Gotta Revise 'Em All, Part 1: Splitting the Pokemon Canons (Massive Pokemon CRT)

[Ayewale]

I'll address the whole multiverse thing here



Marvel and DC keep coming up as examples of species scaling not being done, and it’s been explained why they aren’t. Marvel and DC have members of their species like Skrulls or Inhumans that are distinct characters. Each unique from each other.

We do not cross-scale Skrulls as a whole, even putting the individuals aside.

 

[Sniper670]

We do not cross-scale Skrulls as a whole, even putting the individuals aside.

Yes, because species like Skrulls are not universal constants in Marvel.

Marvel doesn’t even have a species page for generic Skrulls or what they are all generally capable of. We only index the capabilities of particular Skrulls, like Super Skrull.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I’m sorry, but showing actual evidence of things like exclusive characters existing in other mediums is not twisting the narrative. That is showing cross canon evidence.

This is a self contradicting statement. Game Character have an anime version based off the games, it's not evidence of cross scaling.

 

[Agnaa]

Tf...

Dude, you're saying that the games are canon to the movies because there was artwork of movie Arceus walking towards a DS that was playing the game.

If we actually take those to be canon events, that would have the games be fictional to Arceus.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Dude, you're saying that the games are canon to the movies because there was artwork of movie Arceus walking towards a DS that was playing the game.

If we actually take those to be canon events, that would have the games be fictional to Arceus.

Apparently only what's convenient should be interpreted as literal.

 

[Ayewale]

Dude, you're saying that the games are canon to the movies because there was artwork of movie Arceus walking towards a DS that was playing the game.

If we actually take those to be canon events, that would have the games be fictional to Arceus.

1-C Arceus sounds pretty heat not gonna lie

But on a serious note, using these pieces of artwork as proof of canoncity rather than them just being VERY meta pieces of work is a little strange.

 

[AKM sama]

I am not very knowledgeable on the whole Pokemon canonicity stuff, but the split side of arguments are making more sense to me right now.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

So I do concede it's probably too late for me to change anything but I don't... exactly agree with this?

Like to me, Pokémon is inherently a multimedia franchise, especially nowadays. It's not really designed like "Yeah the games are the only true Pokémon and the other media are just adapting the games", the world and lore are clearly created to be shared between all media equally. It feels very weird to me to make a split of basic lore elements like individual Pokémon between Media when the franchise itself doesn't... really make that distinction.

Like sure the story and some aspects of the setting differ in each media. And I do agree that anything that rates individuals (especially Legendaries, whose scaling is a ******* mess currently) should be rated per each incarnation. But, say, having a page for each Pokémon species for each media is just, way too much for me.

I know it's not the argument that's the most based in hard facts. But I just don't think that acting like each media's depiction of species as a whole is an entirely different version from each other, when no one, not the Franchise, not the fandom, not the devs, consider it like that.

I'd much rather rate individual species on a "Varying" basis, having the entire range of power level shown in wild mons and in trained mons across all media, and then scale individuals (such as Legendaries) on an incarnation to incarnation basis.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd much rather rate individual species on a "Varying" basis, having the entire range of power level shown in wild mons and in trained mons across all media

This sounds like kind of an awful idea. Compositing them together so that every page is "Varies, from 10-C to 2-B" (or something not too far from that) sounds pretty bad. How would the P&A sections be treated? Varies from nothing (or nigh-nothing) to having a wide variety of hax/resistances?

Separating it out is a lot of work, but so is any way of including a franchise this big. And separating it seems to be a lot more accurate.

 

[Mariogoods]

First, it is possibly one of the biggest CRT in VS Battles Wiki.

I am convinced that they are different continuities and therefore should not be composited. I personally feel that "Pokemon canon" may be better called "Pokemon continuities" since we are here to deal with different continuities and I prefer different continuities should get their own profiles and scaling.

