Merge discussion
When I saw this page title, it struck me as a bit strange. It's much less a thing and more of a verbal phrase, so I think it's a bit awkward in practice. I was trying to find a good place for this information to go, and my first thought was Regional Pokédex, but I wasn't sure if there was a better place or not. Any thoughts? MaverickNate 07:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what you mean.
- Maybe we can also consider using a title like "Pokémon discovery" for this article. I used the title "First discovered" because it appeared to be the most common wording in official sources, but I can see this may not be the best option as an article title after all. I think this is basically how it's better to have an article named "Fainting" or "Confusion" instead of named "Fainted" or "Confused".
- I see how this is closely related to Regional Pokédex, but as we know it's also a bit different:
- Pikachu is in the Sinnoh Pokédex but was not first discovered in Sinnoh.
- Darkrai was first discovered in Sinnoh but is not in the Sinnoh Pokédex.
- --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sold on the title yet, but an article along the lines of "Pokémon discovery" or "Terminology of Pokémon discovery" could perhaps also cover the terminology of "newly discovered Pokémon", maybe? Landfish7 13:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of Regional Pokedex, what about a section on Regional form? The content here only exists as a consequence of regional forms, so I think that would be a reasonable place readers would expect to see this information. MaverickNate 13:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. And the newly discovered Pokémon terminology could definitely just be covered on the New Pokémon page. Landfish7 13:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- We can try using a title like either "Pokémon discovery" or "Pokémon introduction", which can possibly cover the existing content and also the "Newly discovered Pokémon" content linked above.
- But you see, in most cases, it looks like the "first discovered" terminology appears to be about the region where any species was introduced.
- I know they sometimes say things like "the Alolan form of a Pokémon first discovered in Kanto" but most of the quotes so far are not connected with regional forms in any way.
- For instance, the Pokémon.com website (quoted here in the terminology section) mentions that Jirachi and Kecleon were first discovered in Hoenn. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- As another example, the Pokémon GO medal "Register 100 Pokémon first discovered in the Johto region to the Pokédex." is about registering all the Generation II Pokémon.
- So it appears that "Pokémon first discovered in the Johto region" is simply a longer way to say "Generation II Pokémon". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- An article about "Pokémon discovery" could definitely be interesting. For example, in the original series of the Pokémon anime, it's suggested by people such as Professor Oak that there are only 151 known Pokémon. In hindsight, this seems strange, as Professor Oak should have known about the 900+ other Pokémon that exist in the world. But from an out-of-universe perspective, it obviously makes sense, considering that only 151 Pokémon had been revealed at the time. The whole thing is quite a fascinating meta-topic regarding how official media chooses to address the conundrum of "new Pokémon being discovered" yet said Pokémon also being implied to have always existed and known about for a long time in the Pokémon world. Not sure if any of this makes sense but I guess that speaks to the nebulous nature of the subject. Landfish7 10:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I like the idea of using "Pokémon discovery" like that. As you were saying, it kinda makes sense from a real-world perspective that new Pokémon got "discovered" when the new games were released. Yes, I also agree that the existence of several regions and their Pokémon should be known in-universe, especially how those regions often have backstories spanning centuries in the past.
