• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

A new approach to Pokémon Canon

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Introduction
As some might already know, I'm going to work with Pokémon Blogs (Alongside my Digimon Blogs), so I need to be sure of how the canon of the franchise works here. Luckily we have this blog to explain that, however, I think that the Pokémon Canon has a lot more to it than the blog shows (In fact, I would say that it's because of the standardized concept of canon that doesn't work with some franchises, as I explained in this blog).

So, I decided to do my own "Canon Analysis: Pokémon" blog. This thread will discuss two possibilities of what to do with Pokémon's canon.

Add more to what already is accepted

The current accepted Pokémon blog considers the following pieces of the Pokémon franchise as canon:

1) Core Games series;
2) Spin-off Games and other Tie-in media connected with the Core Series (Such as the Pokémon Ranger game series or the Twilight Wings anime series);
3) Pokémon Anime;
4) Pokémon Adventures manga;
5) Detective Pikachu and TCG (With less validity than the others).

The idea is that it's canon what is connected with the game series or was made with direct instructions from the Pokémon Company.

If nothing changes, we can at least add to this: Pokémon Masters; Magikarp Jump; Detective Pikachu (Game), Dengeki Pikachu and possibly Pokémon Conquest.

The blog has all the information for why those need to be considered as well. All of them have the same characteristics as the Pokémon anime and the Adventures manga, they were made with the overall rules of the series in mind and they needed to be sure that everything there fits with the world of Pokémon. The only that isn't the case is Pokémon Conquest, that at best has a tie-in event with the Core Game series and Nobunaga's Rayquaza is an available character in the B/W series, so it fits with the same rule as the spin-off games and tie-in media that is connected with the Core series.

What if we changed
One of the things that the original blog already considers is that a work can be considered canon, or at least "usable", if it was made with all the rules of Pokémon in mind. This is something that I explained in greater detail in my blog about Canon as a whole, but basically there are multiple ways of using the multimedia medium to tell the story of a world, and is perfectly possible to have totally not in-continuity stories and they still being valid to the world itself. Think of the world itself as the stage of a theatrical play, different versions of the script (Even ones that are 100% different from each other), but still the same material as a whole.

In these cases, it's not even necessary to have a multiverse to make every piece of a multimedia work canon in a way, it's simply unnecessary to have the very concept of "canon" there, as it's possible to have totally different stories taking place in the same "world". So, you can use any work to understand the world that the series takes place in and cross over the concepts through the works to know the big picture.

Since we already accept that certain concepts cross over from the manga and anime as canon, it is already an example of scaling the “setting”/“worldview”. In fact, the very idea of scaling the different versions of the games (Multiple versions plus their remakes) is already based on that idea. We don’t care about the continuity, the individual characters or anything like that. What we scale are the Pokémon themselves and the Pokémon World as a whole.

We accept the Core games, Anime and Adventures to work on that way because we have interviews that explain how they work on that subject. However, two interviews (From Detective Pikachu and Magikarp Jump) show that isn’t the case for only those products, but for any “Pokémon” work. All of that information is in the blog, but I’ll paste the info here so everyone can check.

First from Magikarp Jump with the director of the game, Koya Nakahata:

――People who have played Pokemon games have the image that Pokemon has some kind of worldview (世界観). When I played "Splash! Magikar" I thought if you were conscious of expressing the unique world of Pokémon. Were you aware of that?

Nakahata: We wanted to express the world view well, partly because we love Pokémon. I think that our "Splash! Magikarp" has elements that Pokemon hadn't so far, such as being able to laugh at it, seeing a slightly ridiculous side, and making mistakes. But this is the part that we put our own colors in it. On the other hand, when a Pokemon game comes out, Pokemon fans want to get in touch with the world of Pokemon. This game is a game that you can play as many times as you want in a day, and I think it's great for fans to be able to enjoy the world of Pokemon many times a day. That's why we wanted to give Pokemon fans a solid sense of the world of Pokemon. We wanted to bring out both our own colors and the worldview of Pokémon, so we were conscious of the original Pokémon setting.

Here the interviewer explained that from the player point of view, there’s a setting/worldview that is the world of Pokémon. Nakahata explains that it’s expected from the fans to have every new Pokémon game being a part of that world of Pokémon. As such even if Magikarp Jump, a Spin-off game, has some unique details, it still needs to fit with the original Pokémon setting.

Complementing this, we have interviews with Hiroyuki Jinnai. He works at Creatures Inc and worked at the setting of multiple Pokémon games, and was also Producer, Supervisor and Advisor in multiple Pokémon games (Both Core games and Spin-offs) as well as for the Pokémon anime itself. I even found two new interviews that will help me here, one from Observador and another one from Famitsu.

――Observador: In relation to canon and continuity, Detective Pikachu is its own universe, or is something more ?
HJ: In the world of Detective Pikachu, the Pokémon doesn't come out of Pokéballs, nor do they battle with other Pokémon, therefore, we fell what happens here is distant from the rest of the original world. However, we tried to add many elements to the game, that would make the player feel that there's a connection between the two worlds. We would want that the players find and identify that moments.

--Famitsu: I'm going to go back and forth a bit, but what was the first image you had of the game as a whole?
Jinnai: The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime. That's why I purposely eliminated the battle element in this work and focused on depicting the lives of people living together with Pokémon.

As you can see the concept of the Pokémon "worldview" (世界観) is very important to the franchise, and as Jinnai explained, it's in fact multi-layered (重層). It has the main series that is the basis for everything, but the anime and other games, each having their own unique aspects (As explained by Toshihiro Ono about the differences between the Pokémon anime and its manga adaptation) shows a different world, a different view of what the "Pokémon Worldview" is, making the world more and more rich.

And finally in an interview for The Verge (It's in the blog), we have Jinnai being very clear about having to follow rules, and how that isn't an expection or anything like that.

For Japanese game and toy maker Creatures, which is best-known for the Pokémon trading card game and multiple series spinoffs, the outlandishness of Detective Pikachu took a lot of convincing. “We really started with the concept of making Pikachu talk,” says Hiroyuki Jinnai, the producer of Detective Pikachu, who’s worked on the Pokémon franchise with creator Game Freak for more than two decades. The goal was to surprise people and alter the perception of the franchise’s most well-known face, Jinnai adds, in celebration of Pokémon’s 20th anniversary. “We really worked hard to come up with a justification and setting to make that work.” Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built. Executives at the game company, which operates as an independent entity with a stake in the Pokémon license alongside Nintendo and Creatures, often stopped writers on the TV program from taking liberties with pokémon, like imbuing the pocket monsters with too many human-like qualities. “It took a lot of convincing to let us break the rules,” Jinai says. The result is an utterly bizarre and yet lovably quaint video game that will no doubt find its place in the ever-expanding Pokémon canon.

Looking at the Pokémon Company webpage, this is stated:

I am often asked in interviews, “What does The Pokémon Company do for Pokémon?” When I answer, “We are a company that produces Pokémon,” I am often met with puzzled looks and asked, “What does it mean to produce Pokémon?” When this happens, I explain, “Imagine something like a talent agency. Talent agencies decide what jobs to give the people they represent, how to nurture their skills, how to cultivate them. In much the same way, our job at The Pokémon Company is to produce Pokémon, meaning that we think about what types of media our characters, such as Pikachu and Charizard, should appear in, what products to use them for, and how to nurture them,” and then the interviewer seems to grasp what it is that we do to a certain extent. But while this is an easy way to explain a part of what it means to produce Pokémon, it isn’t everything.

And in an interiew with Junichi Masuda at gamefreak, the following was stated:

Pokémon is owned by a number of companies, leading to a complicated relationship for the valuable brand and its parents. When asked if he could explain the relationship between Game Freak, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Company, co-founder Junichi Masuda turned to a white board behind him to draw out his explanation. After drawing circles for Game Freak, Nintendo, and former producer Creatures, Masuda explained. “Game Freak? We develop all the main Pokémon games. Originally, Creatures, they were the producers of the game. Nintendo was the seller of the games – the distributor. So that was the original structure of Pokémon games. In terms of who owns the rights to the games, it’s these three companies.” These days, Creatures mostly handles the Pokémon card game, and The Pokémon Company was formed in 1998 – shortly before the release of Pokémon Gold and Silver – to manage the brand and all of its assorted merchandising. In terms of genuine ownership, Masuda says it’s one-third each for Game Freak, Creatures, and Nintendo. “It’s a little more complicated than that in certain scenarios, like for example, the producing role that Creatures originally held went to The Pokémon Company, and a percentage of the rights went with that so there are certain complications, and it depends on the project, but there is no situation where Nintendo and The Pokémon Company will put pressure on Game Freak or something like that,” Masuda says.

The reason for why most multimedia franchises don't have most of their products accepted by their fandom as "canon" is due to the idea that spin-offs aren't canon by nature, or at least that there's no way that a company can handle all of that. This, however, isn't the case with Pokémon. As you can see from all the information in the blog and the new information from this thread, the existence of the multilayered Pokémon Worldview with content being shared among all the spin-offs and the idea that rules are needed to be followed, with the exceptions needing explanations to show why such difference exists, is accepted among everyone that worked in Pokémon in the recent years. Not only this simply something that everyone seems to accept, but the "Pokémon Company" exists to be sure that everything Pokémon-related fits with the Pokémon World always being in check with everything, if something goes to a direction that the Pokémon Company doesn't like, it can't happen.

We already accept the Pokémon anime and the Adventures manga (As well as some spin-offs and tie-in material) as canon due to "needing to follow the rules and show more of the Pokémon world", so with this we can be sure that this isn't something exclusive to a few material, but simply the very nature of how Pokémon works as a franchise.

Of course, this doesn't mean that "everything is canon in the same level", only that most of the multiple Pokémon material shows complementary information that explains how the multilayered "Pokémon World view" works. There are a few differences. Masuda even explained that one particular difference between the rules of the games and the anime is that in the games, Pokémon do not speak their own names, while the anime takes place in a universe where the Pokémon do speak their own names and maybe this is why the Pokémon are called by what they say by humans, something that didn't happen in the game world (At least a bit, since Pikachu does say its own name and now the same happens with Eevee, so how does that even work now ?).

It's also important to say that Pokémon still is a franchise with the concept of a "mystery uncertain lore" that does not explain everything in the world and multiple staff agree in simply leaving lots of question to the fans to try to answer. So there's a lot of complicated stuff here that we need to analyze to be sure that we can use the most about Pokémon.

TL;DR and Conclusion

Due to how Pokémon works as a franchise, if we remain with the rules that we already have, we should at least add games such as Detective Pikachu or Pokémon Masters to canon due to the same reasons that we already accept the anime and Adventures.

However, as I showed so far, Pokémon is a franchise with a multilayered world that has each product intended to make the world more rich and the Pokémon Company exists to make sure that everything fits as it's intended. However, there are still some differences in some works and things that does not cross over between works (Such as the Pokémon cries), but those are very few in number in relation to each individual work. I do think that having all of the Pokémon media being analyzed with "Canonicity Levels" (Such as with how the Holocron Continuity Database worked before the changes).

