Jump to content

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon

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

No Gen VI Pokemon Articles

[edit]

We don't have any Gen 6 Pokemon Articles ever since Pokemon X & Y's release. Should we have at least 1 of these Pokemon to have its own article (my suggestion would be Greninja since it has a non-mega form called Ash-Greninja, SSB4, and was even chosen to appear in SSB4 long before the release of Pokémon X and Y)? Owen313 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Greninja would be a good candidate, even just because of its numerous appearances in different video games and the anime. I wouldn't mind trying to make this article this week - I've never written an article for a Pokémon before :3 ~Mable (chat) 09:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would choose fennekin who's with me Projectkeystone (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fennekin might be a good choice but we don't have enough data. Maybe we could do a pokemon like Aegislash or Talonflame? Porygon-Z (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hdf using 42.104.220.19 (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that "generation" isn't capitalized on these pages?

[edit]

If there is, please inform me. Paintspot (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First FL possibility?

[edit]

I like the changes you made to this list today, @Cyclonebiskit:! This list seems to be very close to FL criteria right now. Seems like a pretty cool possibility ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 20:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Greninja article? Why not?

[edit]

Hey, guys. Did you know why there has never been any article about Greninja? And I also wants to know if you can create one for me? Or if not, please tell me why not? Thomas Wiencek (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of generation VI Pokémon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zygarde page

[edit]

Can someone make a page about Zygarde. You've made one for Xerneas and Yveltal, so why not Zygarde. I don't know how to code so can someone do it for me please? Thanks. Porygon-Z (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Greninja

[edit]

Based on the current state of this article, I really think it would be better as a redirect. It's *popular*, but that's about it; it hasn't had any real analysis 38.75.235.237 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the same opinions I had during the last AfD, so if you want my opinions, you can look there, but in brief summary, I do think Greninja squeaks past notability thresholds. Barely, yes, but there is something there.
Though I still feel it should be kept, I feel a merge would be better than a redirect should the article reach a conclusion of not meeting standalone notability thresholds, just because there are some decent sources in the article that can be used regardless of individual notability or not. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
disagree
i think it's more than notable enough for its own article (if the one with all the porn and gardevoir getting them is anything to go by), but it's kinda meh as an article. would appreciate some reworking, but i really wouldn't say it needs to be merged or anything
if personal opinions worked here, i'd have this site pretend that frogadier just doesn't evolve into anything, but that's just not how we do it in this garden cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 11:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greninja Merge Discussion

