• 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
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?
That depend on the amount of information.

The characters aren't necessarily the same (As they never are in Pokémon). But even when we are dealing with literal versions of different universes, some are still in the same profile. Cyrus is a good example, our current profile includes not only the one from the D/P games, but also Pt and the US/UM games, all from different universes. Yet the one from Masters is also from a different universe from the one that Masters takes place. I think that Masters does not add enough information for most characters than a new Core Game, and if is supposed to really be taken place in the world of the characters of the games (That by itself is already a multiverse), then a key for "Masters" should be enough.

Yet I don't think that different keys of different profiles have any different meaning other than being in a different page or not. So isn't really a question that I can answer as it does not deal with the setting/worldview, that is the thing that I know of. People who works on the profiles themselves might know the better way to do that.
 
So whats the current status on this?


Im just curious as this has been open for a while now. Has it been accepted? I been gone for a bit.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I ended up using a lot of my time reading the manga and playing games for the future revision that I'm playing, so I ended up forgetting to bump this thread.

I assume that most of the users accepted this, even more considering my last reply about what would be used. If this is accepted we should update the Pokémon page changing the link to the new blog. Maybe adding something new to the rules about how that should be managed with examples of what can or can not be accepted is a good idea in order to stop unreasonable attempts to update the pages.

Or maybe I should just add the examples to the blog and put something like "(You can read the blog for examples of what can or can not be used in our species profiles)" in the page.
 
5,552
1,027
I ended up using a lot of my time reading the manga and playing games for the future revision that I'm playing, so I ended up forgetting to bump this thread.

I assume that most of the users accepted this, even more considering my last reply about what would be used. If this is accepted we should update the Pokémon page changing the link to the new blog. Maybe adding something new to the rules about how that should be managed with examples of what can or can not be accepted is a good idea in order to stop unreasonable attempts to update the pages.

Or maybe I should just add the examples to the blog and put something like "(You can read the blog for examples of what can or can not be used in our species profiles)" in the page.
So PMD canon again? Yessa
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
So PMD canon again? Yessa
As canon as other Pokémon products ? Yes, but still that doesn't mean that everything from the PMD series can be used for the Pocket Monsters series. I would say that mostly things that are explanations, or examples, of things that are vague from the main series are the ones that are the most valid to be used.

Yet new feats are complicated on their own (As feats aren't really "setting things"), as not even the main series is consistent with them. Of course things like Outliers are still a thing even in a franchise where everything is canon, so if something from the PMD series, or any spin-off, far outclasses everything from the main series, it shouldn't be used even if it does not contradict the setting (Some people might not know this, but being canon isn't the same as having no outliers for our proposes).

But I think that PMD is canon enough as an example of Uxie erasing memories, don't know about Charizard melting mountains
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,727
@Executor_N0

So what are the conclusions here so far, and should we notify all staff members who are interested in Pokémon?
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
@Executor_N0

So what are the conclusions here so far, and should we notify all staff members who are interested in Pokémon?
It seems that the changes are mostly accepted and from this future threads will analyze each addition from secondary works in a case-by-case way. I would like to put some examples of what is accepted and what isn't accepted so future thread don't end up bringing unreasonable upgrades or downgrades. I'll try to write a suggestion still today and wait to see what the other members think of them.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I finally got time to write the examples on the blog.

The notes on the Pokémon page, currently are:
  • All of our Pokémon species profiles are composite versions of that species of Pokémon across all canon mediums, including the games, the anime, the manga, the Trading Card Game and spin-off games. Their power and abilities should reflect this. The only exceptions to this are Pokémon that are individual enough to warrant a profile separate from their species, such as Ash's Pikachu.
  • 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.

And they are perfectly fine, we could simply change the link for the new blog and it would be good enough. However I know that the biggest problem with the changes that I’m suggesting is due to the possibility of unreasonable upgrades, or downgrades, based on the wrong assumption that “everything is canon”. So just to be sure I would like to add the following into the first note: Due to the contradictory nature of Pokémon across not only the multiple media, but as well in a single canon, it's suggested to read the examples and explanations that are in the blog of things that can and can't be accepted for the cross-scaling.

And this is what I added to the blog

As it's clear that due to the large amount of content that Pokémon has with all of its spin-offs, the way that the profiles uses things from the multiple media is going to be decided on a case by case basis. The "Pocket Monster" games are still considered the main source of information, and direct contradictions to the "Pocket Monster" series is enough for an information to not be used in a composite way, and should be exclusive to the material that originated the contradictory information (The information can still be considered an outlier within its own work and then is unusable in any way).