Since there's no official word on how that would work, I decided to give my own opinion on that.

[*]Core Canon: The core "Pocket Monsters" series that is mainly created by Game Freak or at least that has Gamefreak helping in the production;
[*][*]Example: The entire "Pocket Monsters" series
[*]Direct Complementary Canon: The spin-off games and tie-in material that are directly connected with the core series.
[*][*]Example: The Pokémon Stadium series (Includes Colosseum and XD Gale of Darkness), Pokémon GO, Pokémon Rangers, Detective Pikachu, Pokémon Masters, Pokémon Twilight Wings, etc
[*]Adaptations Canon: The manga and anime adaptations of the franchise.
[**]Example: The TV Anime "Pocket Monsters" Series, Pokémon Adventures, The Electric Tale of Pikachu, Pocket Monsters: The Origin, Pokémon Generations
  • Complementary Canon: All the spin-off games and tie-in material that aren't directly connected with the core series
  • Outdated/Non-canon: As the series evolved, some information was retconned, and is still being retconned, constantly. Some information even from the Core Canon might not be canon anymore, or in the future, due to that.

Of course, this is only one suggestion, and isn't even the one that I agree the most. For example, I don't see any reason to have Core Canon or the spin-off and tie-in material that are directly connected with the series as different canon, as they are simply supposed to be "something that takes place in a region far away" , so they are still mostly the same world.

Anyway, this is how I think that we could work with Pokémon with the premise that Pokémon is a franchise in the unique position of having everything being in a way canon, so everything works to make the multilayered worldview of Pokémon more and more rich, and we should respect that.
 
Last edited:
15,763
3,733
Considering I wanted to make a canon thread later to discuss Pokemons canon and you beat me to the punch, definitely following.

And would also like your opinion on one of the main issues I was going to address Ex.
 
15,763
3,733
Finished reading it, and all I can say is this is abso-fucking-lutely amazing. One things for sure, I never would've been able to find anywhere close to such in-depth information as this, and put it in a coherent blog.

Really incredible job here by Ex.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
So I'm assuming this means the mystery dungeon series would remain non-canon?
The basis for the thread and blog is that Pokémon is a series where mostly everything can be considered canon for its "Multilayered worldview" with a few differences between each work being there because of differences between production teams or even simply being a different media.

So, mostly Mystery Dungeon could be considered canon, as a official piece of Pokémon work that takes place in a unknown world with Pokémon and no trainers. It would still need to follow certain rules, but it still can be its own thing. Mostly can be used as supportive evidence for things of a higher canonicity, but as it has some different rules, it'll have some aspects that aren't valid for the crossover nature of the settings.

So, yes. It could be considered canon. Still, is something that needs to be discussed more. And, the focus on the blog is mostly on production interviews and the intent of expanding the Pokémon world, so it has mostly nothing to do with any game, anime or manga individual plotlines. This is only about the rules and setting being used by all media with just a few differences.
 
780
374
I have no issues with this kind of approach. My understanding is that you wish for all licensed media to be considered canon as long as it's consistent with the worldview of the primary canon? (correct me if I'm wrong).
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,278
3,312
I have no problem with the media themselves, my fear is to end up with a mess of scaling and feats, as the sources currently considered as canon already contradict each other on multiple instances.

(Also, wonderful work, Executor)
 
Last edited:

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I have no issues with this kind of approach. My understanding is that you wish for all licensed media to be considered canon as long as it's consistent with the worldview of the primary canon? (correct me if I'm wrong).
Yes, In a way that is what I'm trying to do. Since we are already accepting some Pokémon spin-off/tie-in material with the idea that "they are an exception to the rule", I thought that bringing evidence that what the Pokémon Company does is a thing for every single Pokémon product, then we should be more open to what can be accepted. We already have lots of games spin-off and manga/anime tie-in mentioning that Pokémon Company does a big "We'll check everything and you can't do anything about it", and then they say "This is something that they always do to everything", then we have to start thinking that Adventures or the Anime aren't an exception to the rule, it's simply what happens with Pokémon.

I have no problem with the media themselves, my fear is to end up with a mess of scaling and feats, as the sources currently considered as canon already contradict each other on multiple instances.

(Also, wonderful work, Executor)
That is a thing that'll happen. From my point of view, I try to write my blogs (When they aren't calculations) from an "outside VsDebating" PoV. So what I wrote is something that you could write a script with and do a "What is the Pokémon Canon" youtube video for the common viewer from in and out of the Pokémon fandom. So consistency with scaling and feats wasn't a thing that I tried to explain, only about how the lore/worldview/setting is applied to the franchise.

Of course, from the VsDebating PoV that is why I said that the levels of canon would help a lot. But, the very source material isn't that consistent with power levels (Unless we are now accepting that Giovanni is stronger than Cyrus and every citizen from Pasio is universal because Cyrus is there battling alongside the player), so it's really not a matter of canonicity that feats and scaling are inconsistent, Pokémon simply never cared enough about those things.

However in order to make our job easier, I think that using the "not main canon material" as more of a support evidence or as a source for things that aren't contradicted, works very well. For example, although there are lots of problems with scaling in "Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventures!", I don't think that using it as evidence that Dialga can stop time makes no sense. That is of course, what I'm trying to do.

Elements that don't contradict the main canon, could be used. Contradictory information is considered an "unique element of that particular world", just like Pokémon saying their own name is a "particular element only valid for the Anime world", but other things can still be scaled to it.

So, a lot of case-by-case thing, so it's why we need to put some rules to make our job easier.

For example, according to the author of Pokémon Adventures, they had much more freedom with the world in the early years of the franchise, before Pokémon Company started being overprotective about the franchise. So that already is a point that we should take in consideration, if something seems to be very contradictory and is very old (I suppose Gen 1~2 era), then it was before the rules were solidified and can be disregarded now.

I'm too lazy to read, which media are not canon
Case by case thing, that we still need to chose what to accept.

But basically, no material is 100% non-canon, the "complementary information" from then can be or not canon depending on how consistent they are with the Core Games. What is consistent can be seen as "elements of the world that the Games couldn't show" (Such as the Pokémon World having wars with humans and Pokémon, that was shown in the Lucario movie and only later mentioned in X & Y), while elements that are mentioned to be a "unique thing" or are very contradictory (According to Masuda, the Pokémon speaking their own names is a unique element of non-Core Game worlds), then it can be considered not canon.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.

First thing first: Detective Pikachu and Pokemon Masters being canon isn't a problem to me, at least with the evidence given here.

-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.

For that reason, I'm against Electric Tale and most Pokemon manga being considered as canons.
Although if there's a greater involvement depending on the subject, it can work on a case-by-case basis.

-For Conquest, it's flat out said to be nor Nobunaga nor Pokemon above anything. So I would just not include it (also although it has an event pokemon, they are made for litteraly every occasion like Tanabata, and it being canon wouldn't work with the developpers' explanation).

-For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.

-Magikarp Jump I don't really know. Guess it could work? It's not like it changed being part of the cosmology like some others stuff.

-And on translation subject, as a game translator myself, I can say that it would still be ill-advised to take something that isn't in the original (like Pokemon Masters' 2-A statement), since while you have to keep the original idea, you still have some liberties to an extent.
 
1,626
137
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.

First thing first: Detective Pikachu and Pokemon Masters being canon isn't a problem to me, at least with the evidence given here.

-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.

For that reason, I'm against Electric Tale and most Pokemon manga being considered as canons.
Although if there's a greater involvement depending on the subject, it can work on a case-by-case basis.

-For Conquest, it's flat out said to be nor Nobunaga nor Pokemon above anything. So I would just not include it (also although it has an event pokemon, they are made for litteraly every occasion like Tanabata, and it being canon wouldn't work with the developpers' explanation).

-For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.

-Magikarp Jump I don't really know. Guess it could work? It's not like it changed being part of the cosmology like some others stuff.

-And on translation subject, as a game translator myself, I can say that it would still be ill-advised to take something that isn't in the original (like Pokemon Masters' 2-A statement), since while you have to keep the original idea, you still have some liberties to an extent.
Elaborate on the follow the rules because tf did that even mean
 
15,763
3,733
-Now the problem is the "follow the rules" part equating to being canon, which I disagree with.
The reason is that it's just a thing pretty much any series has.
For example, if you try to turn Ash into a canibal in a manga, you'll get rejected. But Game Freak checking your work and refusing this doesn't mean it becomes canon. It's just a way of "preserving" the Pokemon image as a whole.
And now, here I will be voicing my issue on why I disagree with this take from Yuri.

For one, we all need to stop using other verses as a basis to deny something from another, because that's the first thing used as a basis here from Yuri. "It's just a thing pretty much any series has" doesn't and shouldn't matter here. Why? Because we are speaking in the context of Pokemon and its canon, not what another series does or what their canon does for their works. Canon across verses is an extreme case by case basis concept. No work is going to find something acceptable or unacceptable the same way across the board, so we shouldn't be giving a universal treatment of canon to all fictions.

Going even deeper from that, as explained here, the canon for Pokemon and how its treated via "following the rules" is in relation to the larger Pokemon world itself and not any specific storyline or individual character. As such, a character being portrayed as different in one iteration does not mean that it's anymore correct or wrong than another version, as they are both apart of the same "world".

So while i'm personally not saying that just everything should be taken and leaving it at that, this idea that a form of media following the main media, which already has the practice of allowing other medias that follow it to be considered canon, somehow not be acceptable is baseless and doesn't have an actual basis for disqualifying it.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
For one, we all need to stop using other verses as a basis to deny something from another, because that's the first thing used as a basis here from Yuri. "It's just a thing pretty much any series has" doesn't and shouldn't matter here. Why? Because we are speaking in the context of Pokemon and its canon, not what another series does or what their canon does for their works. Canon across verses is an extreme case by case basis concept. No work is going to find something acceptable or unacceptable the same way across the board, so we shouldn't be giving a universal treatment of canon to all fictions.
Your first point is just wanting to change how canon is. Make a CRT about it then. Canon has a definition, and we deal with it.

Also saying that Pokemon (or any verse, for that matter) is incomparable to everything is really just a way to shut down any comparison showing why a particular work doesn't fit as canon.
Going even deeper from that, as explained here, the canon for Pokemon and how its treated via "following the rules" is in relation to the larger Pokemon world itself and not any specific storyline or individual character. As such, a character being portrayed as different in one iteration does not mean that it's anymore correct or wrong than another version, as they are both apart of the same "world".
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc... Anecdotes of "we had to remove this" or "we couldn't add this" because the original publisher didn't like it are pretty common.

So while i'm personally not saying that just everything should be taken and leaving it at that, this idea that a form of media following the main media, which already has the practice of allowing other medias that follow it to be considered canon, somehow not be acceptable is baseless and doesn't have an actual basis for disqualifying it.
And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.

Also I'm pretty sure that these points were already brought up and discussed when first blog was made.
 
15,763
3,733
Your first point is just wanting to change how canon is. Make a CRT about it then. Canon has a definition, and we deal with it.
And that definition can be wrong, or being misused in the wrong manner. Ex even has made a blog voicing his issues with this universal treatment that Canon somehow brings, so im not even sure a thread for that will be needed if that blog goes anywhere.

