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

[Sniper670]

I will say at the moment what i already said and that is that i do not want to split games, anime and manga as characters from those mediums appear in the games at times (green from manga and ash's pokemon and alain existing, not to mention the masters game which is an in-multiverse crossover) suggesting that they do very much share a universe.

I don't mind splitting Shadow Mewtwo and Mewtwo

They're the same Pokémon. It's pointless splitting. The difference between the two is that one is powered by Synergy power and the other is not

and Primal Dialga and Dialga and such as that doesn't worry me. PMD is already its own thing. Otherwise i don't remember even having conquest profiles and such.

It's not necessary. The difference between the two is that one is a nerfed version. Main multiverse is gets all the benefit of the nerfed.

Coronet Rock in PMD

A rock that radiates a peculiar energy, rumored only to exist on Mt. Coronet, a place that no one knows anything about. It allows certain kinds of Pokémon to evolve.

Proving that the trainer's world is just the main multiverse.

If anyone paid attention to pmd, you'll realise there is no inconsistencies between it and mainline. The Pokémon living in PMD, even Arceus, are tied to the tree of life IN PMD, not the trainer's multiverse. Whenever they pull you there, it's to help them save their universe. Nothing that happens in pmd that will have any effect in the trainer's world. Which is why Dark Matter doesn't exist in trainer's world

The CT living in trainer's world is unaffected, neither is Arceus or any Pokémon for that matter.

 

[JustSomeWeirdo]

Huge agree

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

I agree with the need to seperate the canons from each other (meaning Games, Anime, Manga etc. will be separated), but can't really comment on all the specific instances

 

[Andytrenom]

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 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.

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.

Using these two statements, the motive behind these rules really seem to be letting players experience what they have come to associate with Pokemon, they want to keep the familiarity. If you you have statements that imply canon power levels of Pokemon and their in-universe relationship with other things of the world are being monitored I encourage bringing them up. So far I don't see much reason to think these rules are about capabilities of Pokemon rather than maintaining the familiarity of an IP for fans who they are appealing to

One statement I see that does reference capabilities of Pokemon is the game informer interview where a creator talks about Psyduck's destructive capabilities. But that seems to not be very serious and referencing a movie that I'm okay with sharing the same universe as mainline stuff

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree. Don’t we just straight up have rules against Compositing?

 

[Sniper670]

Pokemon Conquest, Masters & Pokken Tournament: Conquest and Tournament characters should get their own wholly unique pages (if any), as they are stated outright to be non-canon crossovers

Where was that mentioned.

Pokken and Conquest are all Canon

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I agree. Don’t we just straight up have rules against Compositing?

Except this is not compositing. As I’ve detailed in my debunk comment,

which none of the people who’ve responded recently seem to have even seen (????)

Pokémon ACTS like a composite because the pages are SPECIES pages, detailing the abilities of what a generic species of a Pokémon is capable of, rather than a specific one with a specific power set like Ash’s Pikachu. That’s not a composite. That is covering everything of what that species can do, something that Digimon also does here.

And as I’ve also debunked, we have statements of canons being alternate universes, so the verse already makes use of that practice.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Using these two statements, the motive behind these rules really seem to be letting players experience what they have come to associate with Pokemon, they want to keep the familiarity. If you you have statements that imply canon power levels of Pokemon and their in-universe relationship with other things of the world are being monitored I encourage bringing them up. So far I don't see much reason to think these rules are about capabilities of Pokemon rather than maintaining the familiarity of an IP for fans who they are appealing to

I disagree with this take. I don’t understand why it would only speak to be covering the “keeping the familitary” when the games aren’t just about the gameplay experience but also how the storyline ties into that experience, which would also have to be within what is deemed acceptable.

And more importantly, as I pointed out before, a Pokémon species abilities are literally 100% the same across these universes, there isn’t any difference between them at all.

Not in Pokédex abilities, not what those Pokémon have done in the story, nothing. Why would we need a statement regarding canon power levels or relationships with their world?

 

[Andytrenom]

Familiarity isn't referring to the gameplay, it's how the IP looks, feels and is recognised as. These rules seem to be about creative guidelines on how to construct new content that keep the feel and image of Pokemon intact and that doesn't necessarily mean they prove a shared canon. This idea of rules is used to justify the current standards despite the discrepancies between different spinoffs when it simply doesn't

The parallel world statements would be more relevant

 

[Andytrenom]

To elaborate

Let's say a franchise is beloved with an existing fanbase, and now it's looking to release a new game. There will be incentive to keep what people have come to associate with the previous games intact and not deviate too much, but that doesn't mean the game is canonically linked to those previous games.

