Talk:Pokémon (anime)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pokémon (anime) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
GFDL PokéBall design
Pokémon Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pokémon, which aims to improve the encyclopedic coverage of the Pokémon universe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, ask for advice, and see what our current focuses are.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
PCP To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
v • d • e
Portal:Pokémon Selected Picture Past Entry

This article has featured in the Selected Picture of the Week! section of the Portal:Pokémon. Its entry can now be found here. To suggest a new entry to this section go here.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (25/01/05 - 25/11/07)


Contents

[edit] About the Viewers

I've noticed that it says it's geared at "Young viewers" even though it's for all ages, and when I edited someone undid it and said "look at the genere" well it doesn't say anything about that in the genere. All I see in the genere is "Shōnen, Action Adventure". And speaking of false information why does the Spongebob artice say that it has "adult humor" even though there isn't any, and it's popular with "adults" and children even though it's generally not, but in this artice it says taht it's geared toward younger viewers even though it's geared toward people of all ages.

LiesFixer (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The show is indeed aimed at the younger audience, although like any show it can be enjoyed by people of all ages. That doesn't change who it is marketed to, though. The way you keep wording it makes no sense: "It is aimed at viewers of all ages and many other devoted fans of all ages enjoy the anime as well." That is just conflicting. As I said, the show is primarily marketed towards young children. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why doeesn't it say that in the Spongebob article because the same goes for that too and yet it says that it isn't. So why should that article be one way and this be another when they both are supposidly geared toward younger viewers?
LiesFixer (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Precedence is a horrible form of justification. You can't take a different series and use it justify your pointon this article. For the record, the Spongebob article should say that the series is marketed towards young children. Edit: Having just taken a look at the Spongebob article for the first time, I can safely say that there is a world of difference between the two. That article has a specific section stating who it is marketed to, and how it is marketed; this article has a single line dealing with that. That article also gives specific examples of how this marketing works (although the citations are missing); this article does not. You can't compare two completely different articles about two completely different series to get your point across; its irrelevent. It's like comparing Ash Ketchum to All I Want Is You. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes,but despite the fact that hey are both two different series and articles they both are marketed toward children and that means that the information on who the show is geared for should be the same. It's like playing two video games that are generally marketed towards the same age group and put one as somehow more "Mature" even though they are both in the same marketing age group it just doens't make sense.
LiesFixer (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
They are unrelated articles. What one article says has no bearing on the content of the other. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it SHOULD be sourced. Common, Pokémon isn't obviously aimed to younger viewers like Barney the Dinosaur or Teletubbies. Think about it, it has action, it has villains. Villains is something that adults finds interesting too. Just because heck is always used in place for hell and darn is always used in place for damn doesn't mean it's only for children, it just proves that it's for all ages. This needs an official proof, and I hope that statement isn't suggesting I should lose interests because my age. TheBlazikenMaster 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon seems to be directed towards the ages of people around 10. Nothing is suggesting that you should lose interest, BlazikenMaster. I don't know how old you are, but I am 18 and enjoy it, and I know people in their late '20's who still enjoy it too. I don't know how you could take a statement saying who the series is marketed too as saying that you're too old for it. It is aimed at younger viewers, but has many fans of all ages; that is what the article currently says, and I don't see how it can be construed as suggesting that older people should lose interest. MelicansMatkin 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See even he agrees with me that it should be started as it being for everyone because it has things in it for people of all ages to enjoy; not just 10 year-olds. I am 17 and I enjoy the show too.
LiesFixer 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, BlazikenMaster said that the statement needed to be sourced; big difference between the two. Whether it says young viewers or all ages, both will need a citation. Besides, lots of programs aimed at the extremely young children (a la Barney) also have antagonists; Care Bears for one. Perhaps the issue at hand here is the definition of what a "young viewer" is in the context of Pokemon. MelicansMatkin 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I would like to know that definition because the regular terms or definition of "young viewer" doesn't apply to Pokemon in a comnplete sense since it's for all viewers including younger viewers.
LiesFixer 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
When I say younger viewers, I apply it to anyone who is aged 12 or younger. The Pokemon anime is rated C-7. The highest rating that any movie has had is PG, placing it in this threshold (I find it worth noting that in Germany, the movies are generally rated 6, meaning that they are appropriate for anyone aged 6+). For the record, I apply PG-13 and 14A to teen viewers, and anything above 14A as older audience (I am a Canadian and I have used the Canadian TV and Movie ratings in this post).
So as you can see, the anime clearly falls into the younger viewers range, although as with any television program it can certainly be enjoyed by people of all ages. MelicansMatkin 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me think, I enjoy DuckTales and that's also aimed for young viewers. For some strange reason most Pokémon fans I know (from YouTube) are teenagers. There is no need to feel screwed about the phrase "applied to younger viewers" because it doesn't say only anywhere. Besides, being an adult is about making your own choices, it includes choosing the show you like. Sorry if this is irrelevant to the article, just keeping the discussion going. TheBlazikenMaster 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to feel screwed about the phrase "applied to younger viewers" because it doesn't say only anywhere. Exactly the point that I was trying to make! Thank you for phrasing it much better than I ever did, BlazikenMaster. MelicansMatkin 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC
The rating of Pokemon just tells it that it's for viewers ages 7 and up, not 12 (or anything) and under. I am just feeling screwed that some other "younger viewer" shows say otherwise which still doesn't make sense.
LiesFixer 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The rating tells what age group the show is marketed towards. Feel free to change the other articles if you like, but whatever something like Rugrats or Monster by Mistake or Spongebob Squarepants say has no bearing at all on what is said in this article. And I guarantee that people editing the other articles will say the same thing; namely that the content on Pokémon (anime) does not have any influence on the content of Spongebob Squarepants. For the umpteenth time, Pokemon is aimed at younger viewers. For the umpteenth time, that doesn't stop older people from enjoying it. That is what is currently said in the article, and there is no reason whatsoever for it to be changed. MelicansMatkin 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, it does say that adults like it too. TheBlazikenMaster 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Except if they are both for younger viewers they should both have that noted and that's one of the lies I noticed in that article. When I tried changing it the cry babies there undid it because they want to keep their own lies there as a symbol of their own delusion which is wrong because the whole point of wikipedia is to tell people the truth. TheBlazikenMaster, if you're talking about what is said in the Spongebob article that's what exactely I was talking about, very few adults and teenagers like it and they are usually the ones with "problems", if you know what I mean. They actually act like everyone in the world worships that cartoon. It's a scary thought when people like that actually believe those lies and will undo anything of the truth that's inserted into it.
LiesFixer (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The user TTN (as well as others), has also been redirecting video game articles (without warning), includding many pokemon articles, so have they been doing anything with the Pokemon Amine articles?  Doktor  Wilhelm  03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Americanism