Just because something has a definition doesn't mean we ignore what common sense is and treat all cases the same by disregarding context.
Also saying that Pokemon (or any verse, for that matter) is incomparable to everything is really just a way to shut down any comparison showing why a particular work doesn't fit as canon.
Or it also means that this is just a way of having no real argument to knock something away from one series and that your treatment of the other series, is in fact, incorrect.

Just as we don't use other verses to disqualify feats, we shouldn't be using them to disqualify the use of canon for a specific series. "Whataboutism" isn't a strong approach to this when all you'd be doing is calling the series you're comparing to this into question. Or its just a false equivalency at the end of the day.
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc...
And those series you named do not treat their canon in this same fashion as Pokemon does. Dragon Ball most definitely doesn't anyway.

And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Again, has that verse's canon ever had the practice of treating adaptations as acceptable works for their canons like it is here? If not, then that's a false equivalence right there.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.
Key word: everything, which I said that isn't what im pushing for with this personally speaking.
Also I'm pretty sure that these points were already brought up and discussed when first blog was made.
And those points can be wrong with newly updated arguments, which is kind of the case here.
 

Starter_Pack

The Forgotten, Yet Destined
VS Battles
Sysop
8,493
2,839
In the absolute worst case scenario here, most spin-off titles would end up being supporting evidence to the primary canon being supported here anyway. I'm thinking that accepting that the Pokémon Company overseeing every project done with their IP would make them arguably more canon can and should be implemented, with very high marks being given to Executor for the obvious hard work he's put in.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
So, now I can developp the points I was talking about.
1) It's in fact, how things might have to work. As I explained in my Canonicty Blog, the point that I'm trying to make is about Setting and World, and is what all of those interviews were about, rules of setting. The problem of Detective Pikachu was a setting problem, Pokémon speaking human language isn't a thing per the setting rules, so they needed an explanation for how that would fit with everything in the Pokémon world. If it was just "common sense rules about what should or not appear in a Pokémon story", then it would be fine. But that isn't the case, all of those interviews were about setting rules, about fitting or not in the world of Pokémon and how the Pokémon setting is "multilayered" with each work making said worldview. The crossover is about setting and worldview, so the world itself, the Pokémon as general entities and so on.

And in fact, there's nothing different from Adventure and Eletric Tale in that regard. What special thing Adventure has that Eletric Tale doesn't have ? Both were overseen by the Pokémon Company and both used the manga environment to expand on the world of Pokémon. The only thing that Adventure has more than Eletric Tale is more chapters and the same statement about "show what the games couldn't show" being repeated more times.

In relation to overall rules that aren't contradicted between works, isn't really that different. And that is the point in all of this. It's scaling of setting and general things. All of the statements about overseeing was about setting and its rules, so this is what I'm talking about.

2) Yes, and ? Again, setting and its rules is what I'm talking about. The world of Pokémon Conquest is it own world, of course. Yet, it seemed to be made with some Pokémon rules in mind, and if those rules are respected, what is wrong with using a well executed animation or description of a move that doesn't contradict anything from the main world ? When Arceus uses Judgement there, it's basically how Judgement works, if it isn't clear if an addition from there can be accepted, what isn't changed... is the same thing.

And of course, even with it being its own world, if it has at least some degree of compatibility with the main world, the things that are compatible are the ones that I'm talking about.

About the events, it's a question that we need to know where to draw the line. As far as the games go, the Regiggigas from the Movie 11 is necessary to release the Regis from the Sinnoh region in-game event, just like Arceus from Movie 12 is necessary to do the Hiker event where it searches for the plates around Sinnoh and write its book about them, and is also the one used for the HG/SS event with the Creation Trio. If we know that Pokémon Conquest exists as its own world, and the player form B/W can have a Black Rayquaza from Pokémon Conquest that has Nobunaga as its trainer, then it's something that exists within the "world of Pokémon", and are those things that I'm interested with.

What makes the other ones valid in the world, but not Nobunaga's Rayquaza ? As far as we know, the process is the same and other than being used in a in-game event, there's nothing different from them. And not being used in a in-game events, isn't really a reason to make something not canon, as those things aren't necessarily related.

3) I didn't mention that as a reason to make MD canon.

4) Again, what makes Magikarp Jump different to any other of those works that "needed to follow the Pokémon Worldview"? In fact, the context of the Magikarp Jump interview was exactly how that was a expected thing for any Pokémon work, so they needed to always be sure that the Pokémon Worlview was being taken in consideration.

5) Nothing different from anything that I already stated there.
The "following the rules" part is unrelated to canon. It's litteraly just a franchise thing you can see for Mario, Dragon Ball, etc... Anecdotes of "we had to remove this" or "we couldn't add this" because the original publisher didn't like it are pretty common.
Are you sure ? Then let's see what all of those interviews were about.

The one from Magikarp Jump was about "Worlview" (世界観), the structure of the world of Pokémon and how things should happen.

The one from Detective Pikachu was again about that, was about how making Detective Pikachu was hard because the rules of the world said that Pokémon shouldn't speak the same as humans and so they needed an explanation for how that was possible. And in that same context, it was said "Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built."

This isn't about "Ash can't be a cannibal because it would look bad for the brand", it's "Detective Pikachu shouldn't talk like a human because it was against the rules, so we needed an explanation. Also, the Pokémon Company is very serious about said rules of its worldview and historically stopped any project that went to any direction that was against the rules of the world, unless it was explained how it could fit in said world."

Every interview about Pokémon Adventures, Pokémon Masters, the anime and even Pokémon GO mentioned said things. Always mentioning "setting", "worldview" and "rules".

I don't get where you got this "It's only about not being bad for the brand", when literally every single interview was about worldview, setting and their rules.

Adventures, Maters, Anime and even Go mentions how the process is made. Detective Pikachu and Magikarp Jump also mentions that, and also how that isn't an exception, is an expectation that needs to be meet.

And the idea that just having to vaguely follow the media = canonicity is just plain wrong. By that logic, most adaptations in the entire world are canon to the original.
Because a work accepted some things as canon doesn't mean it becomes the case for everything with connection potential.

And, that is really not a bad point of view. Even more when some franchises, do work in that way. And going by what was said so far in all of those interviews, yes, it's how it happens. It's a franchise with crossover about Setting and worldview, they have their own unique aspects and even entire different continuities that goes in totally different routes, but when we are talking about the world itself and general points, then yes, it's how Pokémon works. And going from what Junnai said "The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime."

Going by all of the interviews, all the mentions of setting, worldview and their rules, how they exist to complement each other and show different aspects of the "world of Pokémon" and examples of when some things are exception (Such as Pokémon saying their own names in the anime) and others that aren't, then we can have a very good instruction of how to deal with Pokémon and how it's different from what most people would expect to see.

And being sincere, Pokémon is even more easy to analyze knowing all the points, because we at least have some rules and examples of what to do. And this is what I'm trying to suggest. Showing that Adventure or the Anime aren't unique in regards of "they show more of the world of Pokémon", it's what every Pokémon product does.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
1) It's in fact, how things might have to work. As I explained in my Canonicty Blog, the point that I'm trying to make is about Setting and World, and is what all of those interviews were about, rules of setting. The problem of Detective Pikachu was a setting problem, Pokémon speaking human language isn't a thing per the setting rules, so they needed an explanation for how that would fit with everything in the Pokémon world. If it was just "common sense rules about what should or not appear in a Pokémon story", then it would be fine. But that isn't the case, all of those interviews were about setting rules, about fitting or not in the world of Pokémon and how the Pokémon setting is "multilayered" with each work making said worldview. The crossover is about setting and worldview, so the world itself, the Pokémon as general entities and so on.
Detective Pikachu talking was more because it's kinda an important plot point tho. First pokemon manga litteraly had talking pokemon.
And in fact, there's nothing different from Adventure and Eletric Tale in that regard. What special thing Adventure has that Eletric Tale doesn't have ? Both were overseen by the Pokémon Company and both used the manga environment to expand on the world of Pokémon. The only thing that Adventure has more than Eletric Tale is more chapters and the same statement about "show what the games couldn't show" being repeated more times.
Countless statements Electric Tale could only dream of?
Again it's litteraly going back to "it shows a pokemon, it's canon"
2) Yes, and ? Again, setting and its rules is what I'm talking about. The world of Pokémon Conquest is it own world, of course. Yet, it seemed to be made with some Pokémon rules in mind, and if those rules are respected, what is wrong with using a well executed animation or description of a move that doesn't contradict anything from the main world ? When Arceus uses Judgement there, it's basically how Judgement works, if it isn't clear if an addition from there can be accepted, what isn't changed... is the same thing.
That's litteraly asking what is wrong with using a non-canon work portrayal of a move...
Using One Piece movies/games or Eyes of Heaven stuff isn't accepted for moves despite being litteraly written by authors, Pokemon somehow bypassing every rules is as wrong as it sounds
About the events, it's a question that we need to know where to draw the line. As far as the games go, the Regiggigas from the Movie 11 is necessary to release the Regis from the Sinnoh region in-game event, just like Arceus from Movie 12 is necessary to do the Hiker event where it searches for the plates around Sinnoh and write its book about them, and is also the one used for the HG/SS event with the Creation Trio. If we know that Pokémon Conquest exists as its own world, and the player form B/W can have a Black Rayquaza from Pokémon Conquest that has Nobunaga as its trainer, then it's something that exists within the "world of Pokémon", and are those things that I'm interested with.

What makes the other ones valid in the world, but not Nobunaga's Rayquaza ? As far as we know, the process is the same and other than being used in a in-game event, there's nothing different from them. And not being used in a in-game events, isn't really a reason to make something not canon, as those things aren't necessarily related.
Most of them aren't valid tho. You litteraly need to have a Regigigas to unlock Regigigas. Which obviously isn't how it works in lore.
4) Again, what makes Magikarp Jump different to any other of those works that "needed to follow the Pokémon Worldview"? In fact, the context of the Magikarp Jump interview was exactly how that was a expected thing for any Pokémon work, so they needed to always be sure that the Pokémon Worlview was being taken in consideration.
Magikarp Jump is just me being tired of explaining stuff even for the most useless little games.
The one from Magikarp Jump was about "Worlview" (世界観), the structure of the world of Pokémon and how things should happen.

The one from Detective Pikachu was again about that, was about how making Detective Pikachu was hard because the rules of the world said that Pokémon shouldn't speak the same as humans and so they needed an explanation for how that was possible. And in that same context, it was said "Jinnai, who’s also helped on and off as a producer and adviser on the Pokémon anime, says Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built."

This isn't about "Ash can't be a cannibal because it would look bad for the brand", it's "Detective Pikachu shouldn't talk like a human because it was against the rules, so we needed an explanation. Also, the Pokémon Company is very serious about said rules of its worldview and historically stopped any project that went to any direction that was against the rules of the world, unless it was explained how it could fit in said world."

Every interview about Pokémon Adventures, Pokémon Masters, the anime and even Pokémon GO mentioned said things. Always mentioning "setting", "worldview" and "rules".