Now I'm not saying this is the only evidence to Pokemon having a single canon, but this idea of there being overarching rules have been used to dismiss contradictions and still keep scaling between different games and mediums, when it simply doesn't

I'm not necessarily adamant that there is no shared canon, but this point in specific is just a non argument for keeping the scaling

 

[Sniper670]

All materials take place in various universes within the Multiverse.

There's not a single material that is approved by TPC that is not canon

 

[Executor_N0]

Familiarity isn't referring to the gameplay, it's how the IP looks, feels and is recognised as. These rules seem to be about creative guidelines on how to construct new content that keep the feel and image of Pokemon intact and that doesn't necessarily mean they prove a shared canon.

"Shared canon" is a useless concept when discussing shared worldviews and settings, it isn't about sharing a continuity or canonicity, but about the rules of the world itself. These guidelines do include generic stuff about "how the franchise feels", but it also includes worldbuilding rules that it's what I mean with Sekai-kan and Settei.

As I used as an example before, IDW Sonic isn't canon to Game Sonic, but background element from the games that only exist as setting documentation does appear in IDW Sonic that we just haven't seen in Game Sonic before (Such as the look of Sol Dimension's palace that would later be used in Game Ad material by the official Japanese account), so that shared background element that is in the comic is shared with the game, even with the game never using it before, it exists as part of the official settings.

Another example is Dragon Ball Z Kakarot, the original stories themselves aren't really "canon", but the background behind them (The fact that Ginyu Forces had an extra member, her backstory, and design) is what is called "Official Setting" ("公式の設定", Kōshiki no settei) and accepted by the developers as part of the "True Story" ("正史", Seishi). So yes, the background elements of a work of fiction, if remained consistent, can be only explored and stated in material that isn't in continuity and those works need to be taken into consideration even if they don't share the same "canon/continuity";

The same is true for Pokémon, there are many background elements that only exist as setting documentation from Gamefreak, but are used and expanded in other material. The term that matters here are Sekai-kan and Settei, it's the entire basis for how this shared element works outside of canonicity, the importance of those terms for the Japanese developers seems to be really downplayed here when that is like, the one thing that basically they are sure to talk about, although the way that they manage that in some franchises is different.

Megaman, for example, does have some guidelines, but they are specific about not having an official setting background of the games to appear in most tie-in material and they keep most of the out-of-game content as just that and not retroactively valid for their games. But a series like, for example, Digimon uses a lot more a broader sense of worldview "consistency" as something valid between works. Take for example Digimon Legendary Skies or New Century, but are original stories, but that have been checked in regards to the background setting to be sure that everything from the official worldview fits with that work and is a true representation of that, so even if the story itself doesn't become "canon", the background elements are sure something that is. The same is valid for other things like a ton of Digimon adaptations that are so different from each other, and that doesn't matter because all that matters is the shared setting and worldview.

Pokémon is just like that, what matters between those works is the shared worldview and settings and how different material allows for the official settings to be explored outside of the limitations of the games themselves. It really seems that there's a big misunderstanding about how Sekai-kan and Settei matter so much from the whole "IP consistency" thing in Japan. Of course, there's still some case-by-case analysis necessary to know how each series deals with their expanded media, but Pokémon really goes deep into being sure that the background material is consistent with most of their serious works, literally it's something stated in every single interview I looked into with the only work that I have seen with still having "lots of freedom" being the anime itself, but even that one still uses official background that can't be found in the games (The entire Lucario and the Mystery of Mew movie were basically checked in its entirety by Gamefreak to be sure none of it broke the worldview and it even made use of said official setting documents).

While most series don't do a great job in regards to "IP Consistency" to include most pieces of their lore, there are franchises that do that and you are expected to see most of the tie-in material as sharing the same consistent worldview and Pokémon is one of such series.

The reason why I summed up your blog as being 'references make them canon' is because that's the only part of the blog that could be used as 'proof' that the verses share the same canon and all crossover with each other. Because otherwise, though it's a well-written and detailed piece, it offers literally nothing in terms of justifying composite profiles (which is what the blog is used to justify on the wiki).

Except that isn't the focus of the blog and although the discussion seems to be around canon, it's more about worldview and settings as a "different type of shared canon", something that is accepted as possible on the Canon page. If that is something you didn't take into consideration while reading it, then it just is a different concept than those you use but is something that is very valid for certain series as I explained before in a blog all about those terms.

