Bulbapedia

Talk:Core series

Add topic
Active discussions

Content from Future generations of Pokémon merge

Routes

I'm not so sure that a Gen V game has to start its Route numbering system from 301 just because Hoenn and Sinnoh use a similar method. A Gen V or so game could actually link two previously known regions. There are still Routes 47-100 and Routes 135-200 still unaccounted for. ~$aturn¥oshi THE VOICES 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only is there no precedent or fundamental reason to believe it will be the case, the contrary is more likely to occur. Hoenn and Sinnoh are based on Kyushu and Hokkaido, respectively, which are the only islands in Japan - other than Honshu - arguably big enough to be adapted as regions. By this I am suggesting that Generation V is more likely to revisit Honshu, of which there are plenty of as-yet unexplored territories. If that were to happen, the numbering system would no doubt pick up from Route 47, regardless of whether Kanto or Johto were included in the game.
Some might also argue that Shikoku, which is another Japanese island, is not too small to serve as the basis of a new region. Supposing that they had a point, the numbering system would still be likely to pick up either from Route 47 or Route 135, due to Shikoku's proximity to both Honshu (in particular the area encompassed in Johto) and Kyushu.
Those are really the only possibilities involving Japan, and the pattern does suggest that Generation V will be based there. It is important to remember that the transition to Hoenn and then to Sinnoh entailed exploring new territories far enough from previous regions. Now that both Hoenn and Sinnoh are familiar places, that can no longer be done within Japan. -Unown Lord 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's more to discourage people from being "LOL JOTOE IZ IN RUBBY N SAFIRE" and "LOL HOEN IZ IN DAIMIND N PERL". Though I do agree, they could go and hit whatever's north of Kanto and Johto next time around... the problem would be whether or not to link back to those two or not to. TTEchidna 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
They should just go ahead and create a 3-D console game like the Orre series and have all the known game regions present. At least the main series regions. ~$aturn¥oshi THE VOICES 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pikachu

The article mentions Pikachu and Raichu being in Generation Five's regional dex, because it has been like that in all previous generations. What about the evolutionary lines of Geodude, Abra, Zubat (minus Crobat), Machop, Psyduck, and Goldeen? They've all been present in every game, so why not mention them too? --Nostalgia 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think only Pikachu is mentioned because it's the "mascot" of the series. It has more of a probability of being in the next game. Then again, Magikarp and Tentacool are also mentioned... ~$aturn¥oshi THE VOICES 18:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If the next Generation of Pokémon games didn't have the Pikachu family in them I don't think anyone would buy them!- unsigned comment from Taromon777 (talk • contribs)
of course they would buy them. The Dark Fiddler - Nos hablamos? 18:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is funny because now Pikachu isn't in the Udex and Black and White was the top selling game when it came out in Japan. So, does anyone know that ended up working? Doesn't the old Pokémon start appearing in the grass after you get the National Dex. (How is that even possible?) --Landfish7 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Eeveelutions?

Is it possible that 2 new eeveelutions will be introduced when you consider Gen II and IV both introduced 2 new eeveelutions each (Espeon & Umbreon and Leafeon and Glaceon)?BlueGasMask 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

what about Gen III? none. so, no. -- MAGNEDETH 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If we see new ones in Gen V, I'd bet on a couple more in Gen VI, but until we have a pattern we ought not. TTEchidna 04:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If the Eeveelutions "pattern" continued in Gen V, then we would either see no new Eeveelutions (Gen II added 2, Gen III added none, Gen IV added 2) or only a Dragon-type Eeveelution (as all of Eevee's current evolved forms are types that were considered "Special" prior to Gen IV; technically, however, this would break the pattern, as only 1 new "Special"-type would be introduced, rather than the usual 2). Hopefully they will begin to create Eeveelutions based off of the types that were previously "Physical"; I'd really like to see a Steel, Fighting, or Ghost-type Eeveelution (Bug...not so much). Diachronos 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If they do invent new Eeveelutions I dread to think how unimaginative their names will be! There will probably be a Dragon-type one called Drageon or something. - unsigned comment from Taromon777 (talk • contribs)
How about Dracoleon? Draco IS greek for Dragon. -The REAL Dialga 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality of this article

Isn't good. It isn't up to any standard of quality. It reads more like an editorial or some other kind of opinion piece than an encyclopedic one. Given that, what can we do to fix it? I think we can only really say that nothing has been announced, yet. -- evkl (need to talk?) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stale Comment reply!: Right now, all it is is a list of things we know will happen or we think will happen. We might add a couple of pictures, but I can see how it would be hard to incorporate them. But with the latest news, it looks like we're not seeing Gen V games until mid-late 2010 in Japan, and early-mid 2011 everywhere else. However, by August of this year, we'll most likely have at least the Munchlax of Gen V and we can pretty much copy this article over to a rough Gen V page. Aura-Knight 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is basically a list of patterns through the game series and that's all it ever can be. As I said below, actual Gen V information would go on the Gen V pages. --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 19:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnemite

If Magnemite's included, why not Rhyhorn?--Gou 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

About Arceus

"The legendary pokemon are more powerful in new generations. With Arceus as the god Pokemon of the universe, it would be hard to make a stronger one." I HATE this argument. Just because it is credited with creating everything does NOT make it omnipotent, or unsurpassable in any other way. Technically, it's only been known to do one thing, and that's creating other pokemon (Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf) which in turn did all the work of creating the universe. And it's arguable that legendary pokemon are mor powerful in each generation (until Arceus, I don't think even the base stats of them were ever improved upon much-- are Groudon and Kyogre that much more powerful than Ho-oh and Lugia?). I'd say their powers and range of influence are just made "cooler", and I doubt Game Freak would be at a loss for that-- Many other fundamental aspects of the universe still have no legendary pokemon to call their own, like life and death. I'm not saying that this argument should be deleted from this page; after all, this is about the fandom, and many fans have the opinion "ARceuS Is gOD!!!1! ZOmG GameFreaKs caNT FoLlow Taht up!!!1!!!!!111!" I just think it should be rephrased, maybe as "Some people argue that because Arceus created the Pokemon world, Gamefreak would have difficulty making a more awesome pokemon next generation in order to maintain interest in the franchise." Something like that. Any thoughts? --AndyPKMN 23:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, who said, in the current generation, there has to be stronger pokémon then the last.--Midnight Blue 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole article is fanspeculation. It is a valid argument, and I've rephrased the whole entire section to make it somewhat more encyclopedic. —darklordtrom 07:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's much better. Even I couldn't have phrased it that well! Thanks! --AndyPKMN 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that arceus is directly referred to as a god but his ability to create the three dietic dragons and the three lake gaurdians make his ability DIVINE(like all other legendaries), so there's no point of dubbing him as a god. And that would be offensive to religions, so nintendo would've thought of that point before approving of arceus'release to the fourth generation.--Nobody777 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not stated as such any more. —darklordtrom 19:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe somewhere in Gen IV they mention people worshipping Dialga, Palkia, and Arceus as gods. It might be Cynthia's grannie I'm thinking of, but she says that Dialga and Palkia were "revered as dieties" or something like that. R.A. Hunter Blade 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

that is exactly what i'm saying, 'revered as dieties' but not actual gods, but actually the sinnoh myth is based on shinto which might possibly have been confusing for the pokémon community.--Nobody777 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But diety refers to gods, or somthing/someone on the level of a god. If you can find a meaning that's different, then please do. R.A. Hunter Blade 13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm no longer arguing that it isn't a "god" (as the word itself is quite vague. All I was saying is that the assumption that Game Freak won't be able to come up with something more powerful, as well as the assumption that they have to with each new generation, are both misconceptions. And again, as this is about the fandom's opinion, and many are of the belief that Nintendo has to do both of these things to make a new generation (and that they couldn't if they wanted to), I think the amended wording suits it fine. - unsigned comment from AndyPKMN (talk • contribs)
Further discussion on this topic at Bulbawiki forums please. Comments below this line will be deleted. —darklordtrom 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

page is messed up

I suggest rearranging the page into several sections or put into a table--Nobody777 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

um.....