Bellow are sme examples of feats and iformation shouldn't be used between the different media:
*Things that clearly contradict the established world without any explanation for why that happens (Such as Cressleia being called an [ Ice-type Pokémon in Pokémon 4Koma]);
*Moves, Abilities or power in general that only happened in specific circumstances such as a member of a species receiving special training to get a move that it normally wouldn’t have or simply was born with more power than usual (Such as the [ Riolu that can use Aura Sphere] or [ Torterra’s Razor Leaf Diamond Special Mach One-and-Only]);
*Things that have been clarified as being exclusive to certain worlds or characters (Such as [ Mewtwo’s Psywave from Pokémon Adventures having different effects] due to Mewtwo’s high psychic power or the [ Pokémon from the anime and other media saying their own names] being explained as not being the case for the world of the Games);
*The above also includes backstory for specific characters, specially the human characters (Red's backstory is completely different from Ash's backstory, the same with Adventures' Ruby with Game/Anime May).

However even considering the above examples, there are counterexamples of contradictory things being officially used even when that makes no sense or simply inconsistency as big as the ones showed before:
*Some Pokémon do have their types changes into other types, especially when it's a new type that was recently introduced. This ends up causing major contradictions with the world, since a Normal-type Pokémon as Clefairy that was weak to Fight-type moves is now a Fairy-type and is resistant against Fight-type moves. The same happened with Pokémon that got the Steel-type on the Second Generation, such as Magnemite, that previously weren't weak against fire and now are. Although it isn't excepted to see a type change due to other media, it's important to notice that even the games aren't really very consistent;
*The movelist of various Pokémon isn't constant and some Pokémon learn moves at different levels in some games, or even entirely different moves. In fact even in a single game [https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Game_move_errors is possible to have in-game Pokémon with moves the the player's Pokémon couldn't access];
*Sometimes the personality, or even backstory, of the characters are changed, or "expanded", and includes events from other media. [https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-...ies-pokemon-masters-the-pokemon-tcg-and-more/ Brock's character was changed in Pokémon Yellow/Let's Go/Masters] in order to include its characteristics from the anime into the game series. And Mewtwo's personality, and Backstory from the Adventures manga was changed in order to be consistent with the personality and backstory from the "Mewtwo Strikes Back!" movie. The games' backstory was also changed in order to be consistent with the movie backstory.

As it can be noticed from the notes above, it isn't very clear what can be or not considered consistent in Pokémon multimedia. As the series moves on it's possible that even more changes are going to happen and include things that some might consider "incompatible". For the proposal of this blog, that is to determinate the "canon" of Pokémon, it was necessary to establish some rules in order to turn Pokémon into a work that can properly be analyzed across its multiple media while respecting the creative intent of having all of the works being part of the same general "Pokémon world".

However the rules themselves aren't absolute, as the franchise itself has almost no hard rules on what can be used or not between the various media. Of course we can't simply say "everything is valid", because even with the franchise being inconsistent, there are some rules and themes that at least are tried to be recognized as true while other aren't, it's just that the franchise is open to changes over time. So the examples above can be taken in consideration of what shouldn't be valid for scaling between works.

Also, the following examples might help to understand the kind of feats, statements and events as a whole that can be considered as valid for scaling across the media.
*Complementary information that has its origin in the core series. Things like what the Gameplay Mechanics really looks like in the world and their explanations, use of things only stated in the Pokédex, a visual and explanation of what a move really does and so on. This includes Generic events and rules of the world, such as "Lucario and The Mystery of Mew" showing more of the past of the Pokémon world, something that was confirmed in the X/Y games.
*Feats can be used if they aren't contradictory and aren't exclusive to a version that is clearly very different in relation to a common one. It's possible for some Pokémon to display feats beyond the common for it species, but still might be usable for scaling to other Pokémon such as its own evolutions or even stronger ones.

If anyone wants to suggest other rules and examples, go ahead. If everyone is fine, then we can do the change in link and add the extra line and this can be closed.

Sorry for the delays, I did my best with the time that I had (I might to go to another city today, so it's possible that It'll take some time to reply here again before I can access my smartphone)
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,727
Just a side-question:

I noticed that the following power and abilities page had been created some days ago:


Is it acceptable to keep, or should it be deleted, and all links to it removed?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,278
3,312
There were several threads about it which apparently never came to a conclusion despite some discussions and disagreement going on but it seems that Sean just went over and made the page anyway. I also lost track of them overtime, but I see on the page some of the things against which I argued the most and I still disagree with, such as mid regeneration, resistance to acid and some more.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,727
Okay. Would you be willing to delete the page and remove all links to it then?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,278
3,312
Done.