I don't get where you got this "It's only about not being bad for the brand", when literally every single interview was about worldview, setting and their rules.
Worldview just means things have to fit with the idea of Pokemon the brand has. That's like, kinda the meaning of it. The things in your blog go that way too.

Also first Pokemon manga litteraly has talking pokemons despite Game Freaks also checking it.

They are protective about how Pokemon should be portrayed (the "worldview" of Pokemon), which is litteraly what I explained.

And, that is really not a bad point of view. Even more when some franchises, do work in that way. And going by what was said so far in all of those interviews, yes, it's how it happens. It's a franchise with crossover about Setting and worldview, they have their own unique aspects and even entire different continuities that goes in totally different routes, but when we are talking about the world itself and general points, then yes, it's how Pokémon works. And going from what Junnai said "The world view of "Pokemon" is very multi-layered. In the original "Pocket Monsters" series, the main games created by Game Freak, the story is mainly about Pokémon battles with the players themselves as trainers. And as I mentioned earlier, the story of Satoshi and Pikachu is depicted in the anime, making the world of "Pokemon" very rich. Other "Pokémon" games also offer new worlds to match their gameplay. In "Detective Pikachu," I had the image of enriching the world of "Pokemon" by developing a new story that is different from the main game and the anime."
See the point above.
Going by all of the interviews, all the mentions of setting, worldview and their rules, how they exist to complement each other and show different aspects of the "world of Pokémon" and examples of when some things are exception (Such as Pokémon saying their own names in the anime) and others that aren't, then we can have a very good instruction of how to deal with Pokémon and how it's different from what most people would expect to see.

And being sincere, Pokémon is even more easy to analyze knowing all the points, because we at least have some rules and examples of what to do. And this is what I'm trying to suggest. Showing that Adventure or the Anime aren't unique in regards of "they show more of the world of Pokémon", it's what every Pokémon product does.
Aaaand if canon had something similar to NLF, this would be what it is.

Just as a reminder, works like Eyes of Heaven or One Piece games/movies written by the author themselves aren't accepted, and just "showing more of the world" never was related to canonicity in the first place. It's something even non-canon works can do.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
And that definition can be wrong, or being misused in the wrong manner. Ex even has made a blog voicing his issues with this universal treatment that Canon somehow brings, so im not even sure a thread for that will be needed if that blog goes anywhere.
This blog would still deserve a thread. If you want to apply a new ruleset, change the rules first.
Otherwise I would already do countless threads as to why Immeasurable speed should disappear every single time a verse has this discussed
Just because something has a definition doesn't mean we ignore what common sense is and treat all cases the same by disregarding context.
If water's definition says that it is wet, common sense is that it is wet. Inventing our own meaning is even kind of the opposite.
Or it also means that this is just a way of having no real argument to knock something away from one series and that your treatment of the other series, is in fact, incorrect.
Comparison means no arguments? Time to invalidate half of the CRT made on this wiki.
Just as we don't use other verses to disqualify feats, we shouldn't be using them to disqualify the use of canon for a specific series. "Whataboutism" isn't a strong approach to this when all you'd be doing is calling the series you're comparing to this into question. Or its just a false equivalency at the end of the day.
We actually do. Doing otherwise as a name, and it's double standard.
And those series you named do not treat their canon in this same fashion as Pokemon does. Dragon Ball most definitely doesn't anyway.
We already had this issue debatted last time, and it's honestly starting to be really tiresome.
Just throwing "it's incomparable to everything in the world" is not how this wiki work for p much everything, no reason that Pokemon becomes the exception.
gain, has that verse's canon ever had the practice of treating adaptations as acceptable works for their canons like it is here? If not, then that's a false equivalence right there.
A lot of verses does, yet we don't consider spin-offs as canon for the sake of it.
Key word: everything, which I said that isn't what im pushing for with this personally speaking.

And those points can be wrong with newly updated arguments, which is kind of the case here.
Half of your arguments are the same as last time.
 
15,763
3,733
This blog would still deserve a thread. If you want to apply a new ruleset, change the rules first.
Otherwise I would already do countless threads as to why Immeasurable speed should disappear every single time a verse has this discussed

If water's definition says that it is wet, common sense is that it is wet. Inventing our own meaning is even kind of the opposite.
Hilariously bad comparison Yuri. Looking at something with a different context, which we know for a fact is a different context, is not at all the same thing as just inventing our own meaning.

And its ironic you mention this on a site that has a history of inventing new meanings for things anyway for the purposes of this site and its standards.
Comparison means no arguments? Time to invalidate half of the CRT made on this wiki.
And you'd be right to do so as im betting that's more or less exactly the case. And I don't care about what CRT gets invalidated or which ones do not.

Comparisons being the same across fictions here is next to non-existent, because context and case by case basis are both a thing. And they most certainly shouldn't be used as a shield when you have no other basis to go off of. Especially when, again, the other likely scenario is that the verse you use as an example is just being treated wrong and needs to be looked at instead of knocking something away from something else.
We actually do. Doing otherwise as a name, and it's double standard.
We don't. And I'll gladly name you staff members here who vehemently express "whataboutism" not being an argument at all.
We already had this issue debatted last time, and it's honestly starting to be really tiresome.
Just throwing "it's incomparable to everything in the world" is not how this wiki work for p much everything, no reason that Pokemon becomes the exception.
And im sorry Yuri, but I don't really care if this is becoming tiresome to you or otherwise. Im going to call a spade as a spade when I see it.

Something becomes the exception when its context and its situation speaks to it being the exception instead of getting this magical universal treatment you seem to think exists when it actually doesn't.
A lot of verses does, yet we don't consider spin-offs as canon for the sake of it.
Define "a lot" by actually naming examples, and not the false examples like you did before.
 
Last edited:

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Detective Pikachu talking was more because it's kinda an important plot point tho. First pokemon manga litteraly had talking pokemon.
And so does the Pokémon speaking their own names in the anime, something that goes against the worldview of the games and Masuda directly addresses that every time that he can and gives an explanation for why such a thing could have happened in another world. It's still an example of how Pokémon company deals with the worldview of Pokémon.

Countless statements Electric Tale could only dream of?
Again it's litteraly going back to "it shows a pokemon, it's canon"
Countless statements that are just a repeat of "We want to show Pokémon from the point of view of a manga and Pokémon Company makes sure we follow their rule". The same that was mentioned in the Electric Tale interview, that directly mentions that in a universal way and the only difference is that we only have one interview about Electric Tale while Adventure had more interviews, what is expected but also means nothing.

That's litteraly asking what is wrong with using a non-canon work portrayal of a move...
Using One Piece movies/games or Eyes of Heaven stuff isn't accepted for moves despite being litteraly written by authors, Pokemon somehow bypassing every rules is as wrong as it sounds
If you want to go that route, then I ask you what is wrong when the worldview of a franchise is established in that way, such as Pokémon, work in that way. Really, what makes that such a universally wrong thing.

Most of them aren't valid tho. You litteraly need to have a Regigigas to unlock Regigigas. Which obviously isn't how it works in lore.
Yet the game still has the Regis in Sinnoh in unique spaces that you need to unlock. Is something from the games, so it's nothing more than the game having contradictory or incomplete lore ? Yet, it's there.

Magikarp Jump is just me being tired of explaining stuff even for the most useless little games.
The point is still there, it's information that needs to be analyzed.

Worldview just means things have to fit with the idea of Pokemon the brand has. That's like, kinda the meaning of it. The things in your blog go that way too.

Also first Pokemon manga litteraly has talking pokemons despite Game Freaks also checking it.

They are protective about how Pokemon should be portrayed (the "worldview" of Pokemon), which is litteraly what I explained.
In part yes, but you seem to ignore all the other things about that. Really every single spin-off and tie-in media currently accepted as canon is canon due to that, it's canon due to "showing more of the Pokémon world" and "it needs to follow the rules of the worldview", the interviews of Electric Tale, Magikarp Jump and Detective Pikachu talks about the same thing and they simply state how that is "normal", "expected" and "a thing in Pokémon".

That point is also already taken in consideration in my blog. The author of Adventures literally stated how in the start of the franchise he had much more creative freedom and could do "whatever he wanted", then the Pokémon brand started to grow, the Pokémon Company was created, and now the brand is much more serious about its setting rules.

The first Pokémon manga had much more freedom, it's expected. The franchise had just been created, they never had the expectation to need a very concise worldview across its many spin-offs and tie-ins. Nowadays that has changed. There are rules to be followed and explanations how the spin-offs and tie-ins are expected to fit together. You saying that about something created before all the mentions of my points were made (With an explanation to how that changed), means nothing to all the points that I made. It's really "They do that and are supposed to do that, but before they did that, they didn't do that. So now they doing that means nothing"

And again, every single spin-off and tie-in of Pokémon that is accepted as canon, is as such because of "following the worldview" as stated in every single interview that I reunited in my blog. The Magipark Jump and Detective Pikachu interviews state the same and goes on to say "it's basically the same for every Pokémon product". But for some reason you seem to accept them as canon due to the reasons in the interviews, but the statement that turns said process universal across the brand, that is literally in the same context and even line, isn't accepted. It's really "We worked here with Pokémon Company to be sure that everything fits with the worldview of Pokémon, also this happens with every Pokémon product".

See the point above.
Other than changing the concept of what I'm talking about (Basically saying that worldview has nothing to do with the lore and the crossover of concepts in the franchise), you point really had nothing to do with anything that I said.

Aaaand if canon had something similar to NLF, this would be what it is.

Just as a reminder, works like Eyes of Heaven or One Piece games/movies written by the author themselves aren't accepted, and just "showing more of the world" never was related to canonicity in the first place. It's something even non-canon works can do.

Okay, if this is really what you are trying to talk about, let's talk about canon. In fact, interesting that you talked about works that were written by the author (Of course you didn't define what "author" means, but I think that I understand here), so what means that something is canon ? if being wrote by the author isn't enough, then what makes something canon ?

Does canon have to do with continuity and a timeline? Well, Masuda literally said that Pokémon has no timeline (Maybe a reference to some people in the fandom saying that Let's GO isn't canon due to not fitting in the timeline), so I think that the main games aren't canon because the timeline is a lie (Good to know, it's non canon just like the DCAU is to itself).

I don't think that I reach any conclusion just picking random concepts and saying "that is canon?", so let me be a bit more precise. You said of works that aren't accepted as canon due to a reason that doesn't make anything canon to begin with. Just because I started a fictional universe doesn't mean that everything I start writing using that fictional universe as a basis is canon now. The two things are unrelated. Canon is about acceptance and use, nothing more and nothing less.

If I decide to write a work where a character die and two other characters start to travel together and this reveals a new thing about them, when I decide to go back and write a new story when the first character survives, this doesn't make the revelations about the world and past of the story where the character died not valid anymore. It's also not necessary that they are true (Although this would kill it really being a "what-if" based on the character surviving, so I would be selling a book that lies to the reader). Maybe I could even try to reveal that it's a multiverse, and the timeline was separated into two due to the character being killed or not.