Debatedly canon, but I don't think there's any form of 'canon' within the card games anyways, unless the weird moves they bring up count? But I do not think we know enough about those moves to use them, so the TCG seems inapplicable for battleboarding purposes.

For the TCG, I feel that they should be considered as a continuity of their own if TCG version of characters had feats.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I'm honestly neutral about legendaries being treated as different based on the incarnation, but individual wild mons should still be the same across medias. It's implied literally nowhere they're different, and all the differences pointed from the OP across the CRT were only about trainers/legendaries. Unless, again, the OP makes a summary of the differences about even regular mons across medias, then I'll be able to check.

 

[Antvasima]

There is unironically been more than fifty different posts trying to explain differences, and we're probably going to approach a hundred. I noted this earlier in the thread but by this point saying that there are no differences pretty much means either (a) you didn't read any previous posts or (b) you won't ACCEPT anything as a difference.

"We don't composite profiles like this."
"But they exist in the same multiverse."
"Even if they do that doesn't justify compositing"
"But they aren't all that different"
unironically several dozens of explanations throughout the thread
"Those differences do not count because they share a multiverse, of course they are different."
"But sharing a multiverse isn't grounds for them being composited so them being different doesn't justify being composite, either."

'Of course multiverses are different' means nothing because virtually every other series with several different mediums (even those connected by a multiverse) isn't composited. If several aspects of Pokemon are vastly different between mediums (and they are), and all the evidence for them being totally composited is pretty weak, well it's pretty easy to conclude that most aspects of the series shouldn't be composited.

"What about background information?" Fine, because the wiki occasionally does this for some verses (i.e. to calc something from a novel, you use visuals from the movie).

"What about Pokedex entries?" You don't need to composite those because they're all the same in every verse already, methinks.

So do we have sufficient staff agreements in order to apply the suggested revisions here now?

 

[Sniper670]

I'm honestly neutral about legendaries being treated as different based on the incarnation, but individual wild mons should still be the same across medias. It's implied literally nowhere they're different, and all the differences pointed from the OP across the CRT were only about trainers/legendaries. Unless, again, the OP makes a summary of the differences about even regular mons across medias, then I'll be able to check.

Can op at least address this?

 

[Antvasima]

Can op at least address this?

@Ayewale

 

[Sniper670]

Apparently only what's convenient should be interpreted as literal.

What’s self contradicting? You keep saying they’re only “based off” and not the actual characters themselves. What evidence proves this?

 

[Pikaman]

What’s self contradicting? You keep saying they’re only “based off” and not the actual characters themselves. What evidence proves this?

As said earlier, adaptation of characters into other medias do not automatically scale to their other versions, burden of proof is on you

 

[Agnaa]

Yemma you should respond to this message, not the reply in agreement to it that doesn't bring up any points itself.

Dude, you're saying that the games are canon to the movies because there was artwork of movie Arceus walking towards a DS that was playing the game.

If we actually take those to be canon events, that would have the games be fictional to Arceus.

 

[Sniper670]

Yemma you should respond to this message, not the reply in agreement to it that doesn't bring up any points itself.

I’m not really understanding the issue? The point of the artwork is to show that event Pokémon like Movie Arceus going from the anime movies to the games is showing that its literally traveling between the anime movies to the games. Backed up by things their description data of what they are and where they came from.

Why would this mean “the games are fictional” to Arceus?

 

[Agnaa]

I slightly misread those pictures on my initial look at them, but I think my point still stands, albeit with slightly different wording. Here are the images: Arceus, Diancie, Hoopa, Shaymin.

While they each show the legendary Pokemon moving from a movie screen to the game, they also show other Pokemon existing outside of the movie screen. In two of those artworks (especially the Arceus one) the other Pokemon are looking at the legendaries being transferred, as if they exist in the world.