Also, I want to add that, on top of the old general threads not having been finished, a CRT should have been made to add it to the profiles and we still need to decide how to handle the whole canon thing in relation to how we implement them in the profiles and everything, as the physiology page uses multiple sources, like side games and so on.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,727
Thank you for helping out.

My apologies about derailing. You can return to discussing the main topic now.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Done.
Also, I want to add that, on top of the old general threads not having been finished, a CRT should have been made to add it to the profiles and we still need to decide how to handle the whole canon thing in relation to how we implement them in the profiles and everything, as the physiology page uses multiple sources, like side games and so on.
The biggest problem that I could find was the use of old magazines and English books that are the most likely to not be used (Just like old English dub). Most of them would fit as at least "outdated information" or simply "was never usable to being with". Maybe I should add why such things shouldn't be used in the blog as well.
 
There were several threads about it which apparently never came to a conclusion despite some discussions and disagreement going on but it seems that Sean just went over and made the page anyway. I also lost track of them overtime, but I see on the page some of the things against which I argued the most and I still disagree with, such as mid regeneration, resistance to acid and some more.
Did you seriously delete a page because you, and only you, disagree with SOME of the things on it? You say a CRT should have been done, and I agree, but one to call into question the things you disagree with.

The biggest problem that I could find was the use of old magazines and English books that are the most likely to not be used (Just like old English dub). Most of them would fit as at least "outdated information" or simply "was never usable to being with". Maybe I should add why such things shouldn't be used in the blog as well.
Is there literally any evidence that they shouldn't be used or are outdated, other than the sheer fact that you just didn't want the sources there?
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Is there literally any evidence that they shouldn't be used or are outdated, other than the sheer fact that you just didn't want the sources there?
A number of reasons in fact. The whole point of this thread, and that of the blog that I made, was about the levels in which different works are supposed to work under the same rules and each be a different layer of the "Pokémon World". But the more you move away from the source material the more you start seeing some "freedom" that simply destroys the original setting with works that had little to no research, made by people who have little to no idea of what Pokémon is and completely changes what was really there.

And in relation to that, the first years of Pokémon English adaptation, other than the games, was basically of things that were changed over the original script that completely destroys what the movies are really trying to say. So from that point, the very nature of much of the English anime-related works of Pokémon are petty much "lots of things that aren't in the source material and with little to no consideration over the original world".

The reason for why I made a note on the blog about how Pokémon translations are supposed to be "faithful or with changed accepted by the original material" is more of a recent thing, at least since Pokémon Company decided to finish their deal with 4Kids so they could do the licensing and management of the franchise directly in 2006. So before that, you already have a company that doesn't have that much of a contact with the original staff and clearly didn't care about the consistency and world built originally, and they were the ones who would oversee over the merchandising around here.

The reason for why the blog tries to say that most of Pokémon stuff can be considered canon, is due to the idea of rules being respected and a big rules made by the brand management about the very structure of the world. Rules that weren't always there, so you already have some Japanese works that clearly wouldn't fit with the larger Pokémon World nowadays and would be considered for the purposes of the blog as non-canon because it took sometime for the Japanese side of Pokémon to start using the whole "Same Pokémon world with same rules" thing.

And then you have the entire years of Pokémon tie-in media in the U.S as being not overseen by the original staff, or company to be more clear, but outsourced to a different company that really did lots of changes to the original work that simply doesn't fit with the franchise as a whole.

The more you go to the past, the more the idea of "Multiple media share the same overall world" starts to lose meaning, and when you move away from Japan as well, then this becomes even more of a problem.

Some recent Pokémon media is much more overseen by Pokémon Company and we could in fact use some decisions made here to give a different insight of the Pokémon world, in fact Detective Pikachu whole profile in the Pokémon Company website was exactly about how they did everything that they could to make the movie fit in the Pokémon world.

But the more you go back into the time that Pokémon was overseen by 4Kids Entertainment, then the validity of the "complementary information" found there, just isn't reliable.

Something that is know to exist in the core series and is explored more in a Japanese manga that was very overseen by the original creators so that they could still fit in the Pokémon world is an example of something that could be accepted.

Something that appeared out of nowhere made by a company that didn't care about the original material and was just trying to americanize everything even if they contradicted the original setting is already a very direct example of something that shouldn't be accepted as valid for the "original source". And then if this second source already isn't that valid, then what do you think of the second source of the second source that isn't valid ? This already makes the English tie-in books more unusable.