Various mediums sharing a worldview and a setting is not proof that they can be cross-scaled by each other. Neither is the fact that The Pokemon Company holds strict control over it's IP; that simply means that they are trying to keep it consistent and recognizable because it's literally the biggest media franchise in the world. I would argue that every single big IP out there strives to have it's multimedia (for the most part) resemble one and another, simply because doing otherwise wouldn't make sense; we do not use this to equalize any other multimedia verse though, so it should not be used to equalize Pokemon, at all.

It depends entirely on the material in question, sometimes the worldview and settings transcend continuity and you are expected to piece together settings from different works into a single worldview because that is how the series is made. There's a lot of case-by-case stuff as well, but with Pokémon the intent of shared worldview is very clear from most interviews.

Simply sharing a similar background and nature isn't grounds to equalize the 'background' (which, for the record, is an extremely vague term, as the 'background' of a verse could refer to...everything pretty much?) (and alternatively, we don't just scale 'the background' to each other, we scale everything) otherwise several verses in this wiki would be equalized. For example, most of the Transformers cartoons share a similar 'background in that there are autobots and decepticons fighting a galactic, million-year Civil War for Cybertron, and the battle is taken to Earth, Optimus Prime and Megatron lead both opposing sides, the robots all possess the ability to transform, et cetera. Why not equalize them since every show shares several elements between the two of them?

On the topic of different adaptations, how about adaptations Lord Of The Rings? If you want to talk quality control, the books literally have an entire legal organization dedicated to them called The Tolkein Estate that does nothing but monitor how the works are used and adapted. Outside of the books, Christopher Tolkein literally dedicated his entire life to making sure Tolkein's legacy is properly adapted and preserved, which includes the movies. The LOTR trilogy movies are infamous for how much dedication Peter Jackson put into it, how much he tried to painstakingly capture Tolkein's vision. It goes without saying that they are extremely similar in a huge amount of ways, from background to characters to plotlines. And yet, the movies and books are not canon to each other, and their profiles are split. Why not equalize the books and the movies?

The answer to why Transformers, Sonic, LOTR and everything else are split is because no amount of artistic control, per the wiki's guidelines, is a substitute for equalizing the verses. Pokemon is not any more monitored than these verses (in fact it is infinitely less monitored than LOTR) and should not be taken as an exception.

It depends entirely on the work in analysis and what is the intent with the shared background. With something like transformers the multiverse is well cataloged and the way, they manage their series in their own specific way, which is fine. In general, how other series manage that IP and if their "consistent view of the series" includes any lore detail that isn't explored in the source material, but is expected to be faithfully represented in tie-in material is something that each IP decides on their own. With Sonic, for example, you aren't supposed to think of IDW Sonic as canon to the games, but official settings from the games that only exist as setting documentation to appear from time to time in the comic, and you are supposed to take that as "canon" to the games, at least in theory (At best as "the most closely possible view on some canon detail as much faithfully as possible" going by what Ian Flynn once said about the Sol Dimension's setting before they used it on a Twitter art).

You also have stuff like the one I mentioned about Digimon and the huge amount of adaptations and "not necessarily canon material", but what really matters is the background lore documentation that is shared between them beyond what is "story inconsistency". If a series presents consistent lore as part of their "IP Consistency", I just think that is just how it works, they want the settings of the worldview to be shared between the works and that is all. We literally have the Detective Pikachu interview all about how Pokémon Company takes control over all the lore and makes sure everything fits their canon rules with necessary in-universe explanations for why a certain outlier happened, even stuff from mainline games are limited by those worldview rules as stated in a B2W2 interview and many others.

It's no different from what you said about Pokémon Masters, the story itself doesn't need to be in-continuity, canon, to exist in the same universe or even multiverse, what matters here is the background settings, and the details about the world. The point is that Pokémon Masters isn't some special work in the Pokémon series that "isn't in-continuity, but has canon details", this is just how the Pokémon series as a whole work, Masters isn't special about that.

What exactly are we disagreeing on? That is the entire point and purpose of this thread.

Because in a series like Pokémon, shared canon/continuity/universe/multiverse isn't the point of how the settings and worldview are shared. There are other series that work like that and Pokémon is one of them, that is the entire point of those blogs, thinking about the limiting "canon/continuity" from that point of view just does a huge disservice to how a series like Pokémon is managed and planned.