"in the United States, Pokémon is the fifth longest running animated TV show time wise" How is this of any signifigance?

"has since been adapted for the North American television market" Why is only North America mentioned here? That's not the only place outside Japan, where Pokémon has been distributed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.217.18.242 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more, Wikipedia is supposed to have information that applies worldwide. We need more information, and worldwide ones too. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Union mention

I took out the passage talking about how the show isn't unionized; it isn't the only one and that information isn't so essential to the show that it needs to be put at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikintosh (talk • contribs) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

The shows rating (that is, age group) in Japan, USA, and Canada should be added. I am not sure how to add it to the template however, nor do I know it's Japanese rating. FogDevil (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea, as far as I know it's rated PG in all countries, prove me wrong. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that it's rated C8 on YTV in Canada (which I think is equivalent to a PG), but I'm not sure about any other country. However, I have to agree with the BlazikenMaster. Adding the ratings would just increase the length of the infobox by a substantial and unnecessary amount. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pages

I just think we should put seperate pokemon episodes here. Why can't we have big articles on it like Bulbapedia instead? Please reply. User:Looney 176 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the Licensor section...

...why isn't Japanese company listed here? It's important because Pokémon is originally from Japan. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pokemon-diamond-and-pearl-group.png

Image:Pokemon-diamond-and-pearl-group.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New image

We need one. So what are we going to do? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about reviving the image and getting it right this time? User:EVula has restored the image on my request. I've written an appropriate FUR for it, and have re-added it to the article. - Face 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope it will stay there, images don't last for very long on Wikipedia. I am surprised the images are working on NYC on a revision I'm reading all the way back from 2006. I only hope your source is good enough, because images keep on getting removed here on Wikipedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, the image removed was put back up, why? signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Read face's comment and you'll know. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misty

Something tells me we need to discuss whether or not we should include future appearance of Misty. I personally agree with Urutapu, it shouldn't be included unless it's 100% clear. So are we going to discuss this or not? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it shouldn't be included. It's very likely that she will be making an appearance at some point in the future, much like how we see Tracey after every League. However, it is possible that she will not appear, and since we can't definitely say whether she will or will not appear the information shouldn't be included. And I don't think I even need to bring up the blog argument again. MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... you still don't get it, do you? Mayumi Iizuka mentioned in her blog that she may return. She did state that she was doing specials, yes, but right AFTER that, she hinted at an appearance sometime in the future. (To quote Bulbanew's article:
"According to ☆飯塚雅弓のまーちゃん日和☆, The Blog of Voice Actress, Mayumi Iizuka, Kasumi will be "navigating," that is to say, hosting, parts of the first Pokémon anime 10th anniversary special, which airs on TV tokyo tonight at 7 p.m. JST. She hints at a further appearance sometime in the future."
(the Bold is the important detail) And since she already confirmed the specials on there, and yet she "Hinted" at a further appearance sometime in the future (Not once did the article say SOON, it just said sometime.), that means that she was hinting at a return of our beloved redhead.)
And in regards to hints being unencyclopedic material, many of the wiki Articles use hints as their sources (I know that the "List of Characters from the Megaman ZX series" uses the words "Hinted" and "Heavily implied" a LOT in that Article. So much, in fact, that it's getting a bit rediculous.). Heck, Frieza's article mentions vegeta's hint at Frieza's 4th form as being his true form as a source, even though, technically it shouldn't by it's standards.
And please don't go into the "It's a different project from pokemon" because, really, it's all part of the same wiki, and thus bound by the same rules. I mean, if this was a comparison of Wikipedia and Bulbapedia, I'll understand that, but all of those... "Projects" are bound to the same rules and regulations since they all form Wikipedia. For a good example: the proverb "what is beneficial for one group benefits all, what is devastating for one group devastates all.". Which means that, If something (like a rule, in this instance) benefits one particular group, it should benefit ALL groups since it is senseless to have it apply to one group, and yet not apply to the other group. Same deal with the bad things.
~~Weedle_McHairybug~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.126 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokérap

