Talk:List of generation II Pokémon

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Pokémon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• International Pokémon logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of the ones in Gen 2 are big and notable enough to have their own article, especially as loads of minor soap opera characters have that. VLWABC (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Not that I don't agree with the sentiment, we (the members of the Video game character task force) have tried to make the suggested Pokémon into articles but for one reasons or another (typically a lack of reception), they never fully developed. However, we will continue to look out for the necessary sources to upgrade them into proper articles. If memory serves me right, the closest to getting one is Ho-Oh. CaptainGalaxy 19:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean a lack of reception? VLWABC (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

We typically need sources to supply substantial commentary about a character in order for it to become an article, with the sources also needing to be deemed reliable. With the one's suggested, they just simply wasn't enough commentary that we could find to justify making an article. CaptainGalaxy 20:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that some of the most well-known characters from the highest grossing media franchise of all time have less commentary on them compared to the aforementioned miscellaneous soap opera characters that have a much smaller reach. I'm not dissing you or the fans of soap operas, but it just feels odd. A character like Togepi for instance, who is arguably the most well known character from the Gen 2 era of the franchise and the most seen character in the anime after Pikachu, Meowth and Wobbuffett (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't have an article. VLWABC (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Trust me, after being on this task force for nearly 2 years, this happens more than you think. Even when you know a character is insanely recognisable within a given field, sometimes there just isn't enough substansive commentary to warrant an article beyond just a simple "this character is good". CaptainGalaxy 21:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

What commentary is wanted in the first place? What does the obscure soap opera characters have that Pichu, Greninja, Lugia, etc don't have? VLWABC (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If you want to get a good feel, I would suggest looking at the other Pokemon species articles. Nearly all of them are GA reviewed so they at least a set standard. CaptainGalaxy 23:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

GA? general audience? I mean, Do I need just regular main stream news sources? But characters like these are not that well known to the regular mainstream media. VLWABC (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry. GA stands for Good Article, which is a status editors give to articles that have been reviewed to have a good editorial standard. If you are curious, we have a list of usable sources here at WP:VG/S. CaptainGalaxy 00:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Serious questions, what do the soap opera fans have that the Pokémon fans don't? Are the former just way better at the proper rules or something? VLWABC (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Some of it is just lower standards that haven't been addressed. Some of it is some of them meeting notability off different sources. It's a different space, but it's not something we personally go through since not every editor who works in this space works on Soaps. That's a job for Soaps editors, or for someone to go through and clean it up with an outside perspective. In relation to Pokémon, we gauge off notability where we can, and I can assure you that in terms of species, as of right now (Though this may change) the proposed splits do not meet our guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not doing this to diss on soap operas or their fans. I'm saying purely based on how objectively speaking Pokémon is the biggest franchise in the world yet it is under-represented within articles. VLWABC (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

both can be true, is all. pokémon can be bigger than your average soap opera, and individual pokémon can be underrepresented in sources, usually due to being stuck in the limbo of "this pokémon being cool/lame is basically common sense, no need to report on it, everyone already knows". some, like gardevoir, wooper, and that overhyped pot-bellied good for nothing nepo baby gecko can escape this fate by receiving individual coverage, whatever that coverage may be, but there's been no similar luck for stuff like, say, miltank or the tao trio

to just say they "deserve their own articles" is correct... but also irrelevant if there's not enough of that coverage to justify an article (see miltank and greninja for examples that barely miss the mark at the moment), and more importantly, there's no correlation between any of this and the standards adopted for soap opera character articles aside from being written in the same language consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand how Greninja in particular doesn't have his own article as he is arguably the most popular Pokemon and loads of sources have discussed him. VLWABC (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

