Talk:Grookey (Pokémon)

Pokedex entry

Need to create a "Gen VIII" case in the Template:Dex/Gen and add "Sword" and "Shield" version cases to Template:Dex/Entry2. — Rmkane (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's clearly not a dex entry. That's just a description of the Pokémon. The descriptions are more suited for the biology section.--ForceFire 05:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

===Pokédex entries===
{{Dex/Header|type=Grass}}
{{Dex/Gen|gen=VIII}}
{{Dex/Entry2|v=Sword|v2=Shield|t=FFF|t2=FFF|entry=A mischievous Chimp Pokémon that is full of boundless curiosity.}}
|}
|}
{{Dex/Footer}}

Pokédex entries

Generation VIII Sword A mischievous Chimp Pokémon that is full of boundless curiosity. Shield

Confusing Wording

Saying that they were introduced in Gen VII may be confusing to some people. While technically correct, it makes it seem like they're Gen VII Pokémon when they're actually Gen VIII Pokémon. This should be changed to prevent confusion. — Arqade (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Origin

I heavily doubt that this is based on a squirrel monkey, especially considering that it's a living species from Ecuador, far from the basis of the region. It's much more likely to be based on Mesopithecus, given their range matching the region's inspiration (Europe and namely the UK) and fitting the themes of grass type starters being extinct animals. Burgrr (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

May they have also been based on [1], given they're "the only free-living primates in Europe" after humans? Also, and apologies if a discussion about their name origin should belong in a separate topic thread, but I think it's worth mentioning that the "nori" of their Japanese name may also be a reference to "nori", a type of seaweed used to wrap sushi.--Garr9988 (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If it weren't a starter, yeah, the Barbary Macaque would be the first thing for inspiration but I mainly bring up Mesopithecus since it fits the starter thematic guidelines. Grass type starters are always based on extinct animals. Burgrr (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Chespin and Rowlet aren't based on extinct animals at all, and Treecko, Turtwig, and Snivy don't appear to be based on extinct animals (although it's less certain). I think you're confusing "based on extinct animals" with "based on reptiles" (although even that failed when Chespin was introduced). Aielyn (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Chesnaught is a Glyptodon. Rowlet is a Stilt Owl (an extinct Hawaiian owl.) Treecko appears to be bosed on Dilophosaurs and Delcourt's giant gecko. Turtwig is a Galapagos tortoise (which has been thought to be extinct), or possibly a nodosaur and the World Tortoise, which is fictional. Snivy's entire line is based on the evolutionary ancestry of snakes, which can be seen in fossils (and the skeletons of some living snakes) where they are seen with vestigial legs and leg remnants. Meanwhile, Venusaur and Meganium are based on the synapsids that went on to become mammals (explaining the ears) and sauropods like the Brachiosaur, respectively. Therefore, Grookey is a Mesopithecus, given it's extinct nature and the fact that Mesopithecus's range included the UK. Burgrr (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Name origin

Can its name also incorporate "grass" and "ook" (as in monkey's cry)? Kikugi (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Add "Grove" to name origin for the english name. Explains the Grass type.--ShallowShaddoll (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Ecuadorian squirrel monkey"

Hey... I think this attribution is a little too specific. All squirrel monkey species and subspecies are characterized by very discrete differences. In other words, Grookey looks as much like an Ecuadorian squirrel monkey as it does any squirrel monkey. I would suggest editing the origin to reflect that. It should read "Grookey may be based on a squirrel monkey". That's it. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

National Pokédex number

Because every new Pokémon for Sword & Shield will be numbered after Melmetal, that means that Grookey's NatDex number is #810.
TheICTLiker4 (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We can’t guarantee that, unfortunately. While it’s unlikely, we could have another Victini situation on our hands to mess up the numbers, so we can’t presume until it’s 100% confirmed. GloverMist (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)