- Some of it also applies to the Pokémon Adventures manga. That reminds me how basically Professor Oak wanted the complete Pokédex and there were only 151 known Pokémon, but then new ones got "discovered" in Johto and later Hoenn, so it became harder to complete the Pokédex. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- An article about "Pokémon discovery" could definitely be interesting. For example, in the original series of the Pokémon anime, it's suggested by people such as Professor Oak that there are only 151 known Pokémon. In hindsight, this seems strange, as Professor Oak should have known about the 900+ other Pokémon that exist in the world. But from an out-of-universe perspective, it obviously makes sense, considering that only 151 Pokémon had been revealed at the time. The whole thing is quite a fascinating meta-topic regarding how official media chooses to address the conundrum of "new Pokémon being discovered" yet said Pokémon also being implied to have always existed and known about for a long time in the Pokémon world. Not sure if any of this makes sense but I guess that speaks to the nebulous nature of the subject. Landfish7 10:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. And the newly discovered Pokémon terminology could definitely just be covered on the New Pokémon page. Landfish7 13:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of Regional Pokedex, what about a section on Regional form? The content here only exists as a consequence of regional forms, so I think that would be a reasonable place readers would expect to see this information. MaverickNate 13:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sold on the title yet, but an article along the lines of "Pokémon discovery" or "Terminology of Pokémon discovery" could perhaps also cover the terminology of "newly discovered Pokémon", maybe? Landfish7 13:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Pokémon discovery seems like a good idea. It would certainly need fleshed out appropriately, but this is a good base for what the article can be about, I suppose. Is that something either of you would be willing to tackle? MaverickNate 08:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Discoveries
Could this page also note every Pokemon discovery we know about? We know about Professor Nishinomori and Oak discovering the first 150, Koffing from amunitions factory, Voltorb in Poke Ball factory, Kabutops from fossil, Dratini discovery at Safari Zone was a sensation, Doduo, Klink, etc. and every manmade Pokemon.--Rocket Grunt 19:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Split
For the record, I do think my New Pokémon page should eventually be split off from this, with the added tables that I believe SnorlaxMonster and Tiddlywinks have planned to include. I think the scope of the Pokémon discovery article should then be mostly limited to how Pokémon are discovered in-universe, whereas New Pokémon will mostly be about the reveal/release of new Pokémon from a real world perspective. Landfish7 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I understand, that makes sense.
- I'll also tell my opinion about another thing if that's alright.
- You think maybe the title "Pokémon introduction" could work for the real-world one instead of "New Pokémon"? I understand that in a sense all those Pokémon were once new, but most of those Pokémon are not new anymore. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- An important function of the page is that it serves as a central place where people can find info about the newest Pokémon that have been revealed, particularly if we have situations such as Terapagos's Normal Form before it had a name, in which this page can be used to host that info until its name is revealed. The term "New Pokémon" is also officially used, so it's not like it's problematic in that regard (whereas "Pokémon introduction" is not a common or official term). All of this to say, I find the title "New Pokémon" to be far more useful and easy to remember and find through searching, and I don't think it's inappropriate or inaccurate to use the page to detail the history of how Pokémon have been revealed throughout the franchise's history, with those Pokémon no longer technically being "new" being a really minor issue in my opinion. Also, "New Pokémon", in my opinion, is more clear about what the subject of the article will be, as opposed to "Pokémon introduction", which I feel isn't quite as immediately clear. Landfish7 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here's another idea: Maybe the "New Pokémon" page could be about the Pokémon that are currently new and "Pokémon introduction" could be about the history of how Pokémon were introduced? Maybe this could work for that purpose you said above?
- Okay, so it appears we don't often hear people saying the exact words "Pokémon introduction"? I have the impression that at least "X was introduced" is common in both official sources and the fandom. Bulbapedia often uses "introduced": Buzzwole is described as "a dual-type Bug/Fighting Pokémon introduced in Generation VII."
- For an example in official sources, there's this page:
- "Find out which Pokémon introduced in The Teal Mask are rising to the top of Regulation Set E"
- "With the introduction of the Pokémon appearing in the land of Kitakami in The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero Part 1: The Teal Mask, Trainers will find themselves in an expanded format brimming with new and returning Pokémon to shape their strategies."
- I can probably find more official quotes using the words "introduction" or "introduced" if needed.
- "Pokémon reveal" or "Pokémon release" could maybe work since those are words you basically used above ("will mostly be about the reveal/release of new Pokémon from a real world perspective"), but at least in my opinion "Pokémon introduction" is the best option (feel free to disagree with me anyway). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- An important function of the page is that it serves as a central place where people can find info about the newest Pokémon that have been revealed, particularly if we have situations such as Terapagos's Normal Form before it had a name, in which this page can be used to host that info until its name is revealed. The term "New Pokémon" is also officially used, so it's not like it's problematic in that regard (whereas "Pokémon introduction" is not a common or official term). All of this to say, I find the title "New Pokémon" to be far more useful and easy to remember and find through searching, and I don't think it's inappropriate or inaccurate to use the page to detail the history of how Pokémon have been revealed throughout the franchise's history, with those Pokémon no longer technically being "new" being a really minor issue in my opinion. Also, "New Pokémon", in my opinion, is more clear about what the subject of the article will be, as opposed to "Pokémon introduction", which I feel isn't quite as immediately clear. Landfish7 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)