Not everything in your blog is wrong, but shouldn't be using material made from a time before the notes on the blog stated them to be. Of course, considering that this blog gets approved and the canon of Pokémon is expanded here. If it's not and we remain with the current canon rules, then it's even worse for this case (With makes the fact that the page was made even worse because it directly uses content that isn't accepted as valid in the wiki until this new blog is accepted.

For anyone else, I'll add one more section in the blog explaining when it could be considered that the Pokémon multimedia world started being more "consistent" and why some past works can't be used, at leas that much, and even more why the past English adaptation can't be used as it was the same thing as the original material.

Of course is just a complementation of what is already in the blog, so this new section shouldn't affect the current discussion over the blog being accepted or not.
 
So you're assuming all the facts are outdated, assuming the people don't know what Pokémon are, and assuming I used guidebooks, much less unusable guidebooks, from that early in the first place. Ignoring how I use multiple redundant sources on nearly all of my claims anyways.
 
15,763
3,733
How about you actually argue his points instead of trying to get an attitude. He's not being rude to you, so no need for you to start getting an attitude. Ya'll can easily settle this with a simple discussion.
Again, this^

This thread was going smoothly (for the most part), getting an attitude (and at this point in the thread) is completely unwarranted. Just put forth an argument and move on.
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,278
3,312
Jusr to say that I deleted it because the 2-3 threads you made never came to a conclusion, and they still got little attention from anyone, including other staff members and general supporters that should have given their approval to it.

I admit that I lost track of the thread and the I forgot about it, but it was far from being finished and a page that affects most of the profiles of one of the biggest verses out there requires a lot of scrutiny and approvals.

Just make a CRT to discuss this once and for all, and call people that would be important and useful, I can also directly tag them in there, so you don't have to ask each of them.

Also, I remember to not being the only one who disagreed with something in that thread, but there was still no input from other supporters or staff members.

Physiology pages, just like any verse-specific page, always require a certain level of scrutiny, attention and approval.
 
Last edited:
Also, something I'm too curious to ignore. Your sandboxes seem to be an intricate hodgepodge of both certain deleted and certain existing profiles. What do they mean, and are they there due to some sort of duty as a mod, or rather a personal interest?
 

SamanPatou

VS Battles
Content Moderator
5,278
3,312
That specific one is for deleted stuff I've been requested to keep somewhere, the others are for my personal work, either completed or ongoing. (for example, the second one is where I work on profiles before publishing them, Regidrago was the last one I've worked on)

But please don't derail this thread any more, discussing about the physiology page was already a derailment.
 
Last edited:

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Forgive me if I'm wrong but wasn't it stated that events of the Movies takes place on the same multiverse as the games?
As explained int the blog, it was stated that "it's the same Pokémon world, although you can consider some select spots as parallel wolds as being more accurate".

But, as shown in the various interviews, everything is a part of the multilayered Pokémon world that follows the same general rules and each work shows an valid side of it. So for the general rules, and general "lore", the information between the multiple works might be close enough for using most of the media as source to understand the Pokémon world.

It has nothing to do with universes or multiverses, or anything like that. It's just concepts and ideas that are used between the works. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2,751
430
I've saw some people in this thread who disagree with Manga, games, movies being Canon because many other verses follow the logic and yet they are not treated as Canon (like DBH) tho wouldn't this count as an Association fallacy? If yes I agree with OP then
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I've saw some people in this thread who disagree with Manga, games, movies being Canon because many other verses follow the logic and yet they are not treated as Canon (like DBH) tho wouldn't this count as an Association fallacy? If yes I agree with OP then
That depends on the franchise and what is the intent with the multiple products. Even in the same franchise you'll have staff members that have different opinions on how that would work. Digimon for example has Staff members that clearly aren't fans of cross-scaling and would prefer if every work would be its own thing, yet lots of other staff members did products that shows exactly the opposite.

With such contradictory nature it would be just we having to headcanon a solution such as rules of what can be accepted or not. At that point is just us theorizing something to make sense of a contradictory work.

However the Pokémon staff is very clear about the nature of the Pokémon works and Pokémon Company is very infamous about being very clear with its canon and rules and be sure that every work (Nowadays at least), fits with that.

So after this is just us trying to find solutions for the time when that wasn't the case or for the moment where the contradictions appear, or the elements that shouldn't be scaled at all (Such as characters' individual stories). But at that point it has nothing to do with canon (In fact, I made an entire blog just to show how the "concept of canon" doesn't fit with some franchises).