there could be a future Generation starting off at Route 49 getting rid of that LONG gap between Route 48 and Route 101--Darknesslover5000 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

if the gap between routes complete a full number sequence, that means that between johto and hoenn there are most probably two generations, between hoenn and sinnoh there are about four generations, of course if I take this if each region has about 27 playable routes, of course its an assumption but good point to be mentioned if the numbering counts. yet there's the problem of the pokémon world's route numbering system which could exist as some kind of government policy, if it exists.--Nobody777 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that, if a new generation's country includes a route number starting right after the last route number of another country, that would heavily imply that said other country is accessible in the game. For example, if Generation V's country were to begin at Route 49, that would imply that at least Johto is accessible in the main games of that generation. Hoenn began at 101, Sinnoh began at 201, and the Sevii Islands did not number their routes, all to avoid these implications.
(For the record, yes, there is a precedent for Route 47 going west from Cianwood when Route 46 is on the eastern side of the country. The precedent is Kanto's Route 24, north of Cerulean while Route 23 is on the west side of the country.) - unsigned comment from Shiningpikablu252 (talk • contribs)
um... what's a precedent?--Darknesslover5000 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
and I still say that they can fix that long @$$ gap between Johto and Hoenn's region number's without making Johto accessible. The excuse? A land Bridge between Johto and Hypothetical Generation V region that vanished over time.--Darknesslover5000 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There could also be no more Pokémon games. The moral of the story is we base our information on the trends of recent games, not what a handful of fans think is possible. Because anything's possible. Even an elephant bird (ten points for getting the reference). —darklordtrom 02:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

true. But there are some people (like me) that are insane about Pokémon. If the series is stopped we will band togéther to attack nintendo. There's still SO much Nintendo can put into Pokémon. And besides it makes them money. I don't think they'll end it yet.--Darknesslover5000 02:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on this topic at Bulbawiki forums please. Comments below this line will be deleted. —darklordtrom 20:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I largely agree with trom's reasoning that we needed to rewrite this page, but am concerned that we are losing a lot of information by doing this transition so suddenly. I certainly feel that any of the "evidence" sections, we retain on other pages, and that it's easy to find on those pages. As for the format, I'd advocate a few more bulleted lists, as I think it is easier to pick out on the page than a whole load of prose to wade through. I know you had good intentions though trom :) Kidburla 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I removed anything of importance, then feel free to put it back in. I did think that some items listed were overtrivialised, so I took them out. As for the format, the sections with paragraphs is generally preferred for overall article quality. Thanks for your feedback. —darklordtrom 11:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay so I agree that most articles should have sections and paragraphs, but I contest that this is a "normal" article. It reads more like a list, which has been converted to a formatted article (which incidentally is basically what has happened). Perhaps instead, some of this content should be migrated to a "List of patterns common to all Pokémon games" and then merely referenced from this article? Kidburla 18:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This page was better before the rewrite. Put the evidence back in. Emyunoxious 01:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I disagree; it looks much cleaner and more professional now, while the old version was fairly jumbled. If you want to add old information, at least put it in a more organized manner than before. MagicBarrier 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article looks better without all the bullet points. It's a lot easier to read. Taromon 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundant

Disclaimer: This article is purely fan speculation. There is NO evidence for or against it. Section:evidence for gen V. Section:evidence against gen V.

lol --GEN1KING 14:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It said solid evidence. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 14:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be a new handheld

I did not know where else to put this so... I was just reading NGamer(uk 46) and it has an artical on page 6 about what Nintendo president Satoru Iwata said in an interview with japanese newspaper Ashi Shimbun. They report that when asked about a future generation of handhelds he apparently said that that the new consol would have "highly detailed graphics, and it will be necessary to have a sensor with the ability to read the movements of people playing". With earlier reports of Nvidia working on a chipset for Nintendo, and Game Freak advertising a while back for a 3D artist (or something), I believe that the 5th gen of Pokémon is close and we may even see sneek previews of the next handheld by the end of the year, sounds to me as if they are working on it by now (could even be in testing as NGamer have a mock picture of what they believe is in the works). - unsigned comment from 011384mm (talk • contribs)

It's already announced. You might not know because it was revealed 1 or 2 days ago. Turtwig A (talk | contribs) 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A Little Spelling Error

Since this page is protected, there's a really small spelling error. - "Just as Red and Blue were made in Generation III, and Gold and Sliver in Generation IV, it is most likely that Ruby and Sapphire will be remade in Generation V." It should be Silver not Sliver. Ugoz 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing. - Kogoro | Talk to me - 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Another minor error that was over looked in what Ugoz pointed out, made should be changed to remade.NnN Neo 03:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Add info about Gen V

Could someone delete the references of generation V. Or Atleast reword them. also, plz mention Gne. V in the begining paragraph. thankyouShiny Pika 02:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, can add a link to Gen 5 at the bottom of the page.--Midnight Blue 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In progress. TTEchidna 03:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Also a reminder: in "Speculation against future generations", if it even remains relevant in the short term at all, everything involving the unlikelihood of the fifth gen in particular (or unlikelihood that it will be on the DS) should be removed. --HeroicJay 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
...Hello? The page still talks about the possibility of an already-confirmed fifth gen not happening, even saying no new Pokemon have been revealed. --HeroicJay 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Two Sets of Remakes in Generation V and Beyond?

I Think that if they ARE Going to remake Ruby and Sapphire in Gen. V, then they would have to do remakes of FR/LG, because FR/LG have the exact same quality as Ruby/Sapphire. And then, they would probably have to remake DP in Generation VI, if there ever will be a Generation VI.Should there be a Generation VI in 2013 or whenever (2013 is my best guess, or 2014), then there would have to be more remakes of HGSs.Then, in an seemingly unlikely Generation VII, would come reremakes of FRLG and RS, and then the first remakes of the Generation V Games.I See all these, except the First remakes of RS, unlikely.Brock*PWN* 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember, talk pages are meant for discussing the article itself, not the subject. To post all your theories and random questions about the content of the games, visit the forums.—Mada-sama (Talk to me!)— 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Remake will only happen if the generation timeline is the same. I and III take place during the same time, II and IV also take place during the same time. Someone should mention it at the remake part about the "same timeline". -Pokeant 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, please. Nowhere is it stated that Generation I and Generation III take place at the same time, nor is it stated anywhere that Generation II and Generation IV also take place at the same time. The only thing we know about any Pokémon game timelines is that Generation II (and its remakes) take place three years after Generation I (and its remakes), while XD: Gale of Darkness takes place five years after Colosseum. Who's to say Generation III isn't a prequel to Generation I, or Generation IV isn't a sequel to Generation II? Communication compatability means nothing--both Colosseum and XD: Gale of Darkness trades with Generation III handheld games without any problems despite the fact that the Gamecube titles have a distinct timeline difference. --Shiningpikablu252 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation against future generations

Despite the name of this section, it's actually arguing that there won't be a Generation V. An argument which I don't think anyone can logically support given that we know Gen V is coming. In particular it says, "no new Pokémon have been revealed" which is just completely wrong at this point. Drapion 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Generation V Hate

"While Generation V is known to be on its way, several vocal fans believe it will be inferior to Generation IV, which has, as of the present, lasted nearly as long as Generation III did."

So, how does this fit in with the rest of the section? The rest of the section just says there won't be future generations. MagicBarrier 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's been changed. I know people will always have generations that they hate, but I was saying it didn't fit in with the rest of the section. MagicBarrier 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No Old Pokemon In Generation 5!?!?

Than that means a lot of this HAS to be wrong.. if there won't be any old pokemon, than that means Pikachu won't appear and.... ... ... ... ... OMG NO MORE GEODUDE!!! WOOT!!!! Anyway point is this needs to be pointed out in the article eventually!! Also, a question, has it been comfirmed that there won't be badges in the new generation? Or is this still a rumor? Anyway, I'd just like to point out that IF what Masuda said is TRUE than that means some of the "Fan Speculation" will NOT happen!! --Landfish7 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just no old Pokémon until after acquiring the Nat'l Dex. Calm down, you'll be able to get Pikachu. ʝɑzzmotɦ ❝❞✎ 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess we will have to wait until the game is released to figure out exactly how they are going to do this.. something makes me doubt that they will all of a sudden have past Pokemon in the wild after you recieve the national dex.. I thought it would be more like Generations 1 through 4 Pokemon couldn't be traded into the game until the National Pokedex was unlocked and you can only find Generation 5 Pokemon in the wild NO MATTER WHAT!! BTW, I don't care if Pikachu ends up in the game or not.. it's a useless electric rodent.. so.. should we at least point this fact out on the Black and White page? --Landfish7 20:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, until we find out for sure either way, it's speculation. Let's not add it until it's confirmed exactly how this will work. ʝɑzzmotɦ ❝❞✎ 23:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon debuting before their Generation

Zoroark debuted before Gen V in the Anime, if the movies count.. Which is likely as Manaphy and Lucario are mentioned. --♪ Jason Tong ♪ 08:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan?