I could go beyond, and do a story about them destroying a multiversal entity that will try to destroy the multiverse. The good guys defeat the villain, the multiverse is saved. However I release a new book, and with this book I show a what-if story when they are defeated, The multiverse is destroyed and recreated to the image of the villain and I go on to show how the villain would control the world. Of course this story couldn't exist in the same multiverse that the entity was defeated, because even if said entity existed in every single universe in the multiverse and was defeated in all of them but one, that single one win would mean the destruction of the multiverse. The two things couldn't coexist in the same multiverse. I could try to explain with a new word, it's a megaverse. But that really doesn't matter. I can write that story as something meaningless and nobody should care, or do that as a way to explain more about that multiversal entity, for that to matter, the information there needs to be valid in some way, even if the situation where they are shown isn't valid. Again, the situation itself has nothing to do with canon.


A non-canons story can have canon elements that the canon story couldn't reveal, maybe we should even choose new names. Let's call the "canon" stories as "in-continuity" or "sharing the same continuity" while the elements themselves are still "canon elements". Stories that don't share the same continuity, as I have shown here, can still share the same "canon elements". If the "canon elements'' are the information about the world, we could call it worldview or even setting. So, two works with different continuities can still share worldview/setting elements.

If the setting/worldview is supposed to be mostly the same, then even if the continuity is different, they can compared. Let's call that "cross continuity setting scaling".

Now that I defined what I'm saying, using mostly random universal examples, let's see why I'm trying to apply that to Pokémon.

So, I'm not trying to say that all those elements share the same continuity. Well, not even the core games share the same continuity and even the ones that are supposed to, still aren't related exactly in a timeline way, since it was stated that the timeline isn't how you should see Pokémon. And of course, I'm not even supposing that they are part of the same multiverse. Maybe Ash and the Lucario from Movie 7 don't exist in the game multiverse. That would still not matter.

When referring to my proposal, I'm talking about the setting/worldview of the franchise. You can say "it isn't about canon, it's simply about not making the franchise look bad due to spin-offs' ', you are right, but that still means nothing to my point. You can't say that all those interviews aren't about what I'm talking about, when they are used to make every single spin-off and tie-in that we accept as canon, canon.

About Pokémon Masters: We have worked with The Pokémon Company closely on details in the game, and they have of course checked our new details to make sure they fit in the world of Pokémon. One of the major new features of this game—and the content that we want to highlight—is the interaction between various Trainers. Players will be able to enjoy new and exciting interactions between Trainers who may not have interacted before. To create these interactions, we considered the personalities and backgrounds of these Trainers and made sure that our content did not deviate from that. If a character would never say or do a certain thing, we made sure that they do not in our game.

About Adventures: Working on Pokémon is difficult. Maybe the most difficult part is that we have to follow the story of another product, which is a video game. We can't afford to create a manga that people playing the video games don't like. On the other hand, if everything was exactly the same between the games and the adaptation, the manga would be boring. When you're playing a Pokémon game, you put yourself into the character, whereas an established character has to drive the story in a manga. We have to create good characters and surprise people as they're reading. That balance between what we have to change and what remains the same is probably the most difficult part.

The interviews about Magikarp Jump and Detective Pikachu were about the same thing, about respecting the worldview of Pokémon and needing to make sure that it made sense.

"But this needs to be the thing with every licensed product, it's saying 'has pokémon, it's canon"

Any problem with that ? If a franchise uses "cross continuity setting" with elements of the setting remaining the same even in different continuities, and it's literally said that the company overseeing the franchise takes care of making sure that everything under the name of the franchise follows the rules of said setting, then what can be done ? It's simply how things are.

You aren't wrong in saying that they do that with how the characters are portrayed. But just by saying that, you are already accepting what I'm saying. If Ash can't be a cannibal because it goes against what Pokémon is about, then you have a canon element between the continuities. If Pokémon can't speak human language without a good explanation, you have a canon element. All of this is about the worldview. Of course some things are just to make Pokémon, as a brand, consistent and always faithful to who can buy things from it

Yet, what Junnai said wasn't just about that, was about the world of Pokémon, was about its rules, about its setting. It isn't just "Pikachu can't do that because kids can't see that", it's "this can/can't happen because so are the rules of the universe. If a thing isn't/is happening, then we need an explanation for that so it can fit in the world once again". It's literally what Junnai said in three interviews and in two of them he talked about that as a universal thing, about "Pokémon" as a whole being in that way. It's literally an example that we use to show that something is "valid", but with the guy that works for the franchise saying "It's how the franchise works".

At best, it seems that you think that I'm trying to make Pokémon be some "exception to the rules" and "One of kind", when that is far from being the truth. First, even if this was the case, it wouldn't matter. The evidence for that being how the franchise works is there. So even if that is the case, it matters nothing. Pokémon would be a one of a kind franchise that uses "cross continuity setting scaling". But it isn't.

Let's pick "Pokémon" , remove the "Poké-" and add "Digi" and with that you have Digimon, a franchise that uses "Cross Continuity Setting Scaling" a lot. You have two works, "Digimon Xros Wars", the anime, and "Digimon Xros Wars", the manga. Both of them are totally different. Right there you might think "it's the usual anime non canon thing", but then you discover that the anime is the original material, and the manga was made after that. Then you have the guy who works for the main part of the franchise and oversaw both the anime and manga, and said "the setting/worldview is the same. Nothing in the manga was added from 0, it was a part of the setting and the author simply gave a new story to the same world". As you can see, it's the same thing with Pokémon.

Different stories, different characters, even some true setting differences, but still with some universal setting rules, that can't be changed and you should see the franchise as a whole as a multilayered world, that has each work being a part of said worldview. It's how Digimon is, and is also how Pokémon is. The difference is that Digimon is terrible with its setting consistency even with all of the production statements, while Pokémon has an entire company to do that.

There's nothing wrong with Pokémon having such a way of understanding its world. It's also nothing new. In fact in lots of those interviews they simply say "that is how the things are" and "it's how it works". It was always there.

From you examples of "if that was the case, X work should be different" and "Pokémon can't be done in that way, Y work has Z and still isn't accepted as canon" are perfect examples of tying to force a view on canonicity that goes against how the franchise itself, sees its world. I understand why someone would see everything in that, I still think it's how most of the multimedia franchises are dealt with. In reality, that is why I made my blog about canon, to make Cross Continuity Setting Scaling easier to understand and how that is a thing.

Of course, it's a thing that is full of problems. The very Core Series has problems by itself, the spin-offs/tie-ins that are accepted as canon also have, so simply saying "everything is canon" will also bring lots of problems (Even with that not being what I said). That is why I mentioned the need of a tier system for said canon and rules of how that would be applied. It's necessary for this environment, and I'm fine with that.

There are works that have contradictory information, said information can't be used in the Cross Continuity Setting Scaling. There is information that is outdated, so they can't be used as well and so on. However, you can't deny that is a thing.

Of all the points that you made, or it was simply going against the concept of Setting Scaling or even saying that such things as Setting/Worldview meaning the rules of the world and the lore isn't really what they meant. In both cases, you never showed your evidence that it isn't how it works.

If Setting Scaling is such a problem, then it's fine. I'll follow your suggestion and do a thread just about that. Of course that would affect the Canon page (Or not, the page literally mentions the existence of "uncommon canon systems") and I think we already have some major wiki-wide revisions, so this would take a lot of time to be done, even if it's just to start. But if it is necessary, we could simply close this for now and wait a few days/weeks/months until the "Setting Scaling" (I really liked this name) is dealt with. Of course, only if necessary.
 
15,858
2,515
I agree with the notion of adding any work that has been confirmed to have this supervision of Gamefreak making them follow an specific vision set as rules, but I disagree that everything should be canon. Unless there's the statements for it, canon shouldn't be assumed, it has to be proven.
 
16,579
3,084
I think many are taking the meaning of "canon" here wrong.
Canon usually means to something that did happen in a particular timeline, but the way the Pokémon series and our pages work in regards of it aren't limited to a single "canon".
Rather, every portrayal of the cast is something that is used as a way to perceive their potential in feats, rather than just measuring a single character in particular, we've simply standarized each portrayal in the way the Pokémon pages are right now, as the species pages, most notably, aren't based on a particular member of it nor are they "composite" profiles, each one contains the potential abilities they can have naturally.

Meaning that everything being "canon" here means more in the sense of "everything supervised by Game Freak is usable for indexing purposes", rather than "everything supervised by Game Freak is within a single timeline". Executor N0 even explains it well with the analogy of conflicting truths in the series and they aren't retcons or the like, but simply separate portrayals that display the potential of the cast, and something we base the profiles on.
 
968
555
For Mystery Dungeon, being a trainer isn't really a proof of canonicity...? I mean, trainers existing is clearly a fact in MD lore yeah, but it doesn't mean it's any more canon than your usual manga or obscure spin off.
I only came on the thread because I was mentioned on the thread. This was actually shared on the last thread, but you overlooked it for whatever reason. They directly imply in the official Nintendo Power guide for Red/Blue Rescue Team that the world of trainers (from the games) is the same as the human world, which is a canonically different universe from the Pokemon-only world in the Mystery Dungeon game series (albeit same cosmology obviously).

It's very clearly in reference to the games as well considering the caption beneath the heading literally mentions "previous games" in it. There's no argument about one-sided canonicity either like you tried claiming in the last thread for other details because this is just straight up from a Nintendo publication in general. I see literally no reason for Mystery Dungeon not to be canon given the multiple implications and intentions that seem to intrinsically tie it to the main canon.
 
15,858
2,515
Dude, not only are even the mainline games themselves already in different universes, as was proven to be the case not only for remakes with the Mega/non-Mega split but also between versions of the same Gen (like Sun & Moon), Masters isn't even a mainline game, so there's no reason to assume it shares universe with any other game.
 
16,579
3,084
I think many are taking the meaning of "canon" here wrong.
Canon usually means to something that did happen in a particular timeline, but the way the Pokémon series and our pages work in regards of it aren't limited to a single "canon".
Rather, every portrayal of the cast is something that is used as a way to perceive their potential in feats, rather than just measuring a single character in particular, we've simply standarized each portrayal in the way the Pokémon pages are right now, as the species pages, most notably, aren't based on a particular member of it nor are they "composite" profiles, each one contains the potential abilities they can have naturally.

Meaning that everything being "canon" here means more in the sense of "everything supervised by Game Freak is usable for indexing purposes", rather than "everything supervised by Game Freak is within a single timeline". Executor N0 even explains it well with the analogy of conflicting truths in the series and they aren't retcons or the like, but simply separate portrayals that display the potential of the cast, and something we base the profiles on.
@Ionliosite
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
I only came on the thread because I was mentioned on the thread. This was actually shared on the last thread, but you overlooked it for whatever reason. They directly imply in the official Nintendo Power guide for Red/Blue Rescue Team that the world of trainers (from the games) is the same as the human world, which is a canonically different universe from the Pokemon-only world in the Mystery Dungeon game series (albeit same cosmology obviously).