Anyway that is the reason for why I added examples in the blog for things that clearly shouldn't be used across multiple meda, as well as the ones that could be used. But, always a case-by-case thing and that is why it's important for everyone to know the context.
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
5,239
3,000
I don't really agree with the fundamental reasoning that every spin-off should be considered canon, because it attempts to preserve some ideas of pokemon.
In the same vein, every superhero movie tries to grasp the fundamentals of the comic versions they cover, but those are obviously completely different canons and in no way related power-wise. I'm also sure they likewise have to follow certain franchise standards.
The Pokémon makers try to conserve some general Pokémon world aspects in all their works for sure, otherwise they would not be producing Pokémon, but those fundamental aspects aren't power and abilities (except for some of the most basic ones).

Anyway, in my opinion, Pokémon as a whole should in principle receive the same treatment as Marvel and DC. They are all multimedia franchises with countless writers and multiverses featuring different versions of characters, some more canonical to each other than others, and will sacrifice consistent power mechanics for plot. In interest to being consistent, it appears right to evaluate those by the same standards.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I don't really agree with the fundamental reasoning that every spin-off should be considered canon, because it attempts to preserve some ideas of pokemon.
In the same vein, every superhero movie tries to grasp the fundamentals of the comic versions they cover, but those are obviously completely different canons and in no way related power-wise. I'm also sure they likewise have to follow certain franchise standards.
The Pokémon makers try to conserve some general Pokémon world aspects in all their works for sure, otherwise they would not be producing Pokémon, but those fundamental aspects aren't power and abilities (except for some of the most basic ones).
Except that they are. It's in all of the interviews about how they preserve the settings and worldview for all of the works and how the multilayered Pokémon World works and how what is needed to truly understand what is that world.

It's less like superhero movies or just any series that tries to maintain certain core elements to the franchise for branding, and more about making the very world itself consistent and the same in the various media, only changing the characters or a few elements (With enough reason for that), in that aspect Pokémon is more like a franchise like Digimon, that follows the idea of Settings and Worldview being shared between the works, even with all of them having their own twist on the thing. They are not necessarily the same worlds and certainly don't have the same characters, but the general rules and things that can happen in the world is meant to be consistent across all the works.

Franchises that works on setting, worldview and their general rules can simply be followed by that and having such thing cross-scaled. The very characters and even events certainly are not going to be the same, but the things that really matter there, are there to be used to understand the franchise as a whole. Of course my best example of a franchise that works in the same way is Digimon, because both of them works basically in the same way (While Pokémon is more consistent because of how the Pokémon Company deals with the rules of the franchise).

If anything, I mention the interview where Masuda explains the relation between the anime and games to show what is their intent, and then all the interviews with the other staff members mentioning how that works and how other than the rules being there, the reason for the spin-offs and adaptations are all to show different aspects of the same Pokémon world that the "Pocket Monster series" can't show.

As I said before, the current reason for why certain spin-offs and some adaptations of the series are accepted as canon is because of that. We don't consider, for example, the Pokémon anime or the Pokémon Adventures as taking place in the same world as the games. We know that they are in different worlds, but they share the same generals rules and certain events that build up from each other. What a work might show of the Pokémon world isn't the same that another one would show. But they are created all as ways of exploring the world and the way that one is supposed to see how the Pokémon world works is by seeing every single one of the works and how they complement each other.

Adventures and the anime are accepted as "canon" due to that. Then you have the other interviews that basically implies that the same happens with all the works. At first it just some other interviews about "But they make sure everything is consistent, don't they" and that is answered with "They check the content an awful lot and often tell me to make changes". But then you get to the interviews where it's said that "it's basically what is expected" and then the "Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built" and how the rules of the world needs to be always followed and that they can't make changes to it without explanation of how that would work in the world. In literally the same context as the one where Adventures and the anime are accepted.

It's really the same thing as the previous ones, but just with a "it's just what always happens" to show that isn't something exclusive to a few selected works, but it's just how the multilayered Pokémon worldview works. If this isn't accepted, then I see no reason for why Adventures and the anime should be. At best the only thing that the anime has is that Masuda used the anime as an example for something of the games. Yet we still have the statement from Hiroyuki Jinnai, who worked in Pokémon as much as Masuda, and whose main function there was to write the script, produce games and supervise the Pokémon works to be sure they are doing the right thing, saying how you need to see the Pokémon world in this multilayered way and how they always make sure everything follows the rules.

The intent here is clearly to have the works sharing the same Worldview and then develop it in their own way. If we accept Adventures and the anime as canon, so should the other works be because they are really the same thing. If they are not, then we should just separate all the Pokémon works with profiles for each iteration of the Pokémon world, even when that goes in total opposition with the constantly mentioned intent of the works.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
I think that I should have already made this...