because notoriety is not the same as notability around here, and it's run into a second problem: it didn't have enough significant coverage. that is, coverage about it was too surface-level, to the point of not actually covering much about it at all. this is actually the same kind of limbo that most pokémon are stuck in (like the aforementioned tao trio), because some sources will not shut up about which pokémon are in go, the tcg, or mainline games' events, but won't actually say much about the pokémon in question beyond "there it is" consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As in, they don't go into much detail about the design and the conception of those characters, or even the reception by people about said characters? I guess for soap opera characters, you follow so much of their stories as they are heavily documented, whereas for the Pokemon, because there are one of a species, not a lot of them are given high priority compared to like Pikachu, Charizard, Meowth, Lucario, etc? VLWABC (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

yes, and that's part of the reason that pokémon articles aren't too comparable with obscure soap opera character articles. another part being that pokémon is not a soap opera franchise (gasp!!). this whole thing also applies to articles on the humans, as was the case with the list of pokémon anime characters (see its afd), where it was redirected due to a critical lack of significant coverage (or really, any coverage)

...that said, notability criteria do also apply to things that aren't pokémon, so as far as anyone here knows, some of those could be improperly sourced or completely unsourced cruft that wouldn't survive an afd, like mike kasnoff or neil curtis, which makes this whole comparison even more not actually all that valid consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. Though I do believe that if a character is iconic or notable enough, they deserve an article. I'm not asking for articles on characters like Dewgong, Silcoon, Stonjourner or whatever. A character like Greninja, Togepi, Pichu, the legendary birds, etc. These are characters that have a lot of documented information on them as a whole and are well known and adored by millions. The quirks of Wikipedia should not be penalizing those that truly deserve it. VLWABC (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

there's a reason the criteria are like this: wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or something of the sort, and the effects of treating it as something else are still being cleaned up to this day. articles need encyclopedic content, not stuff that would be in a ymmv page in tv tropes, and sources that would support that kind of content. "deserving" an article says effectively nothing here, and thinking that lacking it is a form of "penalizing" is at best incorrect since this isn't fandom, and at worst a red flag that some really important points are being missed

this is to say, something being significant in-universe or popular among fans is irrelevant unless sources cover it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think most people want others to acknowledge the significance of these characters in general. What is seen encyclopedic for some is not seen that way to others. This is a big reason why numerous people within the fanbase doesn't use Wikipedia as a source as they can feel there is an injustice or just ignorance on the potential editors. Whether it is true or not, it can personally feel like Greninja, Togepi, etc are being penalized because of potential incompetence of others despite being seen as deserving an iconic with loads of information from many sources about said characters. And yes, these are in an encyclopedic setting. VLWABC (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The thing is there's notable for wikipedia, and then there's notable separately. The notability guidelines are meant to illustrate third party discussion showing importance of a subject outside of its parent work... and in a lot of cases that discussion or analysis isn't there. By your logic, we should have a ton of Digimon articles, King DeDeDe should have an article and so forth. But when you set them up, there's nothing showing the reader "this is why this is important to know about", because these are supposed to be written for the people that know absolutely nothing about a series (and sometimes gaming in general).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF Olliefant (she/her) 07:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Plus there's magazines dedicated strictly to Soap Operas which can be cited, not to mention entire websites. Pokemon has that in a diminished capacity.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Why don't people use those Pokemon ones? are they viewed as not a s a real news source or something? VLWABC (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

kfm didn't say that, only said there was less of that when it came to pokémon. if a magazine is deemed to be a reliable source (which will then be detailed at prs and/or vg/s), use of it is fair game. unless you mean fanzines, then those are generally considered too unofficial and unprofessional to be reliable consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I was curious. VLWABC (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If I may reframe this a little bit: we on Wikipedia avoid doing original research. It is not appropriate to watch a show or play a game, and then write an article about it. That is the field of fan-wikis like Bulbapedia. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source; we do not reference primary sources like the video games, but instead write all of our prose based on secondary sources. If something isn't covered by a secondary source like a book, magazine, or established news website, we have nothing to quote and thus nothing to write. This can make writing about fictional characters on Wikipedia challenging. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect List of Pokémon (221-252) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § Incorrectly ranged List of Pokémon redirects until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)