It states that all regions have been based on places in Japan.. but Isshu is based off of New York. --Landfish7 01:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Myth busted

Since NOBODY went above a base stat total of 680 in the 5th Gen, and since Arceus is still the only one to go higher than that, using Arceus as evidence against future generations is now false. If Arceus were still credible evidence to use Reshiram, Zekrom, Kyurem, AND Genesect would have a base stat total of 720 or higher, so that disproves the superseding part of each generation. Even in terms of backstory they did absolutely nothing to Arceus's title, as they technically didn't create [i]anything[/i]. Reshiram and Zekrom simply have either Good or Evil personalities respectively that got into arguements with eachother to repeat Groudon and Kyogre except nothing real "special", Kyurem is a derp until we get the potential Gray version and find out what it really is, and Genesect is simply another Mewtwo. Due to this, a 6th Generation is highly possible still, as nobody superseded the 4th Gen in terms of backstories. Shiramu Kuromu 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

.....

WHY whould ANYONE think they'll remake FR?LG?!?! That'll be so much of a waste of resources since they already remade Kanto once and they don't need SEVEN games for that, as they can simply put all the Kanto and Johto legendaries in Hoenn like they did with most of the Legendaries in HG/SS. Game Freak seems to be wanting a full reboot here, something that will NOT be accomplished with FR/LG remakes. You'd get a better result with Hoenn remakes than that for goodness sakes, since the FR/LG remakes are TOTAL speculation unlike the Hoenn remakes, which actually have more wait to them (For instance, Dive is an HM again). Shiramu Kuromu 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Heck that entire section in the article is total speculation to begin with. Who put that there anyways??? Shiramu Kuromu 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdated and Actively Incorrect Content

While this page *was* accurate, the section on the new generations coming out with a new system (paraphrasing heavily) is, obviously, conclusively false at this point. Id like to either remove the statement, or amend it, but considering how much controversy this sort of page has the potential to cause, I don't want to do so without greater input. PowerPlantRaichu 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the 3DS come out with Gen V? I'm new, but there's so much here I can't find any mainspace to edit!- unsigned comment from Cela08 (talk • contribs)

Deletion discussion

(Thanks for slapping on the template without starting the discussion yourself. Nice and polite.) I disagree with Spyspotter's request to delete this page. While it is quite speculative, the fact is that there are patterns and it's nice to have a page that goes over them. What this page needs is not to be deleted, but to have the speculation edited out so it's an observation of the patterns themselves rather than speculation about whether those patterns will continue. If this is done (and I intend to do it if people agree with me), it should probably be either moved to an entirely new title or merged into the "Version" article (which, as a side note, should really be titled "Main series" for consistency with our other pages). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion notice. <!--and can I be deleted I need a fresh start-->--Reli★ジーランス? 17:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm alright with the patterns in the version article, but the rest of it needs to go. Having speculation is one thing, but having an entire article consisting of it is another. Also, I don't always start deletion discussions, if I didn't, then the edit summary and the template state my argument. I think it's a waste of time retyping all that stuff out. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there are better places for this page's content. What it currently seems to be is a list of generalities about Pokémon games that would probably be more suited for Version or whatever it becomes. --FSX (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a simple solution to this: move it to the appendix. What do you guys think? --Landfish7 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. The appendix namespace a) never gets noticed and b) Is for fact only. The only namespace for speculation is the shipping namespace, and (for obvious reasons) it can not be moved there. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this belongs in the appendix. I do personally think a merge with Version would be a fine idea. --ZestyCactus 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Per discussion, I've merged all the content that seemed appropriate into the Version article. If I missed anything or anyone disagrees, please speak up; otherwise, my opinion is that this article is done and ready to be deleted. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion of this page. I mean this not the first page to contain speculation (e.g. Shipping article. But they I guess from the prefix that they are not in the mainspace,are they? ). I don't know if this is wrong but I suggest that the article be renamed to something like, IMHO, Trends set by Pokemon games or sth like that and if possible, moved somewhere this so-called speculation is allowed.Auraguardian197 07:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Everything currently in the article worth keeping, as I've already noted, has been moved to the Version article. Shipping is the only namespace that allows any speculation whatsoever, and this obviously doesn't belong there, so we cannot keep it in a place where "speculation is allowed", because none suitable exists. I don't understand why anyone still wants to keep this page, since all of the information is already in the Version article (or would be deleted for non-notability even if we kept this page). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I was just voicing my opinion,that's all. Sorry if I sounded rude or anythng.Auraguardian197 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Version premerge discussion

Just wondering?

In the Japanese version's of any main series game, does the word "version" exist or is that just international usage. Because on the box arts it just say for example Pearl or Ruby.--Pokéboy93 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

  • Each generation's third version does not use its mascots official Ken Sugimori artwork. Blastoise (Japanese), Pikachu (Japanese and English), Suicune, Rayquaza, and Giratina use specially made artwork.

The original Red, Green, and Blue, and the English Gold and Silver don't seem to use the official artwork either. Am I wrong? Or did he publish more than one official work of these back then? - MK (t/c) 07:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Colors

I don't know where else to put this, so since I noticed it here first, I'll put it here. I'm not very familiar with the way wikis work, but I've noticed in the source that each Version has its own "color". I'm not talking about the name of the game, I'm talking about the HTML color that it's assigned in the wiki. For example, Red Version's "color" ("red color") is #FF1111, and FireRed's "color" ("firered color") is #FFAAAA. Anyway, what I'd like to know is...where did those specific colors come from? How were those specific colors chosen? And why aren't White and Black Version's "colors" #000000 and #FFFFFF, respectively, instead of what they are currently (#444444 and #C3C3C3, respectively)? I can understand that lighter/darker colors were chosen for visibility purposes, but as the colors are right now, SoulSilver's color (#E1E1E1) is whiter than White's own color! It just doesn't look right, having White Versions be less white than SoulSilver Version... —Tyeforce 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well... we also have "Black color dark/light" and "White color dark/light". You can't make white lighter, and you can't make black darker. Sooo. Also it's a really bad idea to have pure white text... when the default background is white. Another thing is, as you pointed out, Red isn't pure #ff0000. So why should BW be their 'pure' color? D:
... oh yeah and #000 is kinda the default text color, too... >_> ▫▪Ťïňắ ♫♥ 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that. But shouldn't we change either SoulSilver's color or White's color, because it doesn't look right with SoulSilver's color being whiter than White's... Also, is there a page that lists all the colors, along with their light and dark versions? I'd like to make a list of them all, but digging through the source code isn't exactly the most convenient method, lol. (I'm using the colors for something I'm doing.) —Tyeforce 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for the format; I took these out of an Excel file I have. Some of the light colors are now outdated (as in, we changed them on the pedia and I didn't change them on my sheet) and I only have up until Platinum.
Hope that helps. —darklordtrom 23:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm just curious... How were the colors for Colosseum and XD chosen? Also, what's the verdict on the SoulSilver/White color issue? —Tyeforce 23:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Generation V: Inverted Pairings

Generation V is the first time that the pairings between version color and version mascot are inverted. (I.E. Reshiram, the White Dragon, is the version mascot of Pokémon Black while Zekrom, the Black Dragon, is the version mascot of Pokémon White.) --Arima 03:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Font Colors

I haven't figured out how to but can someone change the font color for Red, Blue, Ruby and Sapphire in the box? They are either incredibly hard to see or you can't see them at all. --HoennMaster 19:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SoulSilver and White

It doesn't look like this was ever concluded, but I agree that having SoulSilver a lighter color than White is odd. Ikarishipper900 15:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Version Concepts