But the list of those who agree, disagree and are neutral about the changes.

Agree: ProfessorKukui4Life, Hasty12345, SamanPatou, Starter_Pack, Dragonmasterxyz, Bobsican, SomebodyData, LephyrTheRevanchist, ZoroNotZolo, StrymULTRA, Waka1979.

Disagree: QuasiYuri, Ionliosite, DontTalkDT

Not answered the thread/Neutral: DarkDragonMedeus, The_real_cal_howard, NeoZex6399, Garchomp777, Crimson_Shadow101, Everything12, The_Axiom_of_Virgo

Also, I would like to comment a certain misconception that I think is still there. The changes that I'm proposing isn't about shared continuity or characters, but of elements and how valid they are supposed to be about the nature of the Pokémon world. Each wok still exists in their own world, some with their continuities and so on (I saw one person saying that due to the blog the Pokémon profiles wouldn't be considered composite anymore, but of course they would. It's still different continuities, it's only that they share certain elements that we can cross-scale).

And of course, clearly the power level of most of the Pokémon and their feats isn't something that is going to be of the care of the Pokémon Company most of the time (Maybe only of Pokémon whose power is everything remarkable about them), yet this isn't just a problem for "non accepted as canon spin-offs", but of the franchise as a whole. And that s why we would need to be very critical about any feats in Pokémon anyway.

At best what I'm saying is about generic events in the world and characteristics of the Pokémon, with some explanations or examples of things only stated in the core series being used as supportive evidence. We never saw, for example, Haunter eating souls in the game. However there's a scene in a manga where wee see Haunter doing that. It was implied to happen in the games, and now a manga uses it and since the works of Pokémon should follow the same rules and just explore them in a different way, we can use that event in that manga as an example of how that would happen.

Nothing very different from the standard is going to be added, at best only thing as support evidence. Outliers are still gong to be outliers after all (And that is why rules are needed).
 
15,763
3,733
With all due respect Ant, members being highly qualified to give opinions and feedback in some areas doesn’t mean it’s a “one size fits all” situation where they’re qualified to speak on, generally speaking, everything.

Out of those 3, only 2 are known to be qualified in speaking about the nature and workings of how Pokemon works and Ex already addressed all of their concerns, both with his blog and his responses to them here in this thread (which makes me wonder why any disagreement is being counted here when it’s been debunked and nothing new for it has come up since).
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
5,239
3,000
Except that they are. It's in all of the interviews about how they preserve the settings and worldview for all of the works and how the multilayered Pokémon World works and how what is needed to truly understand what is that world.

It's less like superhero movies or just any series that tries to maintain certain core elements to the franchise for branding, and more about making the very world itself consistent and the same in the various media, only changing the characters or a few elements (With enough reason for that), in that aspect Pokémon is more like a franchise like Digimon, that follows the idea of Settings and Worldview being shared between the works, even with all of them having their own twist on the thing. They are not necessarily the same worlds and certainly don't have the same characters, but the general rules and things that can happen in the world is meant to be consistent across all the works.

Franchises that works on setting, worldview and their general rules can simply be followed by that and having such thing cross-scaled. The very characters and even events certainly are not going to be the same, but the things that really matter there, are there to be used to understand the franchise as a whole. Of course my best example of a franchise that works in the same way is Digimon, because both of them works basically in the same way (While Pokémon is more consistent because of how the Pokémon Company deals with the rules of the franchise).

If anything, I mention the interview where Masuda explains the relation between the anime and games to show what is their intent, and then all the interviews with the other staff members mentioning how that works and how other than the rules being there, the reason for the spin-offs and adaptations are all to show different aspects of the same Pokémon world that the "Pocket Monster series" can't show.

As I said before, the current reason for why certain spin-offs and some adaptations of the series are accepted as canon is because of that. We don't consider, for example, the Pokémon anime or the Pokémon Adventures as taking place in the same world as the games. We know that they are in different worlds, but they share the same generals rules and certain events that build up from each other. What a work might show of the Pokémon world isn't the same that another one would show. But they are created all as ways of exploring the world and the way that one is supposed to see how the Pokémon world works is by seeing every single one of the works and how they complement each other.

Adventures and the anime are accepted as "canon" due to that. Then you have the other interviews that basically implies that the same happens with all the works. At first it just some other interviews about "But they make sure everything is consistent, don't they" and that is answered with "They check the content an awful lot and often tell me to make changes". But then you get to the interviews where it's said that "it's basically what is expected" and then the "Game Freak has historically been quite protective of the world it's built" and how the rules of the world needs to be always followed and that they can't make changes to it without explanation of how that would work in the world. In literally the same context as the one where Adventures and the anime are accepted.