I noticed that Pokérap redirects to Pokémon (anime), but the Pokérap itself is mentioned nowhere on the page. I think either a section should be added here, or, preferably, the Pokérap should be given its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B2xiao (talk • contribs) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at Pokerap. I've now created an article for Pokérap, which seems to have been overlooked. -B2xiao (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm... You Did? because both of your links still redirect to Pokémon (anime).
It's not that notable. I have never seen it mentioned outside the Pokémon franchise. It isn't mentioned on this page since it's not that notable. If you want you can add a paragraph or something. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've heard the Pokérap on Television before, but they appear to have removed it from Season Two, only to replace with something else which was just as non-notable as it. Keep in mind that the rap itself appears to be an English thing; I'm dubious that the original Japanese versions have such extras near the end of the show (they appear to have a next-episode preview instead). -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly what makes it unnotable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anime banned permanently in PRC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300242.html

Read this link while reading the Censorship in the People's Republic of China article --Dark paladin x (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, hope you find a way to fit it in the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see you already have great job. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu it

Under Main Characters, Pikachu's description reads "Ash’s very first Pokémon and best friend. It has always stuck by Ash through thick and thin." Shouldn't it say "He has always[...]", as even though you generally refer to non-humans with it (like animals) Pokemon are not animals but are pokemon and so I think it would use "he". 24.129.237.34 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that Pokémon aren't animals. Of course they are, just animals from another world. I should know because I've been a Pokémon fan for a very long time. Anyway, this needs a true discussion, I'll wait and see what other have to say about this. And I'm not gonna argue about whether or not they're animals, I'm gonna argue about if "he" or "it" is more proper. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"He" is gender-specific. Pikachu's gender has never been confirmed. Pikachu is an "it" in the context of the article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "5th longest running animated TV series in US" removed

I removed the section in the intro claiming that Pokémon was the "longest running animated TV show time wise, only beaten by The Simpsons, Arthur, King of the Hill, and South Park." It's not only incorrect, but it is rather American-centric, as noted in other comments above. Pokémon, if you include all of the series together, has only been airing for 10-11 years at this point, while in addition to the named "top 4", both Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids and Rugrats ran for about 13 years, 2-3 years longer than Pokémon at this point. This puts Pokémon in 7th place or worse. -- HiEv 19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. How about the longest-running anime dubbed into English? Would that work out? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to find a reliable source for that, otherwise it's original research. The original claim was not based on a citation from a reliable source, which led to the error I pointed out. Still, if you're combining the various Pokémon series as one anime, then you'd have to do the same for Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT (possibly going as far back as the late 1980s if you include the "Lost Harmony Gold Dub" of the Dragon Ball movies), which have a whopping total of 508 episodes (plus numerous movies), which is nearly as many episodes as Pokémon currently has (547). IIRC, Dragon Ball stuff was released at a much slower rate than Pokémon in the US, so you're not only at risk of original research, but of being wrong again as well. -- HiEv 04:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was the recently added section encyclopedic?

[edit] legendary Pokémon In films

In theanime legendary Pokémon are Pokémon which have been the subject of ancient legends. Legendary Pokémon in the anime are able to breed, meaning they do have genders (although some legendary Pokémon in the games also have genders, the majority do not and only two species can breed).

To date, every Pokémon movie has centered around an encounter with one or more legendary Pokémon, often the first appearance of those Pokémon on screen. Subsequent anime episodes featuring those Pokémon are common. Excluding the fourth generation Pokémon, Raikou is the only legendary Pokémon which Ash has not seen or had some kind of connection with (although Raikou did have its own Pokémon Chronicles special and Misty's Togepi once encountered it). Unlike in the games, where catching a legendary Pokémon may be done by the protagonist to save the world, the exact opposite is true for the anime. In the anime (particularly in Pokémon: The Movie 2000), the capture of a legendary Pokémon would have deadly repercussions and is only ever attempted by human antagonists.

Now this is a big addition, but I know it needs cons. we have to agree on adding this section, let's discuss it.

I personally think it's very useful, but I can't see how it fits on Wikipedia it looks more like it fits on Bulbapedia, besides it has some original research. Using one particular movie as a source, that's what I'd call original research. How do we know catching them is a deadly repercussions? There was once an episode where a trainer was attempting to capture empty, that could be a sign that it is allowed in the anime. Well, what's your view on this section? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A comment on professors in pokemon

I notice that all the pokemon professors have the name of a tree (oak, birch, rowan, etc). signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)