It's very clearly in reference to the games as well considering the caption beneath the heading literally mentions "previous games" in it. There's no argument about one-sided canonicity either like you tried claiming in the last thread for other details because this is just straight up from a Nintendo publication in general. I see literally no reason for Mystery Dungeon not to be canon given the multiple implications and intentions that seem to intrinsically tie it to the main canon.
That's just the premise of MD yeah. It's litteraly the same amount of proof as Xeno Goku being an alt timeline Goku.

Proof of canon needs to come either from clear wog or already-confirmedtobecanon works.

Also the fact that most of its lore is contradicting a big part of what's established doesn't help.
 
968
555
That's just the premise of MD yeah.
You do realize by admitting the validity of this point, you indirectly concede on this argument, right? If the world of trainers (previous games like FireRed and Crystal) is the same as the human world, then it's just an alternate universe to it. I don't mean alternate universe in the sense of "not in the same canon," I mean that it's like just another universe in Pokémon's cosmology.
It's litteraly the same amount of proof as Xeno Goku being an alt timeline Goku.
If Xeno Goku has a statement where a company like Toei comes out and confirms they're in the same cosmology as a different universe but it's not accepted, then that sounds more like a DB problem you should fix on a different CRT. This is proof by example nonetheless.
Proof of canon needs to come either from clear wog or already-confirmedtobecanon works.
This comes from an official Nintendo publication where a section is describing the relationship between the games and Mystery Dungeon, so it meets the idea here.
Also the fact that most of its lore is contradicting a big part of what's established doesn't help.
That's a non-argument. We've established that there are countless if not infinitely present timelines in the franchise before this thread. In a multiverse where worlds are literally born out of the differences between them, seeing one that's different from the norm shouldn't be a shocker at all.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
You do realize by admitting the validity of this point, you indirectly concede on this argument, right? If the world of trainers (previous games like FireRed and Crystal) is the same as the human world, then it's just an alternate universe to it. I don't mean alternate universe in the sense of "not in the same canon," I mean that it's like just another universe in Pokémon's cosmology.
It's not what the scan implies at all.

It just says that in MD own personnal lore, the trainers are in another universe.
That's no different from a lot of non canon spin off like Hyrule Warriors.

If Xeno Goku has a statement where a company like Toei comes out and confirms they're in the same cosmology as a different universe but it's not accepted, then that sounds more like a DB problem you should fix on a different CRT. This is proof by example nonetheless.
The game portrays canon db as a timeline among many. Like a lot of spin offs.
DM doing it is no different.
Also I already explained how saying "it's so unique no verse can compare" is litteraly just asking all inventions to be validated.
This comes from an official Nintendo publication where a section is describing the relationship between the games and Mystery Dungeon, so it meets the idea here.
That's not what I see in the scans. It's just MD explaining how it works inside of its own lore.
That's a non-argument. We've already established that there are countless if not infinitely present timelines in the franchise before this thread. In a multiverse where worlds are literally born out of the differences between them, seeing one that's far different from the norm shouldn't be a shocker at all.
Seeing a multiversal constant role being drastically changed is a problem. We should definitely stop excusing our own errors under the idea that "multiverse=all errors are legit"
 
968
555
It's not what the scan implies at all.
It just says that in MD own personnal lore, the trainers are in another universe.
That's no different from a lot of non canon spin off like Hyrule Warriors.
This is once again false. There is an outright reference to Mystery Dungeon's existence from Shauntal in Pokemon Masters, something being proposed to be added in the canon here too. And before you try to use the argument "it's just a book!!!!" (because that's predictable for you to say), you have to remember the way that humans stumbling in the world find themselves in disbelief from the fact there truly is only a world of Pokemon. So no, the connection isn't one-sided like you are trying to mislead others into believing. Also, Hyrule Warriors is accepted as being part of Zelda's canon, but it's just in another dimension, much like Mystery Dungeon. Thank you for proving your standards are just ludicrously high and that by the site's own logic, it should be canon.
The game portrays canon db as a timeline among many. Like a lot of spin offs.
DM doing it is no different.
Also I already explained how saying "it's so unique no verse can compare" is litteraly just asking all inventions to be validated.
Okay, that's a one-sided canonicity. That's inherently different from Mystery Dungeon's case. Thank you for explaining why your example is objectively a false equivalence.

Yuri, the problem isn't the fact that MD is unique. It's the fact that you're deriving your arguments largely from examples and that's it. You use examples to bolster your arguments, not make them.
That's not what I see in the scans. It's just MD explaining how it works inside of its own lore.
Why would that be the case? Even ignoring what I just shared above, it's not a statement that's made inside of the game. It's just a statement from a Nintendo publication of Mystery Dungeon that explains its relation to the main games. You might want to clean off those tinted glasses.
Seeing a multiversal constant role being drastically changed is a problem. We should definitely stop excusing our own errors under the idea that "multiverse=all errors are legit"
Arceus is still the creator of everything in Mystery Dungeon, and the Creation Trio has localized manifestations, much like the other universes. Are you saying the roles of Yveltal and Xerneas changing are proof of this like in the last thread. That has never been confirmed as a multiversal constant, just under universes that are incredibly similar to each other where they have the same role. That's deriving a conclusion from something literally never posited as an idea and seems more like your personal headcanon.

Your original claim was that it can't exist with these "contradictions." Now, you're backing into trying to say people are wrong if they are to accept these "contradictions" when you have no actual argument against what was brought up, lovely.
 
1,626
137
It's not what the scan implies at all.

It just says that in MD own personnal lore, the trainers are in another universe.
That's no different from a lot of non canon spin off like Hyrule Warriors.


The game portrays canon db as a timeline among many. Like a lot of spin offs.
DM doing it is no different.
Also I already explained how saying "it's so unique no verse can compare" is litteraly just asking all inventions to be validated.

That's not what I see in the scans. It's just MD explaining how it works inside of its own lore.

Seeing a multiversal constant role being drastically changed is a problem. We should definitely stop excusing our own errors under the idea that "multiverse=all errors are legit"
You do know that this wiki uses stuff from multiple different pokemon universes for canon and scaling right? Different universe isn't non canon, and there aren't as many errors as you think. What are the contradictions for PMD being non canon
 
4,950
1,264
I'm somewhat concerned about some matters:

1. Is there such a thing or group of things that we should consider as a primary/main canon? If so, what is it defined as?

2. Do we treat all included works as "equally canon"?

3. Does this proposition include any proposed approaches to things like the Anime contradicting Pokedex info?
Because for most Pokemon species, most of the time in the anime, details from their Pokedex entries -as well as, arguably stuff from their physiology- are often ignored or neglected. Heights gotten wrong, weight seemingly not checked, & sometimes stuff happening that contradicts Pokedex entries.

In come cases, these "contradictions" can simple be the anime depicting those Pokemon without ever depicting such abilities, typically for reasons that the Pokemon that has it isn't important to the story, or the ability wouldn't further the story.
& in such cases, these absences of evidence could be seen as the anime contradicting the games' Pokedex.

So how does the content of this blog & proposition handle such matters?
Sorry for any bother, & sorry if any of my questions are problematic.
 
15,858
2,515
Not really, since Pokémon up to now is composite in anything except if there are extremely notable differences like the Low 2-C PMD mons.
We don't do that for the humans tho. Unless you don't see Red has different profiles his different versions. After all, the reason we cross scale the different Pokémon across different universes is because the species are supposed to do the same things even across different universes (based on Masuda's statement), but we don't have such thing for the humans.
 
5,552
1,027
We don't do that for the humans tho. Unless you don't see Red has different profiles his different versions. After all, the reason we cross scale the different Pokémon across different universes is because the species are supposed to do the same things even across different universes (based on Masuda's statement), but we don't have such thing for the humans.
Tell that to Brock, Cynthia etc.

Red is an exception due of the whole differences between their mons, manga one has literally Mewtwo, Origins one a 5-B Charizard and Game one is "normal".
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
1. Is there such a thing or group of things that we should consider as a primary/main canon? If so, what is it defined as?
Depends on what you mean as "primary/main canon". Officially, there's no such thing.

First because Pokémon isn't a series about continuity or anything like that, as Masuda said, is a series that you need to approach from a "region/worldview" point of view, with each entry showing a different side of the Pokémon world that you need to look into to see how rich it's.

So, it's a franchise that from the PoV that I'm trying to explain here, is about setting first than anything else. Of course continuity and the characters themselves are good in order to make a good story and experience for the one that is playing the game, but if there's a point when the continuity and setting enter in conflict, and for the world itself, you could just go with the setting and its consequences than continuity.

After understanding that the characters themselves, their story arcs or the story/continuity as a whole really don't matter for this thread, then all that we need to discuss is setting and how the different media can explore that world. We need to understand that sometimes there's something different because it's a thing of the medium, and other media can't show the same thing, and other times that something different is simply a mistake and shouldn't matter.

The best that we have is the interview with Jinnai, he refers to the mainline "Pocket Monsters" series as the "original world" and going by his explanation of the Pokémon World being "Multi-layered", we can assume that the mainline "Pocket Monsters" series is the first layer that is the basis for all the other layers, that are going to complement the original one in order to make the larger "Pokémon world" more rich.

So the mainline games could be seen as the "main canon" in relation to setting (Since, again, continuity isn't important), yet it isn't absolute and is in fact incomplete due to the very medium of the mainline games being limited, so even the mainline games aren't the "one true thing" for Pokémon.

Having the Canon Tier System, such as the one that I gave as an example at the start of the thread, helps us since we need to be sure of what to put in the profiles. So having the mainline games as the main canon, and using the others in levels depending on how much they are closer of away from those mainline games, seems to be a good option, since I know that nobody wants a full case-by-case way that needs every single addition to be analyzed in that way (Even if it's still the best one IMO).

2. Do we treat all included works as "equally canon"?
Again, depends on what you mean as "canon". Since my thread isn't about continuity, then we can already say that this wouldn't treat all the works as happening in the same timeline (Even taking version differences in consideration).

Also each work from different media can also be different due to the very nature of the media, and is also something that shouldn't affect the setting itself, even if it presents in a different way due to the media.

So, each work is full of unique things that definitely don't "affect" each other (Mainly about continuity), things that are there due to uniqueness of the media itself and shouldn't "scale", and even among things that could be scaled, that can also be ones that couldn't due to contradictions and would fall in the "unique things".

So, no "equally canon". Most works still have their own continuities that are separated from each other, and this is more about the setting and things that are somewhat consistent and each work is just showing "a different side of a whole". If things are vastly contradicted between then, then it doesn't scale.

3. Does this proposition include any proposed approaches to things like the Anime contradicting Pokedex info?
Because for most Pokemon species, most of the time in the anime, details from their Pokedex entries -as well as, arguably stuff from their physiology- are often ignored or neglected. Heights gotten wrong, weight seemingly not checked, & sometimes stuff happening that contradicts Pokedex entries.

