Talk:Fake Pokémon

Active discussions

0: Someone should add a bit on here about the fake Shaymin Sky Form, that counts as a fake Pokémon Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That Shaymin Sky Form fooled everybody. PK's too good of an artist. BlueJirachi 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed |: I wish i could draw like that! Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard. The only thing that stops me from doing that is the color. To tell the truth, I'm a good drawer but a horrible colorer.Taviource 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh! and I don't like tricking people like that...Shaymin Sky.png...Shaymin says ROAR!!!--Taviource 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I suck at drawing, but i'm a good colored 0: We're like opposites! Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 16:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I actually looked up "Enpandought" and the only page I got was this page (Bulbapedia's Fake Pokémon) where did y'all get that Pokémon? User:Psuamkpukrian 10:00, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Same thing happened here. Being an expert on fake Pokémon and the Pokégods, can't say that I've ever seen this "Enpandought" mentioned at any time at any place. Redstar 09:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The actual Pokemon name appears to be "Enpanda". It is a fake Pokemon that is on Serebii's fake Pokemon page. -Sketch 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I've just fixed this. Salvidrim! (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


I think this should be at "Fakémon", as that is what these things are commonly known as. Anyone else? Alpha CuboneKing 16:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This name is better since not everyone uses "Fakémon" as a term (and Fake Pokémon is quite easily understandable). Fakémon is a redirect here, I think that's enough. UltimateSephiroth (about me · chat · edits) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


We need to define what a "fake" Pokémon is. Some of the examples on here would be more appropriately placed on the PokéGods article. There's a clear difference between fake Pokémon (created with no intention of being viewed as real) and the PokéGods (believed to be real by many). Redstar 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yoshi & Luigi

Why are the fake Pokémon Yoshi and Luigi not allowed on this article? Redstar 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they aren't fake Pokemon. This article is for LITERAL fake Pokemon. Not jokes of Nintendo characters being Pokemon. -Sketch 01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How can a fake Pokémon be non-literal? By definition, an April Fool's day joke is a joke. By your logic, we shouldn't include any of the other April Fool's day fake Pokémon. In fact, none of the Pokémon on this page should be here under your logic because they're all fake. The fact of the matter is that both Yoshi and Luigi were presented as Pokémon for April Fool's days jokes, and Yoshi was even given a Pokédex entry by the magazine that perpetrated the hoax. There's no more ways for a fake Pokémon to be "literal". Redstar 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
i actually do recall many magazines tricking fans into thinking Yoshi was in Red and Blue. not so much Luigi. -- MAGNEDETH 02:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Expert Gamer magazine was the original source for Yoshi code, which was then re-printed and presented as real in other magazines later on. I have that particular issue coming in the mail for reference purposes, so I could provide the information here if needed. The Luigi trick supposedly originated in Nintendo Power, but I don't recall seeing that so I'm researching the origin of that one to be sure. Redstar 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If we can verify that completely, sure... but only if they're mentioned as "non-Pokémon fake Pokémon". TTEchidna 02:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed perfectly. I'll get sources when I can. Redstar 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert Gamer issue #58. Redstar 14:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The article currently lists information that is incorrect or inappropriate for this article's subject. "Assumptions of real Pokémon", key-word "real", indicates that they are not fake. "Previously false assumptions" is also incorrect because not a single one of those assumed Pokémon had any fake artwork for them, with the exception of Leafeon.