You are saying that these artworks demonstrate that these artworks demonstrate a shared canonicity. If this is the event linking their canonicity, it also portrays that Arceus/Diancie/Hoopa/Shaymin can escape out of fictional worlds and travel to other ones (by going from movies to games), and that other Pokemon exist in this higher world that see those movies/games as fictional. Hell, in the Diancie one we see some Carbinks making the journey over as well, there seems to be a distinction drawn between these Pokemon moving between the movie and the game, and the other Pokemon watching it happen.

How do you deal with these strange implications of those artworks? Because I can deal with them by saying "No, there isn't a higher Pokemon reality that sees a lower one as fiction, and no, Arceus/Diancie/Hoopa/Shaymin can't enter that higher reality. It's just marketing material that's inconsistent with the source material." Or "It's just a visual representation of the promotion that no-one thought about the canonical implications of."

third post's the charm

 

[Pikaman]

Ok, 8 Pages, overwhelming staff approval, can we finally conclude this thread now? Arguments are crossing into being circular now, how many times have we discussed these artworks?

 

[Sniper670]

I slightly misread those pictures on my initial look at them, but I think my point still stands, albeit with slightly different wording. Here are the images: Arceus, Diancie, Hoopa, Shaymin.

While they each show the legendary Pokemon moving from a movie screen to the game, they also show other Pokemon existing outside of the movie screen. In two of those artworks (especially the Arceus one) the other Pokemon are looking at the legendaries being transferred, as if they exist in the world.

You are saying that these artworks demonstrate that these artworks demonstrate a shared canonicity. If this is the event linking their canonicity, it also portrays that Arceus/Diancie/Hoopa/Shaymin can escape out of fictional worlds and travel to other ones (by going from movies to games), and that other Pokemon exist in this higher world that see those movies/games as fictional. Hell, in the Diancie one we see some Carbinks making the journey over as well, there seems to be a distinction drawn between these Pokemon moving between the movie and the game, and the other Pokemon watching it happen.

How do you deal with these strange implications of those artworks? Because I can deal with them by saying "No, there isn't a higher Pokemon reality that sees a lower one as fiction, and no, Arceus/Diancie/Hoopa/Shaymin can't enter that higher reality. It's just marketing material that's inconsistent with the source material." Or "It's just a visual representation of the promotion that no-one thought about the canonical implications of."

third post's the charm

The problem with this argument is that your not taking into consideration the factor that makes what the traveling Pokémon are doing literally: the games.

The whole reason this artwork, for the Pokémon traveling from the movie screens to the games, can be taken literally because the place they are traveling to, the games, backs up that what was done was in fact literal. The game data for these Pokémon describes what they are. The games describes where these Pokémon came from. We have details in the medium they’re going to describing what was done, so this artwork can be taken as a literal actual event of them traveling between them.

Those Pokémon “we see” that appear “looking” at the legendaries traveling between the movies and games, don’t have this. They don’t have a confirmation, description or any sort of information that says they were doing the same as the legendaries or actually exist in some space. So from that, we don’t have a reason to consider them “being there” as literal. And taking them as that rises to the level of nitpicking details.

 

[Pikaman]

The problem with this argument is that your not taking into consideration the factor that makes what the traveling Pokémon are doing literally: the games.

The whole reason this artwork, for the Pokémon traveling from the movie screens to the games, can be taken literally because the place they are traveling to, the games, backs up that what was done was in fact literal. The game data for these Pokémon describes what they are. The games describes where these Pokémon came from. We have details in the medium they’re going to describing what was done, so this artwork can be taken as a literal actual event of them traveling between them.

Those Pokémon “we see” that appear “looking” at the legendaries traveling between the movies and games, don’t have this. They don’t have a confirmation, description or any sort of information that says they were doing the same as the legendaries or actually exist in some space. So from that, we don’t have a reason to consider them “being there” as literal. And taking them as that rises to the level of nitpicking details.

So only parts of the artwork are literal? (The parts that help your argument but not the parts that debunk it of course)

 

[Agnaa]

Don't you think that if they go to the effort, on four separate occasions, of drawing in dozens of Pokemon that it's something worth considering?