It's really the same thing as the previous ones, but just with a "it's just what always happens" to show that isn't something exclusive to a few selected works, but it's just how the multilayered Pokémon worldview works. If this isn't accepted, then I see no reason for why Adventures and the anime should be. At best the only thing that the anime has is that Masuda used the anime as an example for something of the games. Yet we still have the statement from Hiroyuki Jinnai, who worked in Pokémon as much as Masuda, and whose main function there was to write the script, produce games and supervise the Pokémon works to be sure they are doing the right thing, saying how you need to see the Pokémon world in this multilayered way and how they always make sure everything follows the rules.

The intent here is clearly to have the works sharing the same Worldview and then develop it in their own way. If we accept Adventures and the anime as canon, so should the other works be because they are really the same thing. If they are not, then we should just separate all the Pokémon works with profiles for each iteration of the Pokémon world, even when that goes in total opposition with the constantly mentioned intent of the works.
I think what you interpret as having the same worldview isn't as significant in terms of powers and scaling as what you think it is. We are talking marketing stuff for maintaining the brand here.
Things like keeping it kids friendly, not making pokemon too human, keeping fire types as fire types etc. That's what is meant.
It doesn't mean that if a Pokémon in some distant canon has some showing it never has in the main canon, that this was actually part of the main canon all along if it just doesn't directly contradict things.
Take Arceus as practical example. What the company cares about is it being portrayed as the god of pokemon, which is a key to its fundamental nature. What it clearly doesn't care about, as its not main canon portrayals showed, is Arceus being portrayed as a nigh-omnipotent multiversal reality warper.

In general, I don't read many interviews so I can't come up with examples, but I bet one can find similar interviews about capturing the spirit and worldview of the originals in regards to anime adaptations, which we also wouldn't accept as canon for scaling.

Anyway, if all you want to use the lesser related series for is supportive evidence of things shown in the main canon that's fine. Heck, I do the same with some other works that have semi-canonical crossovers.
However, if you want to use stuff never shown in main canon just as long as there are no contradictions I'm still against that.
 
15,763
3,733
I don’t see any reason why things that aren’t contradicting the main canon cannot be used. You can’t disqualify something without an actual basis or reason to disqualify it.
 

QuasiYuri

VS Battles
Retired
5,225
2,558
I don’t see any reason why things that aren’t contradicting the main canon cannot be used. You can’t disqualify something without an actual basis or reason to disqualify it.
Except that it is the opposite. You have to prove that they qualify, just like everything else.

Needless to say, I agree with DontalkDT.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
121,782
29,727
That is not how we do things at all for other fictions though.

I just don't think that it seems realistic to try to separate the massive amount of Pokemon profile pages as an alternative.
 
5,552
1,027
That is not how we do things at all for other fictions though.

I just don't think that it seems realistic to try to separate the massive amount of Pokemon profile pages as an alternative.
Pokémon is mostly a multi-media verse, we are forced to be the composite profiles of the canon sources, as said cross scaling is even supported. No one is making a version for each media ofc lol
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
Why is the standard here just talk about how other series don't get the same thing because the rules of canon there are just different. The whole point of the blog is to show the official intent on Pokémon Worldview/Settings and how all of that is meant to work.

We accept the anime as canon because it's stated that it all one Pokémon World and Masuda used the anime as references to things of the games.

We accept the Adventures manga as canon because of the interviews of how the manga needs to follow the rules of the Pokémon world and is there to show an aspect of the Pokémon world that the games can't show.

All the anime adaptations of the games are the same thing. So is games like Pokémon Masters, Magikarp Jump and Detective Pikachu.

Why is everyone here talking about this as if it's only a brand thing and not about the lore ? It's the same reason for why every single already accepted Spin-off is accepted as canon.

The interviews are in the blog and in the thread, but okay. Let's talk about the interviews again.

From the interviews with Hiroyuki Jinnai

With Observador
――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.

With Famitsu
--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.

With The Verge
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.

Pick any of the statements used about other works being "canon". They are all about the world itself, about the lore and how the series works. Sometimes they have some unique things that doesn't scale between works (Such as Pokémon don't talking their own names in the games), while in general the reason for why there are so many Pokémon spin-offs is because they want to show a different aspect of the Pokémon World.