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus is to merge Greninja into this article. Some keep voters either dismissed WP:N entirely or did not sufficiently show why the article is notable. While the current article has many sources, they were sufficiently rebutted by Merge votes as not WP:RS, included passing mentions or were otherwise weak, to the extent of failing WP:SIGCOV. Overall one side of the argument is significantly stronger and shows that Greninja fails to reach standalone notability as of now. Soni (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I argued for keeping this article in the past, on a look over the article again, I'm really not seeing standalone notability. Most of the sources are pretty trivial, the further sources on the talk page yield little, and while my search yielded this which is pretty good, it's still a patchwork of trivial mentions overall, and I doubt this could really be improved beyond it. However, the information is valuable, and thus I feel a merge of basic Reception info wouldn't be unwarranted nor unreasonable, given most of it is just "Greninja is popular and in Smash." Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Did a quick search (had to stop searching due to a tummy ache so I only got this one). Not the strongest, but will continue searching. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same article as the one I linked above, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh mb, didn't catch it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I stand by my 2023 belief that it's notable. It may not be up to what I prefer, but by the standards I've seen reflected in other Pokemon articles it's an easy pass. A literal key ring Pokemon has an article while Greninja, a de facto mascot of the series and main member of Ash's team, is up for debate? Seems a bit unbalanced... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the notability of this character right now as I am quite mixed atm, and whilst I express similar sentiments, just because Klefki has an article does not mean Greninja gets one too. That's just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CaptainGalaxy 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""De facto mascot of the series" and "main member of Ash's team," neither of these are a show of notability (unless there's significant citation to the former, anyway). This just sounds like how people have been complaining about certain characters having articles while Diddy Kong doesn't have one. The in-universe nature of a Pokemon is entirely irrelevant to what reliable secondary sources have to say about them. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think journalists weren't all that interested in greninja as a pokémon beyond "hey wow there it is, anyway did y'all hear about magiana", and so there isn't much meaningful coverage on it
as opposed to that stealth rock bait from gen 1, which game freak and journalists seemingly couldn't get enough of
so i'd say merge, and accept that klefki is the true gen 6 mascot cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per other editors, these arguments aren't really valid keep arguments. Notability is determined by the state and quality of sourcing, of which Greninja is lacking. In-universe importance is not equivalent to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure, that isn't my argument. My argument is that the sourcing is already there, exists and is being glossed over by the merge nominator to justify a merge. Those were just observations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really glossing over it. I've acknowledged the current Reception, and I believe there's not enough to support a standalone article. The coverage there is very trivial, and if you want me to go into a breakdown of the individual sources to validate my point, then I'm more than willing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly like to see a breakdown, including the sources raised in the AfD. It would be better than just saying "hey there are no sources". This is an example of SIGCOV, though it's about Ash's Greninja specifically, it would fit with the article. This, this and this all have coverage, even if it's not massive. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm
-Source 28 amounts to two sentences, which amount to "It looks cool and is popular."
-Source 29 looks like it's primary? Probably unneeded. Source 30 is basically just a poll result and nothing more. 31 is the same, as is 32.
-Source 33 admittedly has a decent chunk, but as it's Screen Rant, it really needs other more reliable articles for it to hold a semblance of weight.
-Source 34 has this "Ash-Greninja is a stylish addition to any team, especially if you're unimpressed by the fish-heavy selection of water types available in Alola." and that's basically it. The rest is game guide content. Trivial mention.
-35 basically just discusses the variety of gimmicks Greninja got in-game. About one sentence of commentary in there.
-36 is alright. Weak, but okay.
-37 is the definition of a trivial mention. Same with 38, where Greninja is lumped in with four other Pokemon at once.
-19 is decent, but doesn't really say much beyond "Look at what Twitter had to say about Greninja"
-39 is a bit trivial. You can cherry pick some bits but not much more.
-40 is a bit weak. It has some commentary, but not much. 41 is similar, though has less to say than 40.
-24 has maybe a sentence of actual commentary in there that isn't just "It's popular." The Gizmodo is similarly weak.
-The TheGamer source you brought up is just plot summary of Greninja's anime role. I see very little actual commentary in there.
As you can see, there's bits and pieces here and there, but it's all very, very trivial. I don't see a whole article out of this, but you can easily cover the key points inside of the character list. A merge seems to be optimal for covering this information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely with the characterization of TheGamer as having "very little actual commentary" and it feels like evidence to me that sources are being disregarded offhand to get the article merged. Some quotes include: "Among the Pokemon that appear in this new intro is Ash’s Greninja, a fan favorite Pokemon who hasn’t been seen in the anime in almost six years. [...] just knowing Ash’s Greninja will return is reason enough to be excited." "Ash-Greninja [...] is still the most unique phenomenon in Pokemon history to this day." "Because of its unique characteristics, Ash-Greninja is the most recognizable individual Pokemon of all time. [...] Its return to the anime is highly anticipated and the reunion between Greninja and Ash will undoubtedly be a huge moment for the legacy of the anime."