Or maybe, that it's at least an indication that they weren't actually considering a link in canonicity between the games and the movies, and were just drawing whatever?

This isn't some minor detail/inconsistency, this is a huge amount of deliberate choices done years apart.

I think it's bad form to selectively ignore evidence like this; I think inconsistencies like these cast doubt on something being used at all. But now that I put it that way, I think that's the main difference between those who support and those who disagree with this thread. Y'all want to just ignore every contradiction, no matter how repeated or deliberate, based on a few supporting connections, while I think that's bad reasoning.

 

[Sniper670]

So only parts of the artwork are literal? (The parts that help your argument but not the parts that debunk it of course)

The parts that are confirmed real outside of artwork? By the games they are going to?

What information says random Pokémon being “in that space” looking at the events are real?

 

[Pikaman]

The parts that are confirmed real outside of artwork? By the games they are going to?

What information says random Pokémon being “in that space” looking at the events are real?

Mate, you can’t just say only specific sections of artwork are canon, it’s one piece of media, you can’t detach specific parts from it. The other parts of that artwork are just as canon as the part showing the legendaries hopping from screen to game, which is to say it’s not canon

 

[Sniper670]

Mate, you can’t just say only specific sections of artwork are canon, it’s one piece of media, you can’t detach specific parts from it. The other parts of that artwork are just as canon as the part showing the legendaries hopping from screen to game, which is to say it’s not canon

Notice how you didn’t answer the question, so I’ll ask it again. What detail outside of artwork says random Pokémon watching the event is a real thing happening?

We can take the legendaries traveling to be real because something outside of plain artwork confirmed it happened. A confirmation outside artwork exists.

If the games never did that, we wouldn’t have taken the artwork for them as real either.

 

[Sniper670]

Don't you think that if they go to the effort, on four separate occasions, of drawing in dozens of Pokemon that it's something worth considering?

No? Why would we consider it if nothing outside of the artwork itself confirms it’s real? Why not consider it fancy artwork that has to do with the event and not what’s being depicted? Those Pokémon being added in the artwork are because they appeared in the movie and belong to the characters. Ash’s Pikachu and Monferno, Dawns Piplup, Team Rockets Mime Jr., etc. They were Pokémon who starred in the movie, so putting them in the artwork is a sensible artistic choice. But it doesn’t mean they’re literally there watching Arceus or Diancie move between the anime and games

Or maybe, that it's at least an indication that they weren't actually considering a link in canonicity between the games and the movies, and were just drawing whatever?

If we didn’t have a statement about the games and anime being parallel worlds or whatnot, or the games themselves confirming they moved between them, I’d see where your coming from. But that really isn’t the case.

I think it's bad form to selectively ignore evidence like this; I think inconsistencies like these cast doubt on something being used at all. But now that I put it that way, I think that's the main difference between those who support and those who disagree with this thread. Y'all want to just ignore every contradiction, no matter how repeated or deliberate, based on a few supporting connections, while I think that's bad reasoning.

Please explain how it’s bad to only take what is actually confirmed to happen? Like I said above, the games confirming what these Pokémon are and where they come from is the main reason we considered the artwork literal for them, because it’s not just artwork at that point. Something outside of it says the same thing happened.

If it wasn’t because of that, then this artwork being literal wouldn’t have been the case.

 

[Agnaa]

If something is otherwise riddled with contradictions, it makes bad evidence, because those contradictions show its unreliability.

 

[Sniper670]

Okay and that’s if the contradictions are a real thing. Which you haven’t really proved yet.

Im asking this for a third time and I would like an answer to this before we continue. If you claim there’s Pokémon “watching” the event happen in real time in that artwork, then what outside of that artwork confirms this? What other source can you provide proves this was a real thing for them?

 

[Agnaa]

If something is otherwise not real, it makes bad evidence, because its prominent inclusion of non-real things show its unreliability.