If The Anime, Adventures, Origins, Generations, Twilight Wings, Detective Pikachu, Magikarp Jump, Pokémon Masters and so much more spin-offs that aren't connected with the main games (Like Rangers and Stadium) are accepted as canon because of the nature of the setting and worldview, about the lore and how the world works, why can't the same be assumed for the other products, when the statement about being a normal thing being exactly from a interview about how that went with some of these works, but then they said "It's just the thing for every work".

What official statement can be used to say that every other Pokémon spin-off is an exception ? As far as I know the only reason for why everyone that is disagreeing with the thread s because "this isn't how canon is supposed to work" or "no other series works in that way", and that against official statements about the Pokémon world being of settings and the worldview about the lore are simply being ignored, "because that isn't how it's supposed to work".

Of course, various works can function in the way that you are saying. In fact the reason for why that is being used here is because it's just so common that everyone supposes that is just the rule and no other work in existence is different. Yet I can mention various works by WiZ Co.ltd that works exactly in the way of settings and worldview over individual worlds that aren't connected. And Pokémon just happens to be one work that is like that. Not every work is consistent with every other work in every single level, yet there's good enough complementary stuff there that can help to understand how the Pokémon world works, and that is the way that Pokémon is supposed to work.

Every single spin-off that appears out there (Like the recent New Pokémon Snap) is there to "show a new side of the Pokémon world" in a way that it works for the Pokémon world.

Is the whole control thing also for management and make the Pokémon brand more consistent ? Definitely. But it also has an impact on the lore. Detective Pikachu didn't follow the rules just because "Pokémon shouldn't look like humans", but because it also needed to expand the world of Pokémon in a way that the main games can't show in the same way as the anime. And the same is valid for most of the Pokémon spin-off materials.

Again, the reason for why I'm suggesting this change is because it's the same thing that the other Pokémon got and was accepted. I just showed how that was related to Pokémon Company control over the franchise and how that is intended to affect how one would see the lore of the franchise.

Is this a wrong approach and we shouln't accept it because it doesn't fit with out systems ? I'm fine with that. But then we would also need to remoe the information fom already accepted as canon products, because they are canon for the same reason all other Pokémon spin-offs are canon. Or most are canon, or none of them are canon.
 
15,763
3,733
I'm sure they're talking about extremely obscure mangas as that weird Clefairy one
Oh, then I guess? Like I said earlier on in this, Im not saying that everything for Pokemon should be accepted as some kind of canon source, and I don't agree with that either. My point though is that we also shouldnt disqualify things without an actual reason to and things that dont conflcit with the canon have 0 reason to be left out.

And we shouldn't be using other series, ones that don't even have a multi-layered kind of canonicty like Pokemon (and Digimon) do, as a means to do that when canon isn't something thats "one size fits all" across fiction.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
That is not how we do things at all for other fictions though.

I just don't think that it seems realistic to try to separate the massive amount of Pokemon profile pages as an alternative.
For most other fictions that is right. As I explained that has become the standard because most fictions works in that way. But there are also franchises that doesn't follow that and work in a "setting/worldview" way. I can literally talk days and days about how Digimon does that and talk about interviews with the staff literally saying that one shouldn't care about the differences on the story, but only care and understand that the settings aren't changed and one should see all the settings as one.

Pokémon is simply just like that, but much more consistent and I don't need multiple interviews to show that, because it's so consistent that everyone working on Pokémon understand that is how Pokémon works.
 
15,763
3,733
Let's just let the debate between the people with the disagreements play out.
If you ask me, its not even much of a disagreement that has a leg to stand on in the first place. The disagreement comes from this mentality of how most view and analyze canon here, a view that me, Ex and others here have expressed to death on how verses like Pokemon do not fit under that mentality.

And at that point, the issue doesn't even become an issue with Pokemon canon. It becomes an issue with how canon in general is to be viewed.
 

Executor_N0

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,306
768
And at that point, the issue doesn't even become an issue with Pokemon canon. It becomes an issue with how canon in general is to be viewed.
I don't think that is necessary. Our Canon page already states "The generally agreed-upon definition is that the work by the original author and creator of the fictional setting is canonical, unless the author or the copyright holder declares otherwise. Few other exceptions are also possible and should be noted on the verse page."

Different "canon" rules are already accepted as existing in our Canon page. The problem is just having to explain that and how we should deal with that. With Pokémon just explaining that for a random Pokémon fan would be easy, because the fan will have its own conclusions about how everything works. It's harder to do in a place like this because we need clear rules in order to apply the various information and how we should deal with contradictions and other things.

So, our rules are fine and it's easy to understand why they need to be in that way. The problem here is more like not accepting that Pokémon has such a different rule on how it's supposed to be analyzed.
 
Top