This seems like as good a place as any to ask. Anyway, I was wondering if there's a spot on the Wiki that talks about the 'theme' of a generation. The Generation V page has a section on how Black and White is an exploration of polarity. Here's the relevant section from the March Nintendo Power: "We choose the titles to express the themes of each game. Like, diamonds are the hardest substance in the world, so that fit the theme of "ultimateness" in Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. This time we're pursuing a theme of "polarity," things that are defined by their opposition to each other. Take, for example, angles and demons, or light and shadow-if one didn't exist, the other would lose all meaning. "White" is a blank slate with potential to become anything, while "black" is complete and unchanging. So our intention actually wasn't to return to the basics, but to evoke that particular theme." What I'm wondering is, is there a place for this sort of thing on the main version pages. A line that says "Diamond and Pearl are named for being 'Ultimate', like how BW is named for 'Polarity'. Could this be included anywhere?--Purimpopoie 00:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that kind of thing would go best in the "Discussion of Generation X" section of each generation page. However, the version naming origin should also be on the pages of the game versions themselves, maybe in the trivia sections of those pages. --SnorlaxMonster 13:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move

Is the discussion to move this page still ongoing or is it no longer being considered? - poikins 07:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it ever got past suggestion. I'm all for it (since I was the one that suggested it). --SnorlaxMonster 11:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it should move as well. - poikins 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with the move. A proper disscussion should at least take place. --Pokemaster97 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that the page should be moved. ZMT123 21:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think it should be moved. Version sounds like it should be about the differences between versions or what a version is, but Main series fits this article much better.--Darth Zekrom 22:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
So, are we moving this or what? ZMT123 04:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The move will take a bit of editing in the article for it to make sense as titled "Main series", so if no one else wants to, I can start working on it. - poikins 19:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A "version" is a game. It is a singular game entity. The "main series" is the entire series of games that headlines a generation, as well as their complimenting same-generation additions (ie: remakes). This article seems to walk the line between the two, as if it has an identity crisis at times. -- MAGNEDETH 04:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article needs a rewrite. Something else I believe that should happen is the creation of a side series page, in line with the decision we made sometime last year IIRC, where side series is defined as Stadium, Colosseum, XD, Box, Ranch, and PBR, and is distinct from spin-off games as well as the main series. --SnorlaxMonster 12:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Abstain. If Colosseum and XD are considered "main series" (they do have full trading connectivity with RSE/FRLG, unlike side series games) then I agree that main series is a distinct concept from version. Even "version" itself has multiple meanings (e.g: FR/LG's v1.0 cart having a minor Pokedex bug), and that Pokemon X and Y are just "X" and "Y", not "X Version" and "Y Version". --Stratelier 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yellow and Pikachu

There has been an edit war on the Japanese games section. I believe it should remain Pikachu, while others thing it should stay Yellow. Maybe we need an admin in on this to decide what to keep. Iml908 (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Title screens

Would it be a good idea to put all the title screens on this page? --Abcboy (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's my idea:
I know, it's stupidly gigantic, the pictures are too big, bla bla bla... but still, give me your opinion! --Abcboy (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks nice though there's just too much stuff going on in this table, most of the Japanese title screens are/will most likely be shown on the Generation pages. But I'm supporting this idea. Արիանո 14:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
How about this:

I removed the Japanese ones, and to compensate, I made the English ones bigger. --Abcboy (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks better but the size is a problem. It could be hidden (or something similar to compensate) like the trainer list tables on trainer class pages so it wouldn't dominate the whole page. Արիանո 14:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a cool idea. For the English B2W2 Title Screens, shouldn't it have the word Pokémon in it though? Not sure why they aren't in the above images. Torpoleon (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made both tables expandable and added a new header so it looks okay. I'll fix the title screens in a minute. --Abcboy (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the images. To see the correct ones, you may need to clear both the server cache and your browser cache. --Abcboy (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
So, is this going to be added soon? It looks really nice. Torpoleon (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Now that all the title screens are uploaded, I really would like more opinions. --Abcboy (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Since XY just got announced and don't have boxarts yet, it made me realize something. If this idea did get accepted, what would we do for a new main series game, before its release? We don't have XY's title screens yet, so it would seem off for a while with this idea. Maybe we could just use each game's logos? It would certainly take up a lot less space. Torpoleon (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Move - part 2

With the new games "Pokémon X" and "Pokémon Y", it's undeniable that the term "Version" does not include every "main series" game anymore. |) u |( e ® 22:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's undeniable that Pokémon X and Y Versions does not have the word "version" in it. --Abcboy (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
As for the template used in Bulbapedia, the lack of the word is really a problem (as was when the word 2 was added to the end of the article's name in B2W2), but this will be solved someday. As for now, this article needs to be moved. Iwata called these games (and referred solely to these games) as the "Pokémon Series", just like they call them "Pocket Monsters Series" in Japan. Therefore, this article should be moved to "Pokémon series". |) u |( e ® 22:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I personally think that "Pokémon series" would be ambiguous. --Abcboy (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
We're currently dealing with getting new information added to all the articles and keeping everything as organised as possible. We will deal with this after the staff has sat down and discussed it. Please be patient. Thanks. --Pokemaster97 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Color trivia

Is it noteable to add that all the games released internationally with colors in their name (Red, Blue, Yellow, Black, and White) have the same names as primary colors (in other words, colors that cannot be made by a mixture of colors)? Iml908 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking Scientifically or Art, because in Art Primary Colours=Red, Blue and Yellow, but in Science Primary Colours=Red, Blue and Green.TurtleLover1999 (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Art specifically. And yes, while Red, Blue, and Yellow are the main primary colors, they are defined as colors that cannot be mixed by any other color to get them. Black and White also fall under this definition. Iml908 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that's so obvious that we don't need to note it. --SnorlaxMonster 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardon the question, but...

What's the point of showing a circle with the version's color at the side of each version's name in the table? It seems rather superfluous, especially considering that each cell already has a background color corresponding to the version's color. - Ericss (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion part III: Revenge of the Sith

So yeah. This article's title conflicts with our naming conventions in which the games are categorized into main series, side series, and spin-off games. Since it took my prodding last month to get Stadium/Colo/etc out of main series like people had been intending to do but never actually done, I'm gonna be bold and prod here to get this article moved to the title "Main series". Objections? Or if there are none, shall I move it myself (after giving this discussion an ample few days to get responses)? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, we also need an article and template for side series, since those games had their categories updated to side series but stuffed into the spin-off games article/template because there wasn't already one for them. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Logos

Instead of having a colored circle and the game's name, wouldn't it be better to have their logos (or maybe title screens)? Seems a bit weird just having the colored dot and their name. I know we have just the logos for B2W2 & XY, but not sure on the others. What does everyone else think about this idea? Torpoleon (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving Black and White 2 to Solitary versions

Well, should they? Its not like there is a rule that there can only be one Solitary game. Iml908 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh... there doesn't need to be a rule because the definition of solitary is that it's unaccompanied. B2W2 are paired versions. The lack of a third version is one of the (many) pattern-breaking things Game Freak did with Generation V; we don't need to shoehorn them into that slot because of some arbitrary fan expectation for a third version. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Stubby stubs (not in Game Stubs?)

Is there a reason for this article not being in the "Game Stubs" Category when the spin-offs are? Or am I being ignorant about something? ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a stub, and it doesn't have the template on it to put it in the category. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 00:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I kinda don't understand that entirely, though. But I can make some sense out of it and accept that. Thank you, Funktastic. ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 00:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Postmerge discussion

Suggestion to Move?

How come there are three notices on the top of the page that says this article is to be moved to either, "Main Series", "Core Series" or "Pokemon Series" when there is no valid link to those pages. Kinda pointless to move it when those pages don't exist. I personally think this page is fine the way it is and to me, there is no need to change it at all. But obviously, thats just me, others may feel differently..... Demers-Vachon 23:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's suggesting that the name of the page be moved to one of those names... They're the intended destination pages so if they were actual pages, it couldn't be moved to that name... Please think before you type. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow thats very rude of you to say, but its the internet, your bound to see multiple of that, but anyways, I was stating what I think, very sorry if that offended you, looks like it did.. clearly. Sorry for stating how I feel.... Demers-Vachon 23:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Core series

So I thought it would be a good idea to provide some sources for the name "core series".