In come cases, these "contradictions" can simple be the anime depicting those Pokemon without ever depicting such abilities, typically for reasons that the Pokemon that has it isn't important to the story, or the ability wouldn't further the story.
& in such cases, these absences of evidence could be seen as the anime contradicting the games' Pokedex.
It's all about being consistent or not, and the reasons for that. Different heights, weight, why does that matter ? Pokémon are a species, and height and weight should be by far one of the most common things to not be 1:1 between all the members of the species. If something has no reason to be the same among all of them... Then it's just a different thing that can be not very normal in-universe, but that is being chosen by the staff because said heights/weights are better for the story/animation/etc. This is about the whole "different media are better with different things" and people should stop thinking that any difference from the "standard" is a reason for a work to be unable to be used.

In relation to the entries, again, think of them as the "standard", there's nothing wrong with the anime or any other work to explore the "non-standard version" even more than the "standard one", due to a number of reasons.

Anyway, if we can establish what is the "standard", then we should simply not use the "non-standard" in the "standard profile". At best create a different key for the various "unique Pokémon" that are outside of the standard from the Pokédex. What you used as an example, isn't a contradiction in any level. Not doing what should be possible, isn't a contradiction, it's simply a work not using its material in its fullest. It can hurt the quality of the work for some people, but isn't a contradiction. The same is valid to the opposite.
So how does the content of this blog & proposition handle such matters?
Sorry for any bother, & sorry if any of my questions are problematic.
As a TL;DR, for the blog, none of that is "important". The blog is for the setting and the common rules of the multilayered "Pokémon World". Similar things that complement each other can be considered exactly that, complements, while the totally different things are "unique elements" that don't necessarily can be considered valid across the whole "Pokémon World".

So, this isn't about continuity, isn't about individual characters, is at best about how some Pokémon works in a general way (That is their moves, abilities and more) along with the general cosmology, nothing more than that. Everything else, can be considered unique due to how different each work deals with their human characters and story. So, other than "lore/setting", nothing else matters for the blog.

Contradictory information is just that. It can be contradictory due to being a mistake, and at that point it simply does not matter (It's a mistake, everyone should move on from that), or due to being a unique element. If it's a unique element, if it's important, maybe a key for that version of the character with that unique element (Such as the Riolu that can learn Aura Sphere), or even a whole profile with that information.

In the end, lots of case by case stuff. What I'm saying isn't something like "In the Novel Ash's dad is a bad trainer that nobody knows, so that is also the case for the anime", things like characters and plotlines needs more information to know how the fit together. What I'm saying is more like "This move that never had a very good explanation in the games has an explanation in this manga/anime/spin-off, so this might be what they consider that the move can do", and this due to the interviews that talks about the worldview/setting. In a way is no different from how I deal with Digimon, that works is nearly same way.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,958
2,332
If I understand this correctly (in practical terms), the idea is that other products/medias can be used as supporting evidence for the main profiles. The exception being details that are contradictory, or if it's not entirely supported by the main canon (Like if one media shows the double team as phasing intangibility, we don't just treat it as such for the rest), right?

If that's the case, I don't really mind. Although it brings some issues to debate over (Like some feats being portrayed vastly different among multiple products, or how most sources align to the 4 moves limit).

Although, I don't quite understand how PMD or Conquest, in particular, will be treated here. Also wouldn't this remove the TCG and Detective Pikachu movie from being canon? (Although honestly they probably shouldn't have from the beginning). And wouldn't we have to remove composite profiles, then?
 
Last edited:
15,858
2,515
And wouldn't we have to remove composite profiles, then?
Considering the entire point of this thread to set Pokémon as having a shared setting across all these media, the answer to this would be no, since the profiles wouldn't count as composite anymore.
 
2,384
1,493
Considering the state of some of the Pokémon profiles we already have I'd much rather we focused on improving them instead of just adding new ones for the sake of it.
Ahem the Gen 6/7 starters, yes I'm beating a dead Ponyta at this point but I just can't get over how barebones those profiles are.

Regardless of how we interpret Pokémon "canon" I just want our profiles to be as professional and accurate as possible instead of varying in quality depending on which mons are god tiers and/or fan-favourites on this site.
 

Starter_Pack

The Forgotten, Yet Destined
VS Battles
Sysop
8,493
2,839
Same. The most important thing about our indexing efforts is maintaining higher standards for both accuracy and professionalism when keeping track of these characters. And establishing how we treat the canon of the verse is one of the best ways we can assure this level of quality is sustained.

Quality over quantity is the name of the game here. Keep that in mind.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
If I understand this correctly (in practical terms), the idea is that other products/medias can be used as supporting evidence for the main profiles. The exception being details that are contradictory, or if it's not entirely supported by the main canon (Like if one media shows the double team as phasing intangibility, we don't just treat it as such for the rest), right?
In theory ? Yes, if something isn't clear in the original material, or even just an addition that does not contradict the source material, could be used among the various "Pokémon World" products due to they sharing the same overall setting (In a way, no different to how Digimon works).

Yet, when it comes to "what is a contradiction", that will be hard to know. Things like storylines and characters matter nothing to things like how moves works or the world itself, yet even moves not being the "same" isn't something easy to judge.

Lots of moves have different portrayals not only between different media, but also among the same work, be it different games, different episodes of the same anime, or even how the move looks and what the description of the move says.

Don't know anything about Double Team, but the well known "Protect" move has different portrayals between the description, the animation in the game, the anime, the manga. Some descriptions says that the it allows the user to evade attacks, other that says it negates all damage, the animations (Be it the original anime or game trailers or specials) shows some type of barrier that sometimes is a sphere around the Pokémon, other times is a flat circle, other times it isn't even visible at all, and the manga varies from the same things from the anime (That are already very different from each other) to the Pokémon simply blocking the attack using its arms.

And this is just one example, lots of moves have the same problem. How can one be sure which one is the "right way", if not even the same media is consistent to how it works ? Of course if we have something like "This move that was always like this in all the manga, anime and even gameplay, isn't the same thing in this small official ad that appeared in twitter", then for sure this is one of the things that wouldn't scale.

But, if is something like "this move that had different uses in manga, anime and even the game, is already not looking the same in the manga, anime and game again". In this case... We have a much more complex issue that maybe could be about the very nature of Pokémon having lots of problem of using game mechanics over lore, or they don't care about some things being consistent, or even they simply don't want to give an answer to something that for them, isn't a problem. After all, it's only a problem for us due to how most of our standards are built with consistency and clear canon to deal with those things, none of them are things that matter for Pokémon, so it's our problem. But, still none of that matters for the "is it canon or not?" in relation to how Pokémon is intended to be analyzed as a franchise by Pokémon Company own standards.

If that's the case, I don't really mind. Although it brings some issues to debate over (Like some feats being portrayed vastly different among multiple products, or how most sources align to the 4 moves limit).
Basically what I said in the previous reply. There are things that will need to be discussed to how they are going to be applied here, but at first I would like to to least have the acceptance of the "official word on the Pokémon staff", that is how the series is intended with this multilayered setting with each work/world existing to make the larger "Pokémon Worldview" more rich and complex.

After that we can start making the rules to deal with the profiles, determinate how to deal with contradictory information, what is valid to scale between works and so on. I initially assumed that the setting thing would be accepted soon, so we could start discussing how the Canon Tier system should work. I gave an example there, but I also want to know what other people have to say about the system. Since I write mostly from an "outside indexing" PoV, what I write is more about how an average Pokémon fan would like to explore the franchise, so it's going to be adapted into something that better fits the site's standard.

Although, I don't quite understand how PMD or Conquest, in particular, will be treated here. Also wouldn't this remove the TCG and Detective Pikachu movie from being canon? (Although honestly they probably shouldn't have from the beginning). And wouldn't we have to remove composite profiles, then?
This isn't really about individual works, but about Pokémon as a whole. Anything that is approved by Pokémon Company should follow the settings rules and could be assumed to be part of the multilayered Pokémon world, with the contradictions being considered "uniqueness" for some worlds and non-contradictions being used as complementary information. There are some other things to be considered, but shouldn't be different for PMD, Conquest or any other Pokémon product.

And this is mostly the case for Detective Pikachu.

In fact I wonder why you said Detective Pikachu, when this is literally the game whose interviews explained the most about how the setting/worldview of Pokémon works, with consistent interviews for both the games and even the movie (From both the Movie Staff and also from Pokémon Company's own website) about that. I mean, it's literally the one with interviews that says "The Pokémon world is multilayered, with the anime and Detective Pikachu making it more rich complementing the core games", "Pokémon Company is always making sure that nothing that contradicts the setting of Pokémon happens with any product", "it's intended to be different from the Pokémon world that most people knows from the games, but there are lots of references to show the player that the two worlds are connected" and much more.

Really, other than spin-off games that have a direct connection with the Core Series, Detective Pikachu is the one that has the most amount of interviews to explain that it's "canon" (Or at least that it follows the setting of Pokémon). But it got a reference in Sword/Shield, so it' already there anyway.

Same. The most important thing about our indexing efforts is maintaining higher standards for both accuracy and professionalism when keeping track of these characters. And establishing how we treat the canon of the verse is one of the best ways we can assure this level of quality is sustained.

Quality over quantity is the name of the game here. Keep that in mind.
And that is the point of why I wanted help to do the rules. As I explained before, the blog was not made with "Profile indexing" in mind. It was a blog about the Pokémon world as a whole first, that just happens to also help to understand it for indexing proposes (In fact, most of my blogs are made with that in mind). So, everything so far was just to show "this is how the Pokémon 'canon' is officially handled", but as everyone might know, things like "consistent power levels" are things that matters the least for such things, and that is why we need our own canon to help the profile indexing.

Yet, I do think that having the official word as the basis for our rules is the best way to start, and that is one of the reasons for why I made the blog.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,958
2,332
@Ions from what I'm getting, I think it might. The composite profiles were a mismatch of contradictory and different interpretations, the news rules have would make it so the most consistent of showings would be used instead from what I understand. It would be similar to a composite profile, but I don't think that's the best way to describe it any more.

@Exec

I see, well that works with me.

I'm asking about PMD and Conquest in particular since they are the more 'unique' versions. Going back to how you describe the new canon as a 'how a regular fan would see it, most fans tend to put these in a different caliber than say XD or any of the main series games.

I think you might have missed where I said the Detective Pikachu movie, not the game. Assuming you do mean the movie: "When we're doing this movie that's set in such a different world of Pokemon, we didn't want it to feel like a disconnected universe that is just an alternate history that uses the same creatures" - The same interview used to argue its canonicity also claims to be a very different world, even when they tried to make it similar.
 
Last edited:
15,763
3,733
"Very different world" can also just simply refer to parallel world in the same setting, which fits under the multi-layered view Ex's trying to convey here.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,958
2,332
I know, but by the standards given it would still make it 'unique' in comparison to the rest of the verse. In practical terms, feats found there wouldn't be used in, say the Pikachu profile.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Just having "unique" things, isn't the same as "anything from there isn't valid". The unique things aren't valid, the things that don't contradict that are valid. In fact, Masuda even said "The fact that Pokémon speak their own names in the anime is a point where the anime and the games are different".

Masuda said "basically it’s the same place. Looking at it as a parallel world, or in some select spots being a parallel world might be more accurate.". The "different worlds" are basically the same world (The same setting) with some select spots being something like a "parallel world", points where they differ. Just having "unique elements" isn't enough to say "everything there is unique and shouldn't scale". Both the anime and manga Adventure have a lot of "unique elements", but also a lot of things that works perfectly for the game. For those things, they could (And by what the staff says, they should) scale.