 

[Sniper670]

So, again…..fourth time now. What proves that contradiction is real?

 

[Pikaman]

Okay and that’s if the contradictions are a real thing. Which you haven’t really proved yet.

Im asking this for a third time and I would like an answer to this before we continue. If you claim there’s Pokémon “watching” the event happen in real time in that artwork, then what outside of that artwork confirms this? What other source can you provide proves this was a real thing for them?

We don’t need to answer this question, because it hinges on the implication that one single piece of promotional artwork somehow has layered levels of canoninity to it, which already debunks the entire idea of these artworks proving anything. The whole artwork is equally canon to itself, and there are clear non-canon events happening, sooooooo

 

[Pikaman]

So, again…..fourth time now. What proves that contradiction is real?

The fact it’s in the artwork...

The contradiction is not in any way inferior to the rest of the artwork, that’s extremely basic and your lack of ability to acknowledge an extremely simple fact highlights the fact you are losing your ability to make sense to preserve your argument, which itself is on its last legs

 

[Agnaa]

So, again…..fourth time now. What proves that contradiction is real?

I only argued that earlier under the assumption that you were taking the entire artwork as canon. If you're not, then my contention would be, as I've already expressed, that if the artwork apparently includes so much non-canon material, that it shouldn't be used at all. We don't selectively use small parts from crossovers that are cohesive with the source material if 90% of it is clearly non-canon.

 

[Sniper670]

We don’t need to answer this question, because it hinges on the implication that one single piece of promotional artwork somehow has layered levels of canoninity to it, which already debunks the entire idea of these artworks proving anything.

You actually do need to answer this, because it hindges not on “multiple layers of canonicity” but whether or not another source of information confirms the event actually happened.

And we do have a source outside of artwork that confirms it did. The games.

The whole artwork is equally canon to itself, and there are clear non-canon events happening, sooooooo

Then you need to prove the other aspects of the art are real. Otherwise, you cannot claim “everything is real” when you can’t even answer the first question.

 

[Sniper670]

I only argued that earlier under the assumption that you were taking the entire artwork as canon. If you're not, then my contention would be, as I've already expressed, that if the artwork apparently includes so much non-canon material, that it shouldn't be used at all. We don't selectively use small parts from crossovers that are cohesive with the source material if 90% of it is clearly non-canon.

You’re basically saying that even if something is confirmed to have happened with another source, we still take it as fake. That’s downright ignoring evidence.

 

[Pikaman]

You actually do need to answer this, because it hindges not on “multiple layers of canonicity” but whether or not another source of information confirms the event actually happened.

And we do have a source outside of artwork that confirms it did. The games.

Then you need to prove the other aspects of the art are real. Otherwise, you cannot claim “everything is real” when you can’t even answer the first question.

Our whole argument is NONE of the artwork is canon. Your argument is that it is canon, but only the bits you like

 

[Agnaa]

You’re basically saying that even if something is confirmed to have happened with another source, we still take it as fake. That’s downright ignoring evidence.

If the event is presented alongside a bunch of stuff that is clearly non-canon, then yes, we ignore it.

It's not ignoring evidence, it's evaluating evidence and determining that it's very low-quality.

 

[Sniper670]

Our whole argument is NONE of the artwork is canon. Your argument is that it is canon, but only the bits you like

No. The argument is that only the bits that are confirmed are canon. And they are confirmed by the games.



How else do you explain the event pokemon going there? How else do you explain the game specifying where they came from?



You need to confirm the other aspects of the art are real too. “Everything being in the same pic” isn’t evidence that stops the fact that traveling between the 2 happened.

 

[Sniper670]

If the event is presented alongside a bunch of stuff that is clearly non-canon, then yes, we ignore it.

And that’s very disingenuous

It's not ignoring evidence, it's evaluating evidence and determining that it's very low-quality.

And you can only determine it’s low quality by deeming the entire thing fake when other sources of information confirmed it happened. That is in fact ignoring evidence.