This article is about FAKE Pokémon, not word-of-mouth mentions of something that may exist, but was never in any way presented as real. Even the recommended Nidogod and Nidogoddess turn up nothing on a Google search; the former a single result on a Spanish forum for fusions, and the latter nothing at all. Redstar 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on Nidogod/Nidogoddess, I've never ever heard of those before (ditto for the Teddiursa one). An article like this should only present the really really well known stuff, like Mewthree and the stupid Pikablu thing. --ZestyCactus 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've actually been informed that "Nidogoddess" turns up more when searching for "Nidogodess" (one d). However, both should be relegated only to the PokéGods page, since they don't necessarily fit the profile of a "fake" Pokémon. I feel we should only cover Pokémon on here that were intended to hoax or mislead people, as if we didn't, we'd be obligated to cover fan sprites and designs, of which there are hundreds. There's a clear difference between intent and "everyone knows they're fake".
As for your comment on Pikablu: several official sources identified Marill as "Pikablu", so it wasn't necessarily "stupid". Redstar 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I know the Pikablu thing was acknowledged by Nintendo, I have some Pikachu's Vacation cards that call it "Pikablu". I just think it's "stupid" because I personally believe they tried to make Marill the "next" Pikachu and that's why they planted the Pikablu thing. :P (and when that didn't work, they invented Pichu. That's just my theory though ^^)
Oh, and I agree with moving the Nidogod(dess) stuff et al to the PokéGods page. This article should be about hoaxes and widespread rumours, not fanon. --ZestyCactus 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't say one way or the other, but it does seem likely that Nintendo intended to market Marill as the "next" Pikachu. Funny how nothing beat the original, huh? They haven't even tried again, except maybe with Lucario.
You can move Nidogod(dess) yourself, or discuss it, but I'm no longer allowed to touch the PokéGods article. Redstar 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Fake or glitch or what? Um... - unsigned comment from Mimi-chan (talkcontribs)

  1. New comments go at the bottom of the page.
  2. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
  3. Take note of that person's Youtube username: RedVersionHackS. Pretty clear that it's a made-up Pokemon hacked into the game, and if we listed all of those we'd have to list each and every monstrosity found in Corna. D8 梅子 15:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Are these two fake Pokémon notable?

Kinda interesting that this article exists... but I'm surprised to see that two certain fake Pokémon that I expected aren't in this article. These fake Pokémon are from the fake games Pokémon Diamond and Jade, which are crappy bootleg hacks of the (decent) Japanese-only game Keitai Denjuu Telefang, from a different series. The two fake Pokémon can be found in the photos of the boxes and cartridges here after scrolling down past the numerous screenshots. One of them is a blue poorly drawn snake thing, and another one is a weird looking deer. Both of them are fake Pokémon, since they don't appear in the game at all; they were created just for the fake cartridges and boxes.

And since these bootlegs were somewhat well known back when they were first around, the fake Pokémon are too (keep in mind, only these two creatures, the snake and deer, are fake Pokémon -- anything in the actual game isn't even a Pokémon at all and was never meant to be one, since the game wasn't originally a Pokémon game), and they're often one of the first things that people think of when talking about these bootleg games. So, are the notable? I know some people will disagree with me, and it's not a big deal, but I know I'm not the only one who has seen these before. --Blaziken257 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless they were ever believed to be real Pokémon, then they are not notable. --SnorlaxMonster 11:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So this is the criteria? Then I can propose Sadfish, it was seen on fake scans with other real (well, mostly) fifth generation pokemon, thus was believed to be real.
Also Tentaquil, this one is kinda popular. --ЫъГЬ 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not the only criteria... I think Tentaquil does deserves a mention, and ギルジャ Giruja could as well. --SnorlaxMonster 03:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mewthree catching metod

Where is the information from? (The metod with rock smash etc.) I navigate from internet and Bulbapedia is the only site who posted his metod. --Caciulacdlac

It's not a real method, because it is a fake Pokémon. Chances are, the website it was originally on has been taken down. --SnorlaxMonster 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Not likely. I've also looked into that method and there's no variation similar to it in relation to Mewthree (which only had one code throughout the phenomenon). I don't believe there was ever a code involving "smashing rocks" either. Slowpokeisgod 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


"Shellbro" notable? SuiScorpio 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in a new section, along with the weirdly named baby Kangaskhan. However, I would not use those names in the proposed section. --SnorlaxMonster 10:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would remove that fan sprite of it, and maybe put an image of Slowbro to show it. --SnorlaxMonster 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


I was wondering,,,,,Could you make Fake Pokemon in their Userspace...................Clinton_Jai 15:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are permitted to create Fake Pokémon in your userspace, as long as you follow the userspace policy, and ensure they are not in the same categories as Pokémon articles. --SnorlaxMonster 16:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


In the internet I've found a speech about Arceus and Mewthree in the games (I know Mewthree is a fake pokemon so far) Here what the speech of a user said: (translated from spanish to english):