Also, don't know where you got that was the interview that I was using. In fact, I'm not talking about the movie itself, but by the game, an interview with Hiroyuki Jinnai, not with someone from the movie staff. In fact, you seem to ignore the fact that in the interviews that I'm using (again, from the game staff), they made clear that even the uniqueness from the Detective Pikachu story, still had to be within the limitation of the Pokémon world, and that is why they needed to explain how the Pikachu of the game could talk with the main human character.

Of course isn't the common thing, but still is valid in the world. You are right to assume that "Pikachu being able to talk with X character" isn't something that should be in a generic Pikachu profile, because is something unique that needed a explanation for that, exactly because it's unique. But something done by a random Pokémon, without anything unique there, that is something that could still be scaled, because if there's no explanation to say "it's different from the others", then it's assumed to be something that still follows the setting.

Pikachu talking, huge Torterra or even things done by Pokémon infected with R, shouldn't scale to the average Pokémon. However, what Psyduck did is something that follows it setting, so it's assumed to be a faithful representation of what Psyduck can do within that condition, and isn't special like, it needed to drink a special formula to become more powerful.

Also, about the "different world" thing, is something that we need to take in consideration the multiple meanings of the word.

Of course being parallel worlds is also a valid use (After all, it would be rare for anything in the Pokémon world to be taking place in the same universe). However in other cases, it's also referring to just the other regions of the Pokémon world. In the interview with Junnai, he said that the events of the game takes place in a world that is different from the one of the core series, but there are references to the world of the core series to make the player feel that the two are connected (Those being references to the other regions and events from the other games and even anime). In fact even the interviews for the core series has mentions of "different world" or "world of X game", but not as literal parallel universes as we use, but just as a reference to a new story, region or even for being a sequel. In the case with Detective Pikachu, is clear that the intention is it being a "different region from the ones of the core series, that developed its culture and social structure in a way very different from the core series". Is no different from how the Pokémon Ranger series works being in its own regions, that are very different from the core series, but still just regions "far, far away from the region of the core games".

And the movie interviews, lots of them were about how it takes place in a "different world", but as a "different region". Even the interview that you linked is how it's the same universe, just a different said of it. In fact, lots of other interviews are how it's the same world, but just a region far away from the others from the games/anime that it has its own rules, but still the same world.

Even if they were just a "parallel universe that has none of the other regions or characters", it's still bound by the setting rules of how Pokémon works. The whole point of the Detective Pikachu and Magikarp Jump interviews was exactly to show how that was the normal thing for Pokémon, everyone expects to be the same "Pokémon world" and how the Pokémon Company makes everything that can be done to be sure that is what is happening with any spin-off/tie-in product.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,958
2,332
I think you're reading waaaay into my statement, your fourth paragraph basically covers what I was thinking, but thanks for responding.
 
This will bring rather interesting discussions later on in regards to feats, I feel.

But for now, very well researched and compiled. A job well done indeed, Ex.
 

Starter_Pack

The Forgotten, Yet Destined
VS Battles
Sysop
8,493
2,839
I feel like that aside from some criticisms on the subject, I feel the majority of people agree with this CRT. If there's any unaddressed concerns about the Pokémon canon, I would suggest they say something now. Otherwise, I suppose this can be pushed through and applied.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I think that everyone is fine with the basic concept of the thread, so I think it's time to discuss how the new approach shall be used for the profiles, as with the characters themselves and scaling.

Characters
First about individual human characters, this is yours Ash, Red, Brock and so on. As I made clear in this thread, the new approach does not affect how the continuity in Pokémon works (At least outside of simple "influence"). So, each variation of a character from each work shall be considered its own "individual character" and get its own profile, or at least different keys for the different iterations of the character.

The way that the profiles are handled right now seems to be inconsistent with that, as far as I know. For example, various Ash/Red have different profiles for their different iterations. Other characters also have different profiles for their different iterations, but some still simply have different keys for versions of the character from different timelines. Of course Pokémon is a bit different from other franchises, since it can't really be said that any work is in total continuity with any previous work, with even the main game series being more about different timelines that follows the same archetype

The way that the profiles are separated right now is fine. Of course there are some things to be considered, such as the facts that the multiple iterations of a character do influence each other (A character in Adventures might change it's personality to be more similar to that of the games/anime for example), so some changes can happen in the future. Other times another media can show aspects of a single media that isn't shown in itself, such as that the flashbacks of "Giratina and the Sky Warrior" are stated to be "six years ago" in the manga (And the concept artwork) while the movie itself has no mention of the timeframe, so somethings can be assumed from another media, but I don't think that any of that will influence our profiles in any way.
Pokémon Species Profile

From the Pokémon page, our species profiles are based on "composite versions of that species of Pokémon across all canon mediums", but "The only exceptions to this are Pokémon that are individual enough to warrant a profile separate from their species" and finally "All of our Pokémon species profiles assume the Pokémon is wild, Level 100 with perfect EVs and IVs, and know every possible move and skill without being trained."

As usual, even with the new acceptance of canon, I don't think that anything needs to change. Specific Pokémon that have far different moves and power level from their species are still not going to scale the Species Profiles even with new works being accepted as "canon". For example, Torterra (Species) isn't going to get "Dia-Mach-One-and-Only Razor Leaf" move because Tru used this move in Pokémon Adventures.

The only thing that can be considered to scale to the species profiles are things done by Wild Pokémon that aren't considered beyond the standard in the series. The best would be the other works complementing what is said in a Pokédex profile. If one day we see Lavitar eating a mountain, Pupitar destroying one and the earthquakes that Tyranitar can do in a media, this would be an example of something that could easily be scaled between media, since it's nothing more than giving context to something that we already know is true.

The same with how the Pokémon moves do as a whole. Things like their overall power isn't going to scale between species, and it's possible that a specific Pokémon might have, for example, a flame tower that far surpasses what other members of its own species can do. But there are some moves that aren't clear on what they do in the Core Series, for example, Future Sight. However the manga and anime does shows the move and it's, sometimes, explained as really being a move that can travel across time and attack the enemy in the future.

So in the case of how moves works, the other media can be scaled as explaining what the moves can do.

So, other than explaining what moves can do and sometimes being used as evidence for feats that we know are true in a series, nothing else is going to be scaled across the series.

There are other topics that could be discussed, such as lore, but they are the same thing from the "Characters" and "Species, but for other things. If is consistent, we can assume it scales, if it isn't, then it'something unique, and so on. But I don't think anything will be that important to our profiles.
 
5,552
1,027
So in the case of how moves works, the other media can be scaled as explaining what the moves can do.

So, other than explaining what moves can do and sometimes being used as evidence for feats that we know are true in a series, nothing else is going to be scaled across the series.
What if the move versions contradict each other in medias like Darkrai's Dark Void (or how was called its peculiar move)?
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
What if the move versions contradict each other in medias like Darkrai's Dark Void (or how was called its peculiar move)?
That is something hard to say and should be case-by-case. If is something like "this one move that appears always as the same is most media is used in a different way in this one alternate continuity", then that is only going to be valid for that story. But this is a bit hard to decide for some moves, that have different versions even in the same continuity.

Although I don't think that Darkrai's Dark Void was used in any different way in the movie, the move puts the enemy to sleep and then is given a nightmare due to Darkrai's Bad Dreams ability. It's in fact a very consistent use of the move across all of its appearances and the movie explains exactly how the move works in-game. Don't know why you used that as an example.
 
That is something hard to say and should be case-by-case. If is something like "this one move that appears always as the same is most media is used in a different way in this one alternate continuity", then that is only going to be valid for that story. But this is a bit hard to decide for some moves, that have different versions even in the same continuity.

Although I don't think that Darkrai's Dark Void was used in any different way in the movie, the move puts the enemy to sleep and then is given a nightmare due to Darkrai's Bad Dreams ability. It's in fact a very consistent use of the move across all of its appearances and the movie explains exactly how the move works in-game. Don't know why you used that as an example.
Because in the games, Darkrai opens a sort of void below the pokémon, while in the movie he launches dark spheres. That's the thing he is referring to that is different.
 
5,552
1,027
Don't know why you used that as an example.
In games is a black hole which appears under the opponents and sucks them in, to then leave them asleep in the original position. In anime instead it shoots spheres which put the ones who they hit asleep.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Because in the games, Darkrai opens a sort of void below the pokémon, while in the movie he launches dark spheres. That's the thing he is referring to that is different.
I thought that he was talking about the effects. The way that the move is launched differs sometimes even in the very core games, in recent games it does uses a sphere and launches it at the opponent (Although in the game it phases through the ground). In fact even during the time of D/P/Pt in Battle Revolution the move did have a "launches something at the opponent animation". Some moves simply changes animations across series and works while renaming the same effect. I never thought that someone would ask about different "uses" instead of effects, but still is the same concept.

No in-universe explanation for that. Maybe it's the same thing that can be used in different ways, maybe not. But some moves do seem to act differently, but there's no clear answer to that (In fact I never thought that someone would ask about that).

How we would answer that ? I don't thought of an answer because I didn't thought it mattered. But should still be the same... I think (Simply assuming that the same move can be used in different ways seems to be the better answer here).
 
It really doesn't matter much, but people like to argue over it in vs threads. AoE sleep manip vs a projectile that can be dodged and all.

And yeah, I agree that simply the move can be used in different ways. This is outright shown to be the case in both anime (Ash's Pikachu electricity barrier, for example) and manga.
 
15,763
3,733
I don't really have much thought on the characters (humans btw) as I pretty much agree with what Ex already laid out, but I do think that different keys would be better than just whole pages.

Because to a similar vein of how wild Pokemon get every eventuality of what they, as a species and not specifically unique members know, why shouldn't the protagonists who are also "generalized" and not specific? To me it looks kind of pointless to say a game protagonist on one page gets a team with one of the starters, then on another page gets a team with this starter, and so on.

Keys should be easier to handle this problem with the humans, and those who aren't unique variations of course. Like Ash or Adventures / Pokemon Origins Red.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I don't really have much thought on the characters (humans btw) as I pretty much agree with what Ex already laid out, but I do think that different keys would be better than just whole pages.

Because to a similar vein of how wild Pokemon get every eventuality of what they, as a species and not specifically unique members know, why shouldn't the protagonists who are also "generalized" and not specific? To me it looks kind of pointless to say a game protagonist on one page gets a team with one of the starters, then on another page gets a team with this starter, and so on.

Keys should be easier to handle this problem with the humans, and those who aren't unique variations of course. Like Ash or Adventures / Pokemon Origins Red.
That is basically what I think. If one shall get a key or a different profile might be dependent on how different the variations are and how much keys there are. That I think is open to decision for the ones that makes the profiles.
 
I don't think I ever got a straight answer for this. WHEN Masters EX stuff gets added to the wiki, should they be added to our current profiles since they're clearly meant to be the same characters, or should they be separated into a different one just like our two Po profiles?
 
Top