unlikely to be entirely coincidental. And to claim that what I'm saying is somehow like saying that Gligar is "based off of things that are purple", is, frankly, absurd. That's a very vague statement that does nothing to determine a specific basis, but what I am doing is specifying a possible inspiration. Nor did I ever claim Gligar's behavior was unique to facehuggers, it's just their signature trait and would make sense if a creature inspired by one was also known to do so. Stop twisting my words.
I'm not sure where this whole "can't be based off of copyrighted characters" thing comes from. Is that a wiki rule? Because it seems doubtful that such an arbitrary restriction would exist, especially considering some Pokemon are indeed references to copyrighted characters. You're basically treating your opinion as law, and that's unfair. I'm not making ridiculous, nonsensical claims. I, like you, am using evidence to construct a possible basis for a character. Even if I am wrong, we will likely never know what many Pokemon are supposed to be based off of. Why not, then, include as many perspectives as we can? Obviously some claims are indeed far-fetched, but none of the claims I have made are super absurd. Even if it's a little bit of a stretch, that shouldn't make an opinion completely illegitimate. Swil Phift (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- If Manectric is a monkey, then Oranguru is a wolf and Pidgey is a bear. See where I'm getting at? We're not going to list an origin based on one aspect of a Pokémon, otherwise we'd have users adding "Because it has spikes, it could be based of this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this...". Sooner or later the origin section is going to turn into an essay, which is what we don't want, a wall of text.
- I'm 100% sure Toei goes pretty hard with its property. Tyranitar is a curious case, I'm not too sure what is even going on there.
- Gligar's (or Gliger) name just shares the -ger. Nothing else. You're not going to say Roger Rabbit could be Gligars inspiration because they both have "-ger" in their names. Silhouette... Gligar's shape looks nothing like a facehugger. Behavior is the only thing close a comparison, and it's not something exclusive to facehuggers, which mean it is just a coincidence.
- The "no copyright rule" is a rule exclusive to us, and it's an unwritten one. We have it because, while yes some Pokémon could be based of godzilla, ghidorah and whatnot, we can't really be sure unless it is stated. Copyright is a fickle thing that we'd rather not touch. As I said, origins are all speculation, but you cannot base it off one aspect of a Pokémon, otherwise we'd have users listing all things that have spikes or all things that have sharp teeth. There needs to be more than just one thing.--ForceFire 03:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