--SnorlaxMonster 05:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for a move to "core series" if this is the name that's used officially. "Version" is nearly a conjectural title for this article anyway, cause we had to call it something. X and Y aren't even referred to as "Version", anyway. --ZestyCactus 17:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"South Korean" games

What's the point of giving South Korea it's own section of the core series games? Can't it just say something like "South Korea only got the games from Gen IV, V, and VI, and only got Gold and Silver from Gen II" as a note at the bottom. Seems like a waste of space to put South Korea as an entirely separate section. --Phoenixon (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It already says that in the beginning. And since the South Korean market has such a significant difference, a table for it is reasonable. SatoMew 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki

Add this german Interwiki pls: [[de:Hauptreihe]] Tobutz98 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trademarked names trivia

Where's the source? SatoMew 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Official timeline

Toshinobu Matsumiya from Game Freak has officially revealed the timeline of the core series games on a tweet.
Timeline: RGBY = FRLG = RSE = ORAS > (3 years) GSC = HGSS = DPPt > (???) BW > (2 years) B2W2 = XY
If someone could add this to the article, I'd appreciate it.
— SatoMew 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mainline games"?

Where did this term come from? I have never heard it before, and it appears nowhere in the article prior to the move from "version" to "core series". Blueapple128 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pokéfan95 added it two days ago. Can't say I've ever heard it used in reference to the Pokémon games, but I have seen it used for other series with off-shoots and spin-offs. glikglak 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Then if the term has never been used in reference to the Pokémon core series, it arguably doesn't belong in this particular article. Blueapple128 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It is used around the internet, and I don't think there's any harm to keeping it. --Abcboy (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Pokéfan95 didn't add it, I did. "Main game" in both singular and plural forms already redirects here either way. SatoMew2 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Move

Core series and core games are both official titles. Using "core games" is better because it comes off more naturally than "core series games" and makes linking to this article easier. It also allows for consistency in references to other series, such as the spin-off games. SatoMew 16:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding in side-series games

Should games like Stadium and Coliseum receive a mention on this page, for their connectivity? Iml908 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Remakes are spinoffs, they do not belong on this page!

Why are they even still on here after the page was renamed from "version"? Mattwo (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, remakes are not spin-offs, since they have been confirmed to take place at the same time as the other games in their respective series. They also follow the same rules and gameplay as every other main series game. The only remakes that could possibly be considered spin-offs are Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee, but since we know so little about it, we can't confirm their classification as main series games. OmegaSilver (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all here's an official source that says the Let's Go are in the "main line series, now where's your source saying the remakes are? Also just because they take place at the same time doesn't mean they're not Spinoffs. Flash takes place at the same time as Arrow, Superman the Animated Series takes place at the same time as Batman the Animated Series. Also, source on that too please? Mattwo (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)(why does it make me sign my post when I edit? So stupid) Mattwo (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so Let's Go are main series, whatever. What I want to know is where is the source that confirms that the remakes, games that play exactly like every other main series game, retain a majority of features that every other main series game has at the point of their release, and has every Pokémon, move, and ability that every other main series game has at the point of their release, are spin-offs? You're logic is as broken as the Gen 1 games. OmegaSilver (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You're the ones who need a source, this is a wiki, the only way the information on it can be credible if it's probably sourced. Also, it's your. Also, ORAS implicitly implied that all of the remakes take place in side-canon. Besides, how could they be canon if they contradict the games they're based on and how could side-canon be anything but a spinoff? Mattwo (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to change the wiki page, then you have to provide proof from a credible source that supports your claim. But what if you said is true? By your logic, how do we know that Ruby and Sapphire aren't main series? They don't connect to the previous game's stories, so how do we know that they don't take place in a separate canon? And how do we know that Gen 7 isn't canon to previous titles? ORAS had redesigns for Maxie and Archie, but Episode RR use the original designs. And how did Giovanni get a hold of Mega Stones if they didn't exist in ANY of the Kanto games? You see how inconsistent your logic is? If you can't prove why we're wrong, why should we believe you when what we've believed has been accepted by everyone since the remakes came out over 10 years ago? OmegaSilver (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
They're remakes of a core series game, that's as core series as you can get. ORAS is implied to be set in an alternative continuity, but that does not mean it is not part of the core series.--ForceFire 05:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing about this is confirmed or legitimate, it is thus speculative, fan speculation not less. A wiki shouldn't be including such speculative material not clearly marked or worded as speculative if it wants to be considered a legitimate source of information but it's your wiki so that's not my call to make. Also, OmegaSilver please stop missing the point, I'm saying information should be REMOVED from the page, not added. Removed information wouldn't require a citation because there'd be nothing to assign the citation to. Mattwo (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know why you think the remakes aren't part of the core series, because by the looks of it, your reasoning is solely because they are remakes. To which I say, so what? They follow the same pattern as other core series games (Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee notwithstanding) by virtue of being remakes.--ForceFire 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
My reasoning is also that it's speculation, Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee were officially confirmed as such (probably because they're rebooting the franchise tbh) and yet, none of the rest were. Did you seriously just completely ignore that point when it was literally the most important one? I give up, you're clearly not willing to listen. Mattwo (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Speculation... how? The remakes follow the same formula as the other core series games, that's not speculation. Just because Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee are going to be different, doesn't disqualify the previous games as being part of the core series.--ForceFire 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The "remakes" are all called "Pocket Monsters" just like all the core games have been called; all other games have been called "Pokemon". Therefore they're core games. QED. Pointless discussion over. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

B2W2

There's a distinction between "upper versions", "sequels", and "remakes", which should be listed alongside the currently listed "original versions". A Pokemon "version" is not determined solely by its setting and Pokemon. It's also determined by how original the story is. RGBYFRLG are all the same story with minor alterations between each version, and that's true with every generation except the fifth. The fifth generation is the one and only instance where the story is entirely different between the two releases set in the same region, so I feel that deserves to be considered its own category. If you want official proof, Shigeru Ohmori said here in regards to USUM (https://www.eurogamer.pt/articles/2017-10-19-pokemon-vai-continuar-a-acompanhar-a-evolucao-tecnologica): "These new versions are not a sequel like Black 2 and White 2. They are what we call an "enhanced version", just like the Emerald and Platinum versions in past generations." So he himself made this distinction, not just me. Crunchdog29 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Mina's settei says that she's 13-15 years old in LGPE. That would mean it happens at most 6 years before SMUSUM, if we assume it's still the same universe. And, isn't that a proof she has to be older than 13 years in Alola just by her looks.--Rocket Grunt (Report To Me) 15:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Expansion Passes

Should the DLC passes for Sword and Shield be added to the table? While they're not individual games, they are said to Generation VIII's replacement of upper versions, even having their own Game mascot. I've included what it would look like if included, though it would also make sense if they were they're own table.Iml908 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Original versions Upper versions
Generation I
(Japan)
Generation I
(International)
Generation II
Generation III
Generation IV
Generation V
Generation VI
Generation VII
Generation VIII

Orignal Version or Upper Version?

Does Pokémon Legends: Arceus count as original version or Upper? Becuase it feel like and original version despite being a side story to the new Diamond and Pearl remakes.--Jacob9863 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It has a completely different story, gameplay, etc from Diamond and Pearl so it would not be an Upper version. --HoennMaster 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank, will add that in now, thanks again for the clarification.--Jacob9863 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

PL:A

I do believe, though it depends on what PL:A shows, but it may be time to edit this article and reclassify what a core-series game is.–Darknesslover5000 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

totally different from what Darknesslover5000 said, but I just added Legends Arceus to the start of the timeline, and put "hundreds of years" between LA and RGBYFRLGRSEORAS. - unsigned comment from Grookeyscorbunnysobble (talk • contribs)

Colors for the game table?

I have possible colors for Scarlet and Violet, sourced directly from the logos. They are #a42429 and #771e85 I am not sure how to modify the table to add the colors, nor what color the Gen IX cell should use. If anyone could tell me how or do it for me, that would be very much appreciated! --UnwrittenArtist (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ORAS does not replace RSE in the timeline. It takes place in a different universe at the same time as/slightly before XY.