"At first, some fans decided to create the third pokemon mew, since there was a second Mew (Mewtwo) which was a clone of Mew, so fans wanted another clone, Mewthree. When Gamefreak wanted to create the series Diamond / Pearl, they wanted to include it (Mewthree) among the new pokemons but decided instead to make Mewthree, they create Arceus, the God who created the world of pokemon and all. Later on, they wanted put it in the Platinum, but the idea was rejected, which I don't know. Some fans on 3 occasions with the Pokesav,PokEdit, and other game manipulation programs decided to create Mewthree on a game, in order to be real and they also managed to include it in the pokedex with the number 494 and give a pokemon 100% real but they had a problem that was never solved and cause of that, Mewthree couldn't move on to other games and so this pokemon never existed. This legend I've putted at different sites and this information is 99% real (not 100% because I forgot to put something"

Here's the original page (it's the 3rd post)

Does anyone know if what the person telling is REAL. If not, what do you think about it? --MsIsamisa 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like 100% speculations since as far as I know, GameFreak has never announced making a fake Pokemon into a real one. Just someone with a wild idea is all. Frozen Fennec 17:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
That is definitley speculation. Even by what that says, Arceus has nothing to do with Mewthree (there is no reason to even connect the two... why would Nintendo say "let's make Mewthree, but instead of him being another clone of Mew he'll be a completely separate Pokémon, and we'll make him some sort of creator god thing, and we'll change his name to Arceus, etc."? It's obvious that there's no link to the two... if Mewthree ever was considered (which I highly doubt) and Arceus was put in instread it's because that they didn't want to include too many legendaries and they thought Arceus was a better concept than Mewthree... not because there's some connection between the two.
Secondly, this makes no sense -- "they wanted put it in the Platinum"... they can't add Pokémon to a game within a generation (without cutting off the "trade / battle with other games within the generation" features somehow).
Thirdly, this -- "Some fans on 3 occasions with the Pokesav,PokEdit, and other game manipulation programs decided to create Mewthree on a game, in order to be real and they also managed to include it in the pokedex with the number 494 and give a pokemon 100% real but they had a problem that was never solved and cause of that, Mewthree couldn't move on to other games and so this pokemon never existed." It's talking about something some fan supposedly did, not anything official, so it isn't at all "real".
Lastly, if they were going to include a Mewthree but went against the idea simply because they preferred Arceus, wouldn't they have just used Mewthree in Generation V? Actually, I can answer that question. That person made the post in 2008 which was before Generation V came out. At the time it would have been possibly believeable, but now that Generation V has come out and no Mewthree we can tell that it was definitley speculation. Dannyjenn 03:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


First, why does Mewthree get its own section? Sure, it's one of the more well-known fake Pokémon... but so is Pikablu and many of the other Pokégods. The only difference is that Mewthree has appeared in hacked games.

Also, the quote "it was given an official mention in Mewtwo Strikes Back, where the scientists responsible for creating Mewtwo, commenting on the success of its creation, decided to start making Mewthree" is not true. Unless it was only in the Japanese version or in some foreign dub... but there was never any mention of a Mewthree in the American dub. If it was Japanese-only, some note should be made of that. Or was that statement from "The Birth of Mewtwo" (which was included with Mewtwo Returns, not Mewtwo Strikes Back)... I've never seen that so I suppose it could have been mentioned there, but if so, that needs to corrected (to say "The Birth of Mewtwo", not "Mewtwo Strikes Back"). Dannyjenn 15:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


As long as Yoshi is on here, I think Luigi should be mentioned as well. He also originated from an April Fools Day joke... I think the same year as the Yoshi (although for whatever reason, he's a lot less known than the Yoshi joke). It's rumoured that the joke was from Nintendo Power, although I've never seen it printed in there. However, I know that the joke was real... it was on Nintendo's website... along with a fake screenshot to go along with it. I even printed it out many years ago. Dannyjenn 15:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Not notable. Fans can make up anything. RubyLeafGreenCrystal (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Why is the page protected all of a sudden? Tag365 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

From the page history, it looks like someone mentioned the Spaceworld demo. They really like to protect any page that could possibly involve that, for some reason. --celadonk (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cell-phone Rotom

The link between the fake "cell-phone Rotom" and Rotom Phone should be included. JoeRunner (talk and stuff) 13:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Fake Pokémon" page.