 

[DragonLord]

While I don’t have much to add on the canon split information. I will comment that the splitting of Timelines of Normal and Mega doesn’t really work because XY and ORAS in regards to Mega Evolution inherently contradict eachother

Not only is the origin different (in XY Lucario is the first Mega, in ORAS it’s Rayquaza) but Sycamore states this

“Also, I want to ask for your help in solving the Kalos region's biggest Pokémon mystery: the secret and potential of Mega Evolution, a new kind of Evolution that occurs in battle! That's why I gave you that Mega Stone just now. It's an important clue!"

The issue?. ORAS takes place right at the start of the timeline right next to red and blue. Between ORAS to XY Mega Evolution was being used for at least 5+ years with almost every major trainer using one for seemingly many years. It’s hardly “New” or much of a mystery really

 

[Paul_Frank]

OP makes more sense here still, so I agree

 

[Sniper670]

I'd go with what Executor_N0 said. The shared universe thing works for Pokémon

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

OP makes more sense here still, so I agree

if lying and being blatantly misinformed on a whole bunch of details counts as “more sense”, I’m going to ask you actually re read the counters set against the OP please.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

While I don’t have much to add on the canon split information. I will comment that the splitting of Timelines of Normal and Mega doesn’t really work because XY and ORAS in regards to Mega Evolution inherently contradict eachother

Not only is the origin different (in XY Lucario is the first Mega, in ORAS it’s Rayquaza) but Sycamore states this

“Also, I want to ask for your help in solving the Kalos region's biggest Pokémon mystery: the secret and potential of Mega Evolution, a new kind of Evolution that occurs in battle! That's why I gave you that Mega Stone just now. It's an important clue!"

The issue?. ORAS takes place right at the start of the timeline right next to red and blue. Between ORAS to XY Mega Evolution was being used for at least 5+ years with almost every major trainer using one for seemingly many years. It’s hardly “New” or much of a mystery really

I’m not really seeing what the issue with this is when different regions having different belief and lore systems is something that happens literally all the time.

And on this particular note, Rayquazas lore on it getting mega evolution shouldn’t be a contradiction when in Lucarios case, it’s recognized as the first Pokémon to mega evolve with a trainer like it’s normally done as. Rayquazas the first SELF mega evolving Pokémon who obtained the power to do it on its own.

 

[Andytrenom]

"but about the rules of the world itself. These guidelines do include generic stuff about "how the franchise feels", but it also includes worldbuilding rules that it's what I mean with Sekai-kan and Settei."

From what I can find Sekai kan seems to more be a concept of creating immersion and making you believe in a world beyond what you see. Are you insisting that rules in this context also refers to the mechanics of the verse?

Even if it is all a multiverse that doesn't mean the rules and the scaling are the same between different worlds. The strict "rules" you refer to seem like the rules of the company out of universe in terms of creativity, not the rules of the fictional world.

Honestly I don't know where I stand with decompositing the regular Pokemon profiles but the scaling between different mediums for the legendaries is still suspect to me. Creating a coherent world from an artistic and immersive context doesn't mean there won't be differences in how different universes within that world operate or how capabilities of characters within them differ. There are contradictions to the different canons functioning the same and this concept of Sekkai Kan doesn't invalidate that, it only shows the company is adamant about making the setting believable and rejecting drastic differences in things that actually matter to the general consumer

 

[Andytrenom]

Honestly even if you consider it part of the same world and setting an argument can still be made that

-The different mediums function differently enough in their rules to warrant a separation

-The Pokemon company is only consistent in creativivity rules in regard to immersion, not rules in the context of what can and cannot happen or what characters are capable of within the fictional universe

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I’m still waiting for an actual so called contradiction between these canons people agreeing with this seem so adamant is there, because there isn’t a single real contradiction that has been named yet

And the legendaries would be in the same boat as the Pokémon profiles as…there’s no different depictions of them across universes.

 

[Andytrenom]

Off the top of my head, Pokemon in the manga being able to have unique individual dependent abilities like that regenerating Arbok that isn't shown to be the case in the anime or games as far as I am aware

Aye will probably have a lot more contradictions to name

 

[Sniper670]

Off the top of my head, Pokemon in the manga being able to have unique individual dependent abilities like that regenerating Arbok that isn't shown to be the case in the anime or games as far as I am aware

It's the patterns on its body. Different patterns means different capabilities

From Pokedex entry, the patterns are being studied. I see no contradiction here

 

[Thelastmlg]

Pretty sure both the games and anime got pokemon with unique abilities, rare but still, off the top of my head, i think the the giant tentacruel and arguably team rocket's meowth count, can't remember a example of the games though but i faintly remember other threads mentioning pokemon with unique traits.