Solid evidence from within the games themselves: 1. Zinnia references the RSE universe being separate from the ORAS universe. 2. It is shown in the Alola games, which canonically take place two years after XY according to this page, that the Wally from ORAS has aged much less than Anabel, Red, and Blue have, which is a clear indication that ORAS took place more recently compared to Emerald & the Kanto games. 3. ORAS took place no later than XY because AZ's Floette's flower is still in Sootopolis by the end of the game. 4. (Speculation, but still a better placement than currently shown) Since Wally appears to have barely aged a few years in Alola, it's reasonable to infer the events of ORAS took place at the same time as XY, if not slightly before because of the Eternal Flower's presence.

SabSad (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Anabel

"Since she appeared in Pokémon Emerald before falling through the wormhole, Pokémon Sun and Moon cannot be set less than 10 years after Pokémon Emerald."

I don't know where this conclusion came from, but this is entirely based on assumption. There's nothing that implies that Anabel fell into an Ultra Wormhole between Emerald and GSC, it's only said she fell 10 years prior to SM/USUM, and using that to say SM/USUM are 10 years after Emerald is a stretch. Inkster (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

She fell through the wormhole and has been living in Alola 10 years. She couldn't be in Hoenn at the same time.--Rocket Grunt 19:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, she's lived in Alola ever since Looker and Nanu found her unconscious in Poni Beach 10 years ago, but what I'm saying is that there is no evidence that supports Anabel falling somewhere between 1996 (Generation I/III) and 1999 ( Generation II/IV) (Unrelated note but Gen I is said to take place in 1996 according to the intro of Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia if you were wondering about the years listed). Inkster (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The only game she has appeared in is Emerald, so that's what it's basing it off.--ForceFire 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
That is making an assumption as I said earlier. Appearing in only one game doesn't mean anything, and RSE takes place at the same time as RGBY, which is said to be 20 years prior due to Porygon's dex entries. Inkster (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No one says she fell then. We just say that Anabel proves there's AT LEAST 10 years between Gen 1 and Gen 7. Porygon proves there's AT MOST 20 years. Adding that up we can know it's between 10 and 20 years.--Rocket Grunt 10:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
What? I never said that "nobody says she fell", that is not what it meant. Even if there WAS a 10 year gap between Gen I and Gen VII, it would not be possible for Porygon to have been made 20 years ago. Reason being that Pokémon Red and Green takes place in 1996 and Porygon was created in 1995, both coming from the Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia. With those pieces of information and it's Pokédex entries in S/USUM, they perfectly add up to what is said in the book, revealing a 20 year gap between the games, which debunks the 10 year gap between Gens I and VII, as Porygon cannot have been created before 1995. Inkster (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't debunk this gap. It agrees with it. Porygon is created in 1995, RG and Emerald are in 1996, Anabel falls in 2005 and SMUSUM is 2015. This page is just missing the newly discovered information from the Encyclopedia. I asked about it SnorlaxMonster [1], and waited for Legends Arceus if they will do something with it, because there was supposed to be Porygon even though it was before its creation. Seems like there's no reason anymore to not add this piece of information.--Rocket Grunt 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the gap I meant referred to Gen VII taking place 10 years after Gen I. Inkster (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the timeline is mostly speculation at the moment. And things have changed due to the "multiverse" possibilities. I don't feel it's right to say that the original Red/Blue take place at the same time as FireRed/LeafGreen. And Omega Ruby/Alpha Sapphire taking place so long before X and Y does not make sense in the slightest. Mega Evolutions were supposed to have been discovered only in Kalos and then were found in Hoenn later. Saying ORAS takes place so long before X and Y breaks that completely. The remakes should be treated as separate from the originals in the timeline unless officially stated to take place at the same time. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 16:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hang on a second, now I'm getting confused whether Gen VII takes place 19 years or 20 years after Gen I. Inkster (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
"Just to clarify, the gap I meant referred to Gen VII taking place 10 years after Gen I."
Inkster, "cannot be set less than 10 years after Pokémon Emerald" means that it was a 10 PLUS year gap (meaning it could have been more than 10 years, as you're already asserting). PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
This is getting unnecessarily complicated, IMO. The page was fine as it was. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question about 19 or 20 years, PokemonMasterJamal. Inkster (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to that part, hence the quote. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Saying Wally is 29 in SMUSUM is a little ridiculous. He's the same age as Red and Blue but hasn't age while they have. It's one of the reasons why we should question ORAS happening in the same time as RSE. I think we shouldn't try to calculate age of characters based on this timeline and leave only the information stated directly.--Rocket Grunt 18:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It feels extremely dubious listing these ages on character pages. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
As dubious as this may sound for the protagonist ages, I (regretfully) feel it would be best to go in with the mindset that the protagonists are 10 years old unless officially stated otherwise, only because that is the general consensus outside of the Bulbagarden community. Inkster (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should be doing any assuming at all regarding ages, regardless of what the "general consensus" outside the wiki is. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
With that logic, it seems to me like the Trial Captains also fall under this as despite the 11-19 range, their ages are also not directly stated. Inkster (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We are talking about concensus outside of the wiki. There is no concensus outside of the wiki about the ages of the trail captains. I agree with Jamal.--MissDelibirda (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I personally don't agree with Grunt. If you ask me, it was only reasonable to remove the calculations from Wally and Steven Stone because ORAS is clearly and obviously not part of the timeline. Inkster (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The games don't really have a timeline that's completely set in stone, though. Even in Wally's case, his appearance in Gen 7 is clearly based off of his ORAS appearance (which is further backed up by his Pokémon). PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a couple of points to say about this part of the timeline that I don't think people have considered here:
- 10 years prior to Sun & Moon, Looker was part of a mission in Alola during which his codename was 100kr, and a faller he was working with died ("It is something that happened about 10 years ago now...I came to the Alola region at that time as a part of a three-person team to eradicate a UB...")
- Shortly after this, Anabel arrives in Alola via Ultra Wormhole ("Nanu and I, we found her here ten years ago, unconscious on the shore of this very island. We'd just finished our mission here.").
- When you meet Looker in Platinum, he has already changed his codename from 100kr to Looker.
- Therefore, Sun & Moon cannot take place more than about 10 years after Platinum.
- A different thing to note is that the Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia claiming that Red & Green take place in 1996 is already contradicted by the Member Card, which places Platinum in 2008 (50 years after the year on the card, 1958) even though Platinum only takes place 3 years after Red & Green. I feel that it makes sense that a piece of information that is both more recent and from an in-game source should take priority if we have to choose one to consider correct, personally.
Apologies if I've formatted this incorrectly, I've never added to a wiki before. AutumnHaunted (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  1. So you think that he was using his codename "100kr" in Alola, then came to Sinnoh when he used the name "Looker" and then came back to Alola? This very loosely assumes that he's using his codename as a name everywhere, and with everyone like no secret agent would do.
  2. Member Card's image just references the date of the item's distribution which would be when the date was supposed to be read and interpreted as "50 years ago",even the month and day is the same.--Rocket Grunt 15:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
We've seen Looker use the same codename every time we see him, across different regions and years apart. Even if it's unrealistic for a secret agent to not change their codename more often, it's what the games have already told us directly. The only exception is that we're told he used the codename "100kr" at the time that the unnamed faller died, and that this was 10 years prior to Sun & Moon. I suppose it's plausible that he used "Looker", switched to "100kr" at some point, and then switched back, but that requires more assumptions than the notion that he used to be "100kr" and later changed it to "Looker".
I don't see why the Member Card date being a reference to the real world distribution date makes it invalid. The Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia saying that Red & Green are set in 1996 is itself a reference to the games coming out in that year, but that's considered valid by this page at the moment. AutumnHaunted (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
After seeing this, I am also 100% convinced that the History of the Pokémon world article should have years listed, and the date on the Member Card means that Generation I/III actually takes place in 2005. Inkster (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
But AutumnHaunted has a point. The book and the Member Card contradict each other, and I lean more towards using the Member Card as a source, and don't forget BOTH are references to the real world, Rocket Grunt. But here's the cheese: the Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia states that Porygon was created in 1995, 20 years before Gen VII which is set in 2015, and with the Member Card dating back to 1958, 50 years prior to Platinum, it would mean that Gen I is set in 2005, not 1996. Inkster (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Saying that Gen I is set in 2005 is absolutely ridiculous. I would call the member card date an easter egg and not something to be taken so literally. So I wouldn't count it was something to go with. Also, I've protected this article and the history of Pokemon article because there was been too many back and forth arguments about this topic. You should be discussing this in full on the talk page and be coming to a conclusion before editing the articles.--ForceFire 06:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Why is it ridiculous? I'm not even asserting it necessarily, I just don't see what's so crazy about it. Either way, the Member Card thing wasn't my main point, my main point was the information about Looker's code name. - unsigned comment from AutumnHaunted (talk • contribs)
With what you're saying, Porygon's dex entries and the book saying Gen I is set in 1996 (which it actually doesn't) are also easter eggs and therfore neither should be taken at face value, and the former makes it clear that Porygon supossibly being made in 1995 has since been retconned. And like previous revisions of this article have stated "Pokémon Black and White are set an unknown amount of time after those games," and I think we should keep it that way because the length of the generational gap was never officially confirmed. - unsigned comment from Inkster (talk • contribs)
You have no reason to believe you get Member Card the same year as the events of the game are occuring. It could easily be a few years after starting the journey.--Rocket Grunt 15:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying neither of them should be valid because all three (book, card and entries) are easter eggs/references to the real world. The length of the gap between Gen II/IV and Gen V was never OFFICIALLY confirmed, and matter of fact, this whole discussion proves Masuda's point of taking timelines too seriously. Inkster (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, but I was going off of what Bulbapedia lists in the Trivia section for it when I referred to it saying the games take place in 1996. In any case, I don't even disagree that these dates aren't likely intended to be taken seriously. On a different note, though, I do think the information about Looker at least narrows the range for the gap between II/IV and V even if we can't get a definitive answer about it. AutumnHaunted (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The book straight up says RG is happening in 1996 so it's not a tiny reference or easter egg, no additional assumption is needed.--Rocket Grunt 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the 1996 part was taken out of context. The book actually said, "As of 1996, thanks to the investigative and research efforts of Prof. Oak, 150 species of Pokémon have been discovered." Nowhere does it say that Red and Green are specifically set in 1996. Also, Looker's codename doesn't mean anything. Anabel is more important than Looker in that case. If Gen VII is set in 2015, it means she would've fallen in 2005. She had only appeared in Pokémon Emerald (during Gen III), which suggests that Gen I is actually 10 years before Gen VII.
What do you mean by Looker's codename not meaning anything? I genuinely don't understand. It tells us that Anabel falling through a wormhole occurred between Gen I/III and Gen II/IV in the timeline. AutumnHaunted (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
She obviously had to have fallen some time after Gen I/III. Inkster (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that that was already known. What I'm saying is that the information about the codename also tells us that she fell -before- Gen II/IV (because at the time of Anabel's fall, Looker was called "100kr", but in Gen IV he's already switched to "Looker"). AutumnHaunted (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You still don't understand Anabel's case. She could've fallen years after events of Emerald. That means it's been 10 years or more. And the book is written in sense of being contemporaneous with the games, there's a sentence "Up to now, an amazing 150 have been discovered".--Rocket Grunt 17:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
We agree that Anabel fell some time after Emerald. I do not know what evidence you have that it was "at least 10 years" after Emerald. However, I've given in-game evidence that she fell before Platinum takes place. AutumnHaunted (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
What I'm saying is the book doesn't confirm anything. It's a reference to the real world, and yet you spoke against the Member Card for the same reason, which is baffling and hypocritical. Inkster (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The book and Porygon's entries are references to the real world, which don't confirm anything. At this point, I'd rather change it back to "Pokémon Black and White are set an unspecified amount of time after those games" and end this pointless war once and for all. Inkster (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