Game Informer says: "Greninja is clearly the best new fighter [...] The final evolved form of Froakie fits right into the rest of the Super Smash Bros. cast, because he's a fun and fast character with a lot of great moves." Hardcore Gamer says: "This is probably my favorite design of the group [...] Greninja is great and is likely to be popular just off its design alone.". I'll have to go back to look further, but saying there is no commentary and it's all trivial is absurd on its face. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence of commentary in a given article is quite literally what a trivial mention is. You might be able to use it to support broader points in sourves that aren't, but there's very few sources here that can be considered close to in-depth coverage of the subject, if any at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage has to encompass the entire article, commentary and no commentary. An article having commentary is a separate issue. If an article has no commentary, it may not be a secondary source, or the article may fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there is no context for why it is important. However, this has no bearing on whether coverage is trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused what your argument is. How exactly does this change the fact that there's very little in several of those articles you've shared? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that the articles are SIGCOV when you say they are not. Coverage does not solely encompass independent commentary of the thing being discussed. Having commentary is important, but not the be all end all of whether a source is significant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to be able to cite and say *something* from the source Zx. SIGCOV does not have to encompass the whole article, but a significant amount of it, and one still has to consider what's being said, and whether or not it's particular to the subject in question (case in point, your argument awhile back that an IGN game guide for Sagat from Street Fighter counting as "SIGCOV"). And I want to emphasize this because you keep getting this wrong, but again *it doesn't need to be the subject of the article exclusively*. WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Echoing Galaxy's statement above, I also feel being a "de facto mascot" doesn't mean anything, as many mascots don't get articles. There's little actually commentary about Greninja as a character or design wise, which is important for notability. Even sources like TechRaptor that have in the past said significant amounts about a design have little to say about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the consensus that the reception doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this character. What tips the scales is this character's lack of notability outside of the game / series. This isn't one of the most popular or important characters in games, let alone media. When something is popular within a game or a series, we typically cover it within an article about the game or the series. (e.g.: "Upon the release of Pokemon X and Y, several publications praised the character design, particularly for these characters.) We need more than just mentions before we spin a single aspect of a game out into a whole new article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not the worst source, although it may not be considered SIGCOV. It also seems like nearly every gaming publication under the sun wrote an article about the poll that Greninja won, which could count for something. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most poll sources are basically just results more than anything. Very few, if any, have commentary. I distinctly recall finding little at Greninja's last AfD. As for that source, there's not really much that can be said about it beyond "Greninja was met with a mostly positive response in Smash." It's not terrible but it's not really saying much that would buff the article substantially, either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge. The GameInformer and Kotaku sources seem to be the only good sources for me, but with sources being scrutinized above, I'm leaning toward merging for now. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 10:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Probably the only notable Gen-6 Pokemon. @Zxcvbnm: Maybe you should add some info about the resemblances between Greninja and Naruto. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 03:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because it's "Probably the only notable" one of a Gen doesn't make it instantly notable. Also, not to mention, we have Klefki, who is currently meeting notability guidelines and survived a recent AfD, so Gen 6 isn't exactly without options. Also, the source you're citing is from Screen Rant, which does not have weight towards notability in discussions such as these. If there was more meat in Greninja's article I'd say it might be fine, but given Greninja is living on sticks and tape right now, I don't think it's enough to really make a keep argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get the whole notabillity thing on wikipedia anymore. Yeah, its not a great article, but I don't think it should be removed. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2024 (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.

It is not clear to me how much of the Greninja article should be copied here during the merge, so I have placed a being merged template on it. Any editor can feel free to complete this merge. Soni (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just do it. Give Greninja his own page!

[edit]

He is one of the most famous Pokémon of all time and is voted as the most popular Pokémon in Japan. He definitely deserves his very own page! --PyukumukuAce (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see the discussion right above this one to find out why greninja no longer has its own article cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


HAHAHAHA

[edit]

Let’s all rally up and convince the admins to make a page for Sylveon! 🪧

I have no idea if you're the same person as above, but regardless, that is not how page creation works in multiple instances. Articles need adequate sourcing to exist, not popular demand, and it is not inherently the admins' job to make these articles even if that coverage does exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the person above is pyukumukuace cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_generation_VI_Pokémon&oldid=1243647946"