Don't see how that example works though, if it is a case of every pokemon having unique abilities or anything, sure, but just a arbok? That sounds more like the arbok is special.

Oh yeah, disagree with the thread by kukui and Execute_Order_66 reasons

 

[Ayewale]

Pretty sure both the games and anime got pokemon with unique abilities, rare but still, off the top of my head, i think the the giant tentacruel and arguably team rocket's meowth count, can't remember a example of the games though but i faintly remember other threads mentioning pokemon with unique traits.

Don't see how that example works though, if it is a case of every pokemon having unique abilities or anything, sure, but just a arbok? That sounds more like the arbok is special.

Oh yeah, disagree with the thread by kukui and Execute_Order_66 reasons

So I just woke up and are preparing a response, but for the record, Executor does not disagree with me. He came here moreso to defend his blogpost (which I unfairly dismissed) but at the end he outright said he believes they’re separate canons.

 

[Sniper670]

The games are limited in what can be shown. An example is the psychic Pokémon

Psychic Pokémon for instance, are capable of much more, but are stuck behind 4 move limit due to game mechanics.

 

[Thelastmlg]

Ah, must have interpreted that wrong, well still stand with kukui and yemma

 

[Ayewale]

The games are limited in what can be shown. An example is the psychic Pokémon

Psychic Pokémon for instance, are capable of much more, but are stuck behind 4 move limit due to game mechanics.

We don't assume any other part of the pokemon games as being limited by game mechanics (not PP nor abilities nor moves), so we should not make an exception for the four-move limit, which is explicitly acknowledged by NPCs.

 

[Andytrenom]

so we should not make an exception for the four-move limit, which is explicitly acknowledged by NPCs

Tbf that could be breaking the 4th wall

 

[Sniper670]

We don't assume any other part of the pokemon games as being limited by game mechanics (not PP nor abilities nor moves), so we should not make an exception for the four-move limit, which is explicitly acknowledged by NPCs.

4 move limit is game mechanics.

If we're taking it seriously, then I could also go with plot manipulation as those who write the game exist in the Universe.

 

[Executor_N0]

From what I can find Sekai kan seems to more be a concept of creating immersion and making you believe in a world beyond what you see. Are you insisting that rules in this context also refers to the mechanics of the verse?

Yes, the Settei are the literal settings and configurations of a fictional work, it includes things like character size and appearance, backstory, and rules of the universe. That is what Sekai-kan and Settei mean in this context, you are right in that it's for creating immersion because that is what gives said immersion, the consistent rules, the consistent configuration of the world. The examples I gave to show how that work, lore, and general configuration are part of said thing and can be used independently of canonicity of work if the setting documentation is right, don't go to repeat the IDW/Game Sonic example, but that is basically how that can work, or just look into entire Digimon staff Livestream and how the discussion in regards to Settei and Sekai-kan makes up literally the entirety of it with the current game producer just being a fan trying to fit all of the settings.

The lore of a fictional work is included in the Worldview and general settings of the work, it's literally how Settei is defined in modern-day japan in regards to literary works, I made a blog all about that.

And yes, in Pokémon the backstory and general lore are part of the worldview and I gave examples of this on my blog.

One of the interviews directly asks about the backstory of the series and Masuda says "look into Lucario's movie and you'll see the backstory of the world", and on his personal blog he talks a lot about having to look a lot into that setting in Gamefreak while making this movie and even shared setting documents from the production of Diamond and Pearl with the movie's team.

This seems to be a problem that I always have when we talk about Worldview/Setting consistency here because it seems most people think that "it's referring to creating a consistent feeling of the series" can't include anything "lore" related, when that is definitely not the case, the worldview consistency and include official settings of the main material and we have a lot of examples of expanded media of Pokémon material and confirmation after confirmation that this is really just how the series works, the background setting of the series is mostly shared with every major product and each product can be seen as a different look of the same world, they are mostly not the same world continuity-wise, or even in some deeper background details, but the overall rules and configurations of the Pokémon world remains consistent.