But if we have a range (in this case 3-6 years based on the Looker codename thing alone) doesn't it make sense to specify? Calculation based on in-game information is already being used for the 300 years maximum figure for Legends Arceus. AutumnHaunted (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, Looker's codename doesn't mean anything about the timeline, it only says it was his code name 10 years ago. Regardless, the length between Gens II/IV and V wasn't OFFICIALLY confirmed, and that also goes for PLA, because a Spiritomb was sealed, not the original Spiritomb. Inkster (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
As I've explained earlier, if we know Looker was called 100kr 10 years ago, and Platinum happens after that, then Platinum cannot have happened more than 10 years before Sun & Moon, so, no more than 6 years before Black & White. If you have a specific issue with this logic, I'd like to hear it, because you just keep insisting that it's false without giving any reasoning. - unsigned comment from AutumnHaunted (talk • contribs)
I can't seem to wrap my head around this discussion any longer. Porygon was made in 1995, SM says it was made 20 years prior, meaning that Platinum cannot have happened more than 7 years before Gen VII, not 10. Clearly he could've changed his codename in the three years between Gens I/III and II/IV. Inkster (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, he changed his codename between Gens I/III and II/IV. I've been saying that. But we also know that this change was no more than 10 years before Sun & Moon, because 10 years before Sun & Moon, Anabel's fall happened, during which time he had not yet changed his codename. AutumnHaunted (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The entire basis for the 12-year gap between Gens IV and V is the date of Porygon's creation, which comes from the Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia. It's ludicrous to ignore in-game evidence in favor of an obscure book released before Gen II was even conceptualized. bwburke94 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Porygon being created in 1995 has since been retconned to 20 years prior to Sun and Moon, which is an indeterminate amount of time. Inkster (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem here is that the current timeline takes both as valid, and gives a nonsensical time gap as a result. bwburke94 (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If you ask me, neither should be valid. Inkster (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
That fact that you place a (possible) throwaway Easter egg higher than a book outlining the lore of the franchise is astounding. I say the member card date is an Easter egg solely because there is no in-game/in universe reason for the date to be there. The date is there because it's 50 years before the first Japanese distribution; i.e. nothing to do with the lore of the franchise.--ForceFire 18:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that it was found that PME doesn't actually say "Red & Green take place in 1996", nothing else in it actually contradicts anything. Even if we disregard the Member Card, the Looker thing still gives us some info (namely, that the gap between Gen II/IV and Black & White is no more than 6 years). AutumnHaunted (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe we should use the book as a source for either, especially considering that Porygon being made in 1995 has since been retconned (to 20 years before SM, which when trying to calculate how many years have past since Gen I, is an indeterminate amount of time). Inkster (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I dislike that the placement of ORAS can't be agreed on. The "Incomplete" template is probably going to stay there for ages unless we get an official confirmation or an agreement can be reached here. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

1996

The timeline section claims that the Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia claims that "RGBY occur in 1996, the year of their release." But there are two problem with this theory; first, "1996年現在 (As of 1996)", the section from the book, does not specifically mean that RGBY is set in that year, it can also translate to "1996-present", which implies they are set later than that, using it to exclusively mean so is a stretch. Second, the Introduction section, where the "1996" part comes from, was heavily retconned in future games since it's publication, so I don't believe that excerpt should be taken at face value. - unsigned comment from Inkster (talk • contribs)

TL;DR the whole "RGBY takes place in 1996" thing was a misconception. Inkster (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I fail to see how this would debunk the idea of the 19-year time gap between Generations I and VII. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
It stems from an outdated book with lore that hasn't been canon since Generation II. And that's the other thing. Contrary to what this wiki thinks, the specific "RGBY occurs in 1996", part was completely made up; it never confirms that that's the year the games are set in. Inkster (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Considering how loosely these games are connected, there's no consistent canon and this book cannot be retconned. It still applies to everything in the generation I games. This page just tries to collect all the evidence and references to give people a good overview on the matter.--Rocket Grunt 14:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
"cannot be retconned"? The book claims that "30 Pokémon species were known in the 18th century" and of course, "150 types of Pokémon have been discovered through Professor Oak's surveys and research". In Pokémon Legends: Arceus, set centuries before Gens I and IV, over 200 species were discovered. Inkster (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Matter of fact, this whole timeline section in general proves Masuda's point by over-interpretating the series' mostly intentionally vague lore. Inkster (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Bringing back OR/AS

I've played ORAS a while ago and collected all elements that hint at its relation to the timeline, you can see the paragraph on the page. Personally, I would put it back to RSE on the timeline as they still appear to be remakes, just with a few little twists.--Rocket Grunt 16:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think the timeline section should be removed altogether because it is full of speculation and therefore doesn't belong on the article. Inkster (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

BW timespan revisited

We all know that GAME FREAK employee Toshinobu Matsumiya made that tweet about the timeline of the core series, and the vague timespan between Generations II/IV and Pokémon Black and White. But this other tweet also from Matsumiya explicitly states that the timespan "is secret. Imagine freely!" meaning that it is intentionally vague, as well as up to interpretation. I believe the word from a GF staff has a higher priority over than a mess of speculation. Bottom line is, if we don't know the timespan, we just don't know. Inkster (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And do you not see the problem with this speculative paragraph on this article: "Porygon's Pokédex entries in Pokémon Sun, Ultra Sun, and Ultra Moon state that it was created 20 years ago,[Notes 4] and Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia states that Porygon was created one year before the events of Pokémon Red and Green, meaning Pokémon Sun, Moon, Ultra Sun, and Ultra Moon take place 19 years after Pokémon Red, Green, Blue, and Yellow. From this information and the known gaps between other games in the series, it can be calculated that the gap between Generation II/IV and Pokémon Black and White is 12 years long." That books lore is very outdated (Pokémon Legends: Arceus blows the introduction section of Pocket Monsters Encyclopedia completely out of the water. The book claims that "30 Pokémon species were known in the 18th century" and of course, "150 types of Pokémon have been discovered through Professor Oak's surveys and research". In PLA, set centuries before Gens I and IV, over 200 species were discovered), which invalidates its credibility as a reliable source. And as for "Red and Green takes place in 1996"? Forget it. "As of 1996" ≠ "the games take place in 1996". It's also hypocritical to dismiss the Member Card date as a real-world reference, when Porygon's entries are only a reference to Red and Green being released 20 years prior to Sun and Moon. This whole "12 years" thing is all speculation and doesn't belong on this article. Inkster (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You can't dismiss whole original lore book because some facts don't add up. Maybe Laventon's research didn't get to Oak? Maybe Oak was doing research exclusively about Pokemon in Kanto? Since Masuda said there's no consistent timeline you can't trust retcons and claim everything before is not true anymore. It's all true within their own media. PLA specifically reminded about Pokemon being able to shrink, a fact coming from the very book you are trying to delete. The date on Member Card is specifically a reference to real life date of its distribution (also it's written specifically to be hardly readable), but there's a problem, it's specific to a day. Do you really think all event of DPPt are supposed to happen in one day? Don't you think that event that's not available to all players, not related to the main story, that can be done at any point of the game, could happen independently from the events of DPPt, years later?--Rocket Grunt 09:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
"Since Masuda said there's no consistent timeline" than everything the Timeline section says is meaningless. Masuda's words from 3 years ago to an extent would've deconfirmed that deleted tweet from Toshinobu Matsumiya from 8 years ago. There's really no reason to have the timeline section in the first place, if it's mostly speculation and proves Masuda's point in "people overthinking the timeline". Inkster (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Because this page is supposed to collect all canon facts and trivia that imply the timeline to show how it looks like if it exists, to see if the creators are trying to make it somewhat consistent even without officially confirming it. I don't think anyone should use it to make conclusions from it as facts, this is for readers to understand general concept of how it's all related and they are free to speculate.--Rocket Grunt 13:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Than explain to me why it's being used to dictate like, three characters' ages in future games where we don't know how old they are? Gen V Caitlin is more just "18 " than "26-28". Inkster (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I personally disagree with that. Characters like Caitlin, Red/Blue and Wally should be left alone with only the ages stated officially. If someone wants to calculate how old they would be in other game using this timeline then go ahead but it shouldn't be treated as a fact and put on the articles.--Rocket Grunt 15:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I only said 18 because the blog that says she's 14 in Gen IV also states she is an adult in Gen V. Inkster (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Sure, that's what I believe should be written on her page.--Rocket Grunt 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
One would argue that BW Caitlin means the timespan cannot be less than 4 years because the age of adulthood is 18. Inkster (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
True. This can be added as another point to the timeline article. Can the theoretical "12 years" span be back?--Rocket Grunt 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Idfk I'm not a staff member.Inkster (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking you because you were the one person who didn't like it.--Rocket Grunt 21:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
If you hadn't seen my latest edit, I already did. Inkster (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hoenn and Galar

I know everyone loves using that timeline tweet as proof of things, but are there any references in the games that indicate when the Hoenn and Galar titles take place in relation to other games (Kanto, Johto, and Sinnoh for Hoenn, Alola for Galar)?

Can't find anything for Hoenn aside from an S.S. Anne reference that doesn't say much of anything. Though Hoenn is one thing because of that tweet, but one could easily argue Galar takes place at the same time, if not even before the events of the Alola games since there's nothing tying it to any other region beyond Null's dex entries. BulbaSq (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't really think that since-deleted tweet should be taken at face value. Inkster (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That's kind of the whole idea behind me asking about in-game info to determine when they take place in relation to other games without said tweet? BulbaSq (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Counter-pruductive edit warring

I have completely had it with this edit warring about an inaccurate "timeline", which is based off a 25 year old official guidebook in which most of it's contents were retconned compared to modern Pokémon lore (which already proves said book to be an unreliable source) as "evidence", and a single Porygon dex entry which is moreorless a simple reference to a release date in the real world from a 20th anniversary game. Doesn't help it already reeks of confirmation bias, relying on a deleted tweet. Isn't it suspicious that the writer deleted his tweet shortly after posting it? Coupled with Masuda heavily implying that the series uses a floating timeline as of Sword and Shield, I don't believe the tweet is to be taken at face value. At this rate, removing the timeline section entirely is the only way to put a stop to this stupid warring for good. Plus, neither the anime and manga articles have this section, so why should this page? Inkster (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this timeline is theoretical, but it's based on facts. If you don't like it ignore it, if you want to question it - use facts. What's on the page should be what is generally agreed, not something you chose to like. You are constatly changing your opinions and literally your entire contribution on this site is complaining about timeline. We cannot choose to ignore the RG book just because it's old, the original games had not enough space for all this lore that's why it was published separately. A fact from the lore isn't retconned until a directly contradicting information gets revealed.--Rocket Grunt 19:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
You completely missed the point. The lore from that guidebook hasn't been canon for years, given the games themselves after Gen I contradict what the guidebook says, and nobody brought it up years ago, which says a lot. Inkster (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this but since the "candidate for protection" tag is still on the article I feel like I may as well respond
"an inaccurate "timeline", which is based off a 25 year old official guidebook" - False, the timeline was here for years before the information from the book was added in May last year, and it's only used to determine the approximate length of a single gap in the timeline.
"guidebook in which most of it's contents were retconned compared to modern Pokémon lore" - Can you provide any examples of this?
"a single Porygon dex entry" - Three Porygon dex entries actually, including from Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon which weren't 20th anniversary celebrations like Sun and Moon were.
"it already reeks of confirmation bias" - Can you provide any actual evidence that the current timeline is wrong? Is there anything that contradicts it? There is already an acknowledgement that it doesn't line up with the Let's Go games.
"Masuda heavily implying that the series uses a floating timeline" - That's not what he said at all, and honestly it makes it feel like you're the one with confirmation bias here. He only said that that they don't pay much attention to the timeline. A "floating timeline" is when time proceeds but characters don't age, which may be applicable to the anime but is definitely not what the games have because there are characters that age (Red, Blue, Caitlin).
"neither the anime and manga articles have this section" - They're covered here and here.
"The lore from that guidebook hasn't been canon for years" - Again, can you give a reason for this? When did it stop being canon? The book mentioned Nidoran♀ being able to breed while Nidorina isn't years before that was true in the games, and also was referenced by the anime, so I don't really see anything pointing to it being outdated.
"nobody brought it up years ago, which says a lot" - No it doesn't. The only reason no one brought it up years ago was because it's an obscure Japan-only book that few people knew existed (it didn't even have a page on this wiki until 2021).
Anyway, can an admin please remove the protection request template from this page? The timeline section isn't even on the page anymore. Bandana Hewer Dee (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
We don't know when Matsumiya deleted the tweet as far as I'm aware. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine doesn't have enough captures from 2014 for his Twitter profile or that tweet. サトミュウ (SatoMew) 15:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Talk:Core_series&oldid=3867297"
Return to "Core series" page.