This doesn't mean that you can like, scale what character X does in a manga and scale that to character Y that shares the same name or design in a different work, but that "this background detail about the inner workings of the Pokémon world can be used to explain Y event in a different media", such as "Pokémon Lucario and the Mystery of Mew" being the example of the past of the Pokémon's world wars before X and Y developed that aspect. It's about the consistency of general ideas about how the world works, not every single detail, and definitely not in a way that you can scale feats between characters between different media ignoring story contradictions, this is not what I talked about.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Executor_N0 Okay then do you think scaling chains between legendaries spanning different canons is fine or not?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Hate to derail, but WTF is with trainers having 9-B+ AP but 6-C Durability and saying their AP scales to their durability?!

 

[Arceus0x]

Hate to derail, but WTF is with trainers having 9-B+ AP but 6-C Durability and saying their AP scales to their durability?!

that's a whole nother thing, the trainers haven't been updated in a while (cause nobody helps me and that one trainer CRT got stuck for some reason) and either way the moment you remove the bad description everything works out generally

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@Executor_N0 Okay then do you think scaling chains between legendaries spanning different canons is fine or not?

I think this answer your question

This doesn't mean that you can like, scale what character X does in a manga and scale that to character Y that shares the same name or design in a different work, but that "this background detail about the inner workings of the Pokémon world can be used to explain Y event in a different media", such as "Pokémon Lucario and the Mystery of Mew" being the example of the past of the Pokémon's world wars before X and Y developed that aspect. It's about the consistency of general ideas about how the world works, not every single detail, and definitely not in a way that you can scale feats between characters between different media ignoring story contradictions, this is not what I talked about.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

@Arceus0x also, how can we say that the durability isn't just because of gag moments? Examples: all the times Team Rocket blasts off or Ash getting electricuted by Pikachu

 

[Andytrenom]

Stop derailing

 

[Sniper670]

So what are the contradictions exactly

Whoever is making that split has a lot of work on their hands if this gets accepted

 

[Executor_N0]

I think this answer your question

Yes, basically that. I'm not into different characters between different media scaling to each other because they look similar or because they fought the "same character" between the different media (The background story of each individual character is original material for most media outside of a few key components in some material, such as Masters depiction of the game characters being "in-canon"), it's really mostly about the inner workings of the world such as the nature of certain moves or the cosmology as a whole.
The legendaries could be a special case as a lot of them are basically walking lore pieces in regards to the world itself, but even them what is inconsistent will remain inconsistent no matter what, what I say about consistent worldviews is really just about that non-contradicted stuff.

As Masuda himself gave the example, the background lore that Pokémon speak their own name is Anime-exclusive in relationship to the game as that is not the case with the games (Other than a few outliers). Contradictory stuff clearly isn't going to cross-scale (Such as Pokémon saying their own names in the anime, but not in the
games), but non-contradictory general background stuff is officially on the table to be used (Such as the wars in the Pokémon world first revealed in Lucario and the Mystery of Mew).

 

[Arceus0x]

@Arceus0x also, how can we say that the durability isn't just because of gag moments? Examples: all the times Team Rocket blasts off or Ash getting electricuted by Pikachu

because it has happened literally over 900 times and trainers can consistently tank pokemon attacks and the latest perfect example of this is legends arceus. There are countless non-gag instances of Ash getting hit by pokemon like getting hit by a mind controlled, bloodlusted pikachu or the flamethrower of his tepig which he literally told to go all out on his ass. Now cease, this isn't the place to talk about that. This has been discussed and accepted in a CRT or two and it had multiple staff and non staff saying yes to the revisions.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I think this answer your question

But, again, this is in the general sense where canon continuities in a series are normally not considered parallel to one another, and are just that, separate continuities.

This works in Pokemons case not only because the practice of canons being considered parallel worlds is something that’s already a confirmed practice in the verse (Games and Anime for instance being parallel universes and characters from both existing in each other), but because Pokémon pages focus on the overall capabilities of a given species. Same thing that goes on with Digimon. Pokémon are not individual characters like 95% of this wikia are.

Unless we index stuff from Pokémon like Ash’s Pikachu, who IS a specific character and clearly doesn’t get everything, only what Ash’s pikachu has specifically done.

Taking stuff from what a Yveltal, Groudon or Celebi does and applying it universally works because there’s literally no difference between one universes legendaries and another’s. It’s the same Pokémon with the same capabilities, in lore and otherwise. Groudon in every universe is considered the one raising continents. Yveltal in every universe is considered the Pokémon who steals all life. Celebi in every universe is considered the Pokémon who time travels. The list goes on and on, for both legendaries and regular Pokémon.

Not to mention factoring in the inconsistencies across the mediums. Which in terms of the legendaries scaling and